Senate requires 2/3 vote to convict. Anything less than that is an acquittal....
Yes, but I believe that is during the trial when the CJSCOTUS is seated and the senate sworn in. Before that occurs, supposedly, the senate can acquit with 51 votes.
From what I hear T Cruz is saying that you need 2/3 during an impeachment for rule changes. However, since the impeachment has not been received by the senate, ordinary rules still apply, hence the 51 vote threshold.
The constitution assumes that the articles would be delivered in a timely fashion. Since P’sy has defied that, we are in an area where the constitution is silent. Hence if the house can make up rules so can the senate.
I would prefer a quick trial where the POTUS can make his case, than a dismissal where POTUS is left on the sidelines and the rats can accuse him of cover up.
This is a matter for reasonable disagreement.
I would prefer a summary dismissal rather than any sort of quasi-judicial "trial". From my perspective, a dismissal is superior to an acquittal. It is always a mistake to accept any premise offered by Leftists as the basis for debate or argument.
In any case there are no actual "high-crimes" or misdemeanors defined in the Articles of Impeachment. They are all about hostile opinions and third-hand allegations of activities which never occurred and which would not be crimes even if they had occurred as claimed.
Dismiss, with prejudice.
There are a couple of procedural steps being discussed and maybe conflated.
Generally, changing senate rules takes 2/3rds of senators present. This is by senate rules. There is a nuclear option for this where, in principle, a simple majority can change the rules even though the rules say it takes 2/3rds to change the rules. Cruz’s point was that it takes 67 to change an existing rule. Okay, that’s a fair summary of the usual course of rules changing business.
On the rules angle, aside from the nuclear option, making a new rule can be claimed to be “not a change of the rules.” It can also be called a change of the rules, because adding a rule is changing the rules. Oh, angels on the head of a pin, etc.
The other “procedural” point is getting to the ultimate disposal of the articles, or absence of articles. Conviction takes 2/3rds of senators present. This is in the constitution. The senate can pass a resolution and a motion that says a simple majority can dismiss the case. That is a case-by-case matter. This mechanism was present in the Clinton impeachment. Fewer than a majority voted to dismiss, and a separate vote was taken to convict. The vote to convict did not reach the 2/3rds threshold, so Clinton was acquitted.