Posted on 02/11/2010 3:34:36 PM PST by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
"I love Tom Harkin. I'm totally familiar with his idea," Reid said during a news conference on the Capitol on Thursday. "It takes 67 votes, and that, kind of, answers the question."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Iowans keep sending that dungheap to Washington. The fault lies with Iowa ... and California, and Nevada, and Washington State, and Minnesota, and ... well, you get the picture.
Really? Frankly, I'd be surprised. Pleasantly surprised, but still surprised.
I guess there's always hope.
You are right.
Do you have a link to the text of the rule?
Reid doesn’t have the votes to do that anyway. They are planning something though with the HR summit. I guess hoping to get Dem congressmen back on board because they cant pass either bill now.
Section 22 (I know, an odd place for the rule):
"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.
Essentially, they can change any rule by unanimous consent. If there is an objection, they can "end debate" on the rules change with a 2-3rds vote. I think then the rule change itself is a majority vote.
Now, you could argue that a majority can set the rules. And in fact, a majority DID set the rules, when they were first adopted.
But how can one congress impose rules on another congress? In the house, they can't, and they re-vote their rules each session.
But the senate never "ends". Each year, only 1/3rd are replaced. 2/3rds carry over from the previous session. So even though none of the original senators are still around, their rules can still hold, which means they can't change the rules without 2/3rds vote.
The democrats last had that much of a majority in the 70s, I think, and Byrd used that opportunity to change the rule about filibuster, which used to be 2/3rds for everything. But when they changed it, they didn't want to make it easier to change the rules, so they left the rules vote 2/3rds.
Thanks! Excellent explanation.
See #26.
IIRC, Republicans also threatened to ignore the 2/3 rule when they had the majority.
Talk radio was egging them on. Mark Levin recommended this change (for judges) in his SCOTUS book. He used the same arguments liberals are using now for republicans: unconstitutional, abuse of the rule, founders, democracy.,majority..
Just looked it up in page 192, he recommended a 51 Senator vote to decide the filibuster by the minority party was in violation of the current rules. You can see the problem with this now. I was a huge Levin fan and thought he was brilliant as he is sold as a constitutional expert. He is just another messenger selling a simple narrative. This would have been a disaster now.
Only the “expel a member” part is modified by the 2/3 condition.
Of course many leftists are hypocritical on this and similar rules. The change to "guarantee" a Dem replacement in Mass. when Romney was gov. didn't work out to well for them this time. If they had left the traditional rules alone, Patrick could have put Coakley or similar toady in place.
From Aesop's Fables, "The Bee and Zeus":
A BEE from Mount Hymettus, the queen of the hive, ascended to Olympus to present Zeus some honey fresh from her combs. Zeus, delighted with the offering of honey, promised to give whatever she should ask. She therefore besought him, saying, "Give me, I pray thee, a sting, that if any mortal shall approach to take my honey, I may kill him." Zeus was much displeased, for he loved the race of man, but could not refuse the request because of his promise. He thus answered the Bee: "You shall have your request, but it will be at the peril of your own life. For if you use your sting, it shall remain in the wound you make, and then you will die from the loss of it."
Moral: Evil wishes, like chickens, come home to roost.
That was the point of this article. Liberals have been playing this tune since summer and even more now.
Turns out the moderates in both parties block their own party from extremes for political reasons. In this case the RINOs saw clearly. The most dangerous man is the Zealot because he will kill you to save you. I have run into more than a few of them here.
Thank you.
Things have come to a sad pass when an there is even a question as to the meaning of that sentence.
>>>”I don’t know but there might be enough Dims who realize that it would come back to hurt them as soon as they are in the minority again.”
Which makes them a lot smarter then so many Freepers who are STILL mad McCain and the Gang of 13 were wise enough to block the Nuclear Option.
Had they not done this, Obama would have essentially Ruled by Decree for the last year.
I think it was called the gang of 14, but I know what you mean.
Yes, but it can be confusing, since in fact the senate will not change the filibuster rule without 67 votes.
Unfortunately, there is a 10 page document called the Constitution, but judges use a multi-volume thing called "Consitutional Law," some versions of which really contradict the Constitution.
And sometimes (I believe) the so called moderates are dead wrong, like Graham on amnesty and crap and trade.
Notice, however that the 2/3 rule on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules only requires two-thirds of those present and voting, not 2/3 of those duly chosen and sworn. So rather than 67 votes, it only requires two-thirds of those present. So anytime either party can get a quorum where it controls at least two-thirds of those present, then a rules change could be accomplished on a party-line vote.
I read something last year - it may have been NRO - that did a fairly good job of describing the ending of the filibuster using the so-called "nuclear option". Essentially, it's a parliamentary trick. Someone on the floor would raise a point of order, questioning the constitutionality of the filibuster itself. Because it's a point of order, and not a motion for rules change, that order would be decided by a simple majority vote, eliminating either the cloture vote, or the required 2/3 for a "normal" Senate rules change.
I'm no parliamentarian, so I really have no idea if that's an accurate summation of the possible maneuver.
Too Much (Sung to ‘Too Much’ by Elvis Presley) A 2010 TCH Parody Production
Well Harry, tries to shove through … too much…
Tries speed legislation … you putz!
Wants fat bills too… no cuts
“We’ll see what lies can move you … to us”
You’ll do all the givin’ if you wanna go on livin’
‘Cause we got you in Dutch
Well, who spends all my money… too much?
I have to hear baloney… too much
When I want some reasons… you’re gone
Voting through more treason, you’re Barry’s pawn
Now we’ve got TEA started, want to see your votes departed
‘Cause we’ve had you too much!
Why’s Reid for spendin’ … every dime?
Reid, you can’t win … please resign!
Reid, you hear me? … Hear real close
Please, please, hear me… you are toast!
Now we’ve got TEA started, want to see your votes departed …
‘Cause we’ve had you too much!
Well every lie flies fast ore’… Reid’s lips
I can feel my mouth go… “Bullsh*t!”
Obama’s such a fool for … your charms
“Take it back, Harry … it’s for Rahm”
Likes to hear you lying, even though he knows you’re dyin’ …
‘Cause we’ve had you too much!
Why’s Reid for spendin’ … every dime?
Reid, you can’t win … please resign!
Reid, you hear me? … Hear real close
Please, please, hear me… you are toast!
Now we’ve got TEA started, want to see your votes departed …
‘Cause we’ve had you too much!
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.