Read the article. I quote Federalist 75 at length.
First of all, the Senate must have a quorum in order to hold any vote, i.e. 51 senators must be present to conduct business.
That is a rule, not a Constitutional requirement. A filibuster can be conducted with ONE Senator present.
Second, if the Rats tried to hold a dark of night secret vote to pass this, or tried some shenanigan like that, they would be crucified and they know it.
It's already been done, many times, as the article cites with historical examples.
You can bet your bottom dollar that there would be a lawsuit to overturn it before the ink was dry on the first editorial.
There has never been a treaty thrown out on Constitutional or procedural grounds. Not one.
That is a rule, not a Constitutional requirement. A filibuster can be conducted with ONE Senator present.
Second, if the Rats tried to hold a dark of night secret vote to pass this, or tried some shenanigan like that, they would be crucified and they know it.
It's already been done, many times, as the article cites with historical examples.
______________________
Also, voice votes are frequently taken and stand unless someone present requests verification of a quorum present. We've all seen that lots of times on CSPAN.
In fact there was a voice vote taken not real long ago (it might have even been before Obama was in) that clearly went against the 'Rats and a Republican protested and was told it was too late, the vote had been taken and would stand.
I'm sorry I can't remember exactly when, what it was about, or even if it was in the House instead of the Senate. Maybe one of you will remember. There was quite a ruckus about it, but it did stand.
The Desertification Treaty ratification was done without a call for a quorum so it was probably a voice vote (I'm pretty sure it wasn't show of hands) and there is NO record of who was even present let alone who voted how or how many people were present.
Both Larry Craig and Craig Thomas were questioned later on how they could have passed something like that and both answered they didn't know about it. When they were informed that it was in the package of low importance supposedly single issue "housekeeping" treaties, they said they had been asked to pass the "package" by the "leadership".
The "leadership" at that time was Trent Lott so you can figure out who got played on that one. I would say the same wonderful "leader" who made sure that Clinton wouldn't be convicted of his impeachment and the same former leader who called for the co-opting of the TEA party moverment.
I know something about the Desertification Treaty because there were several huge threads about it including one where a FRiend of mine posted the number of Richard Douglas, Chief Counsel of the Committee on Foreign Relations. I called and Douglas deigned to talk to me, probably because I told his assistant that I wanted to straighten out any errors that may have been posted on the internet.
He was quite friendly, described himself as Jesse Helms' treaty lawyer, and told me there was no problem because the treaty contained all kinds of reservations and xxx another word I can't remember right now and that those conditions would prevent the UN from ever violating any of our laws or our Constitution...
He convinced me and told me I was the nicest lady he'd talked to all day and I went back and reported what he said to the large group of FReepers on the thread.
Those FReepers knew a lot more than I did about what was going on at the time and they said that any treaties with the UN were proclaimed by the UN NOT to be subject to any reservations or restrictions etc. and that what was on the UN website showed the treaty without any qualifiers at all.
I called Mr. Douglas back the next day and questioned him about this. He got quite snotty and told me basically that there was nothing I (or anyone else) could do about it now and that if I was serious I would have done my homework and been protesting it before it was passed.
I pointed out that it was passed in secret. He repeated that a serious person would have been monitoring the process all the time. I asked if that meant that I or others like me had to be present in the Senate 24 hours a day and he answered YES.
Even if I had a permanent place there, I wouldn't have known what was concealed in that package of treaties. By the time we were done, I was no longer that "nice" lady and I got a fast and harsh lesson in real life and real corruption.
I had that thread bookmarked and just went there to get the URL so I could link it for you, but apparently there is a time limit for keeping them as I got an error message "No such file (give_legacy_article)".