Skip to main content

View Diary: The future of the filibuster (117 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The problem is the logic is circular (0+ / 0-)

    The "continuing body" doctrine exists in the rules of the Senate. Thus, one has to pre-suppose it for it to apply to Senates subsequent to the one which adopted it.

    Even worse, the rule change that first included the continuing body doctrine was only made in response to the threat to use the "constitutional option", and was not filibustered specifically because of the threat of the "constitutional option".

    As to the Article I Section V conflict - if you presuppose the absence of continuing body, then the constitution precludes continuing body. Of course, the story didn't say it was "precluded", only that there was conflict.

    In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

    by sullivanst on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 02:45:32 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  But with each congress (0+ / 0-)

      at max. only a third of the Senate body is new (unlike the House). Yes the Senate can change it's rules, by using it's own rules to do so. If the Senate decides under the current rules to change the threshold to change the rules form 2/3rd to bare majority, it can do that, if it first can meet the in force rules they are operating under. IN other words you need to get 67 votes to change the threshold on changing the rules to be 51 votes (for example).


      Mitch Gore

      January 20, 2009... the end of an error.

      by Lestatdelc on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 04:17:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site