Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: xzins
I think the 60 vote requirement in the Senate is an unconstitutional amendment anyway, so I’m glad to see it go.

Absolutely not. Read Article 1, Section 5. "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..."

41 posted on 12/06/2016 6:34:51 AM PST by AustinBill (consequence is what makes our choices real)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: AustinBill

I disagree with that section applying to other already constitutionally spelled out methods for passing legislation.

For example, the constitution says the Senate counts the electoral votes for vice president and the candidate with a majority becomes the vice president. Imagine they apply their rules power to that and require no announcement of that winner until the Senate verifies it with a two thirds majority.

A majority vote for the passage of judges is the constitutional requirement. But that can’t move withouta 60% majority. I consider it a sleight-of-hand amending of the constitution.

The consequences are awful. Terrible decisions from former Congresses cannot be fixed with simple majorities


49 posted on 12/06/2016 8:05:23 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson