[Degaston]

We've got a potential Constitution showdown on Senate Rules. Rule #5 says "The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules."

Anyone know a way for the Republicans to get through this?

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/standingrules.txt

[LexBaird]

Anyone know a way for the Republicans to get through this?

One of the duties of the Rules committee is:

(2) Such committee shall also-- (A) make a continuing study of the organization and operation of the Congress of the United States and shall recommend improvements in such organization and operation with a view toward strengthening the Congress, simplifying its operations, improving its relationships with other branches of the United States Government, and enabling it better to meet its responsibilities under the Constitution of the United States;

Since the Senate is Constitutionally obliged to "give advice and consent" regarding Executive appointments, it would seem to me that the Senate Rules Committee can create a rule regarding eliminating the filibuster for consideration of appointments. Simply blocking nominees without giving the Executive advice, nor either consent or rejection, is unconstitutional on the face of it.

[Pharlap]

The Rules are adopted by the Senate for the purpose of self-governance. The basis for the Senate's adopting of Rules is the Constitution. See Article I, Section 5. A prior Senate cannot limit, restrict or in anyway diminish the right of a subsequent Senate to "determine the Rules of its Proceedings." Ibid. Therefore, a prior Senate cannot, by its action, preclude a subsequent Senate from adopting its own Rules, including a modified Rule XXII (filibuster and cloture). Thus, the incoming Senate can change the Rule by a simple majority vote, and any attempt to filibuster the change would be a violation of the Constitution. If you would like a more detailed explanation, please send me a private email.