Skip to main content

View Diary: Harry Reid: You Swore an Oath (22 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  ./yawn (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MT Clarity, Neuroptimalian

    Hyperbole much?

    Your dramatic blank blockquotes missed one key quote from the Constitution.  Which is not wholly unexpected since one of them references the Bill of Rights, which has absolutely nothing about the functions of Congress.  

    So let me add a few block quotes of my own for balance:

    Here is what the US Consittution has to say about who does and doesn't have authority to establish rules for debate in Congress:

    Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
    or and to parallel, here is what the first 10 amendments which specifically enumerate the fundamental rights of US Citizens have to say about the people's rights to establish the rules of congressional debate:
    Each House can make whatever rules they all agree to.  Not sure if you've been following the Common Cause v. Biden lawsuit that will be argued in DC Court on Dec 10th, but it is trying to make a similar case that you are so stridently screeching and I've spoken with lawyers involved and even THEY know they most likely will get thrown out of court for lack of standing.

    The Senate is CONSTITUTIONALLY allowed to make its own rules and this pervasive unconstitutional institutionally-destructive cancerous windmill at which you are tilting has been on the books in some form for almost a century and in its EXACT current form for 37 years and still the fragile American Republic has not crumbled to its foundation.

    Political problems o' the Day do not always require Constitutional Foundation-shaking adjustments to our entire political system.

    Look, I'm all for Filibuster reform, but get a little perspective man.  Violations of Oaths?  Serving Two Masters? Really?  Parliamentary Rules of Conduct are now a "MASTER"?

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:42:16 AM PST

    •  It is crumbling right now (0+ / 0-)

      We haven't had a minority completely committed to obstructionism for the last 37 years.  

      We do now.  Bills go to the Senate to die.  Judicial posts are unfilled.  Cabinet positions are unfilled.  And for what?  A Senate rule that requires a super majority to get anything done being used to make sure nothing is done.

      The Constitution clearly implies that a simple majority should be the standard.  That is what government of the people, by the people, and for the people means.  

      •  Yes. The rule should be changed (0+ / 0-)

        but its not unconstitutional.  The Senate is explicitly allowed to make their own rules.  As is the House.

        The Courts are not going to over-rule them on their own internal process which is written clearly in Art II Sec 5 as "THEIRS TO MAKE AND ENFORCE"

        They will throw this case out just like they did in Raines v Byrd back in 1997.

        And all Reid can do is go back to requiring an active filibuster.  In order to actually remove the filibuster, you would have to actually change the Senate Rules which ....wait for it....  requires a two-thirds vote.  So in order to no longer need 60 votes... you need 67 votes.

        Still.. for the record, I hope he does that.  For transparency if nothing else.  But not because to do otherwise is a treasonous violation of his sword oath of office.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 11:09:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They need 50 votes (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The Senate has to adopt new rules every new session.  They just need 50, plus a VP tie breaker.

          •  what? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            The current 43 rules have been in effect since 2000. (although the Lobby Reform Act made some changes in 2006)

            Rule XXII states:

            If that question is 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.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 11:31:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  to be clear (0+ / 0-)

              this is to actually change the formal rules... Reid, as majority leader, can reinterpret the existing rule and classify certain votes as ineligible to filibuster.

              This can be streamlined and THAT can be done with 51 votes... but to REMOVE the filibuster, you would need to edit Rule XXII and that will require 67 votes.  There is no way around that.

              The reforms we are discussing will make the Senate process faster, will stop bills from being filibustered BEFORE debate and will require an active in-person filibuster... but it will still require 60 votes to pass a law.

              Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

              by Wisper on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 11:56:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site