Freepmail me or ping me from the original thread to get on/off the 2010 Texas Governor's Race ping list.
Posted on 01/09/2010 8:42:57 PM PST by Steelfish
Some Democrats Want To Modify Filibuster Rules With Republicans using endless speeches to block all manner of legislation, and the prospect of fewer Democrats after midterm elections, some say it's time for a change so the majority can govern.
By Janet Hook January 9, 2010
Reporting from Washington - The Senate filibuster has emerged as the bane of President Obama's legislative agenda, igniting anger among liberals over a tactic that is now hogtying Congress even on uncontroversial bills.
The threat of filibusters has become so common that congressional leaders take it for granted that any bill of consequence will not pass the 100-member Senate with a simple majority of 51. Instead, 60 votes -- the number needed to cut off the interminable speeches of a filibuster -- has become the minimum required.
Frustration has intensified in the wake of Senate Republicans' no-holds-barred effort to block the healthcare bill, which forced Democrats to scrounge for 60 votes at every legislative turn to prevent a filibuster.
Now, facing the prospect of losing seats in this fall's midterm elections, some Democrats are seeking to change the rules.
While Democrats have large majorities in the House and Senate, the 60-vote threshold for action in the Senate has become a powerful curb on the scope of the Obama agenda. To prevail over united Republicans, all 58 Democrats, including a small but influential faction of conservatives, have to stick together, along with the Senate's two independents.
The Democrats' vulnerability will be even greater given the announcements of Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) that they will not run for reelection this year.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Just like the Virginia and New Jersey Gubernatorial Elections, I'll believe it when I see it.
Nah. They could have done it exactly the ways rats operate - change it for the circumstance they need it changed for; then change it back again right away.
Democrats are seeking to change the rules.Not true they make up rules as they go along and change them at will.
WHat would be funny is for the REpubs to filibuster this, if they can and if it gets that far. I have a feeling that this story will blow up in the DEMS face. Where’s Robert Byrd on this?
Given the track record of the gutless weasel Republicans and the Justice Department over the last 40 years, and the 100% Democrat owned media, I'd say that's a good bet. Oh, and the stupidity and ignorance of the American people regarding the actual written laws of the land, as opposed to what Democrats say they are.
A Texas Confederacy of five States could keep the Democrats from running roughshod over the rest of the country — by taking away the Democrat supermajority.
Which of five possible Texas states would be Democrat controlled?
West Texas? North Texas? East Texas? South Texas? Central Texas?
Or secede as five nation-states within the Texas Confederacy and get five votes in the United Nations, or fifty votes with fifty nation-states with half million populations like Bahrain or Luxembourg.
I believe it takes 67 to change senate rules, unless you use the nuclear option. The Gangue of 14 screwed us when we were in power.
South Texas would be Democrat.
The Nation of Texas of the ‘New’ Republic of Texas makes way more sense than dividing ourselves into five individual states.
That is just cutting of your nose to spite your face.
Gives us The Republic of Texas!!!!
As I recall, what they wanted Frist to do was to make it 51 for appointments but keep it 60 for legislation.
For appointments, the question can never be anything other than “Shall Mr./Madame X be appointed to position Y?”
Whereas with legislation, an amendment can always be offered that changes the political calculus.
I recall Rush saying “If the White House received letters from 51 senators saying “I approve of this nomination,” would it be necessary to have a floor vote at all?
Fine — The Independent Republic of Texas with 25 million people and fifty states of a half million people each. The 254 counties would be divisions of those fifty states (though some present counties are state size all by themselves).
But if you stayed in the USA with fifty states of your own, you could take over the US Senate.
Would Loving County (pop. 67) get two senators and one congressman? Leaving 64 folks at home to take care of the cattle and tend the pumpjacks...
The Republic of Texas as one nation with 250 counties or provinces or what ever is fine. Many of the counties will not combine into states, the main political infrastructure is already in place.
This 50 states within the US is to me pure baloney. The USA with 100 states all on this continent just makes no sense to me. Sorry.
Why ‘own’ the US Senate anyway. The power of the purse is in the House.
I see much better outcome for Texas as an independent nation.
Would at this point take a few other states with us.
Not Loving County by itself, but SouthWest Texas could with a State capital in Midland-Odessa.
The Texas Panhandle could be its own State within the Texan Confederacy and send two conservative senators to Washington. The Panhandle has as many people as Wyoming did in 1990.
At the very least, Texas could have as many US Senators as New England does (and New England has half the population that Texas has).
But the Senate can veto the House. And a Texan Confederacy with a few dozen US Senators would have a veto in the Senate.
Meanwhile, Texas would be gaining national government experience to secede if bad goes to worse. And Texas could take all the plains, south and mountain west with it.
The article also specified that, should Texas choose such a route, it would also revert to its pre-statehood boundaries. That would include:
a. New Mexico, east of the Rio Grande
b. Colorado, east of the Rio Grande, thence a line northwards to the North Platte River.
3. Wyoming, east of the above line and south of the North Platte.
4. Oklahoma, those four counties south of the North Fork of the Red River, plus the three counties in the Panhandle.
5. Kansas, west of the line extending from the eastern edge of the Texas panhandle northward.br> 6. Nebraska, west of the same line and south of the North Platte.
If we did so, the Democrats would never have a filibuster proof Senate...
Exactly!
For the sake of America, we need more conservative States and more conservative Senators.
Just makes no sense to me what ever.
Secede and start over a new. Stacking the deck makes no difference.
Freepmail me or ping me from the original thread to get on/off the 2010 Texas Governor's Race ping list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.