« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

What Is Wrong With Democrat Senate Rules Changes

By: Michael Hammond (Diary)  |  January 16th, 2011 at 07:30 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Promoted from the diaries by Bill S.

by Michael E. Hammond, former General Counsel Senate Steering Committee 1978-89.

One would think it would be pretty easy to understand why conservatives wouldn’t want to give Harry Reid more power.

Reid has corruptly used the Senate rules to cram liberal legislation like ObamaCare down the American people’s throats. And, now that his Democrats have been repudiated in the elections, he wants even more power to cram even more liberal legislation -– thereby nullifying the November election results.

Nevertheless, we’re still getting Fox interviewers asking questions like: “What’s wrong with a Mr.-Smith-goes-to-Washington-filibuster?”

So here’s, specifically, what Senator Udall of New Mexico and nine other Democrats are proposing, what’s wrong with what they’re proposing, and a GOP alternative:

MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON

WHAT THEY’RE PROPOSING: If Reid files cloture on a measure –- and cloture is not invoked -– the Senate will continue debate on the issue on which cloture failed, but it’s no longer in order to ask for quorum calls or make motions. If, at any time, a senator stops talking and another senator is not on his feet screaming for recognition, cloture will be “considered invoked” even though few senators support it.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT?: First, under current rules, Reid can force a “Mr.-Smith-goes-to-Washington” filibuster anytime he wants by (1) keeping the Senate in all night, (2) keeping Democrats on the floor, and (3) eyeballing a quorum from the Chair.

Second, Udall & co. are so inexperienced they have proposed something which is potentially disastrously dysfunctional. They may want to consider, for example, what would happen if Republicans begin filing lots of cloture motions.

Third, the issue of quorum calls is nothing new. When I first visited the Senate in the spring of 1967, the Senate was in a prolonged quorum call, with Everett Dirksen roaming back and forth across the Senate floor alone.

Fourth, the problem is not so much that Republicans refuse to debate, but that Harry Reid refuses to let them. Increasingly, he will file cloture on as many as four bills simultaneously and move off of all four without any debate whatsoever.

Fifth, Reid would use this mechanism to “invoke cloture” on far-reaching liberal legislation by punishing the minority, even though he had far fewer than 60 votes. The 60-vote requirement would become meaningless.

REPUBLICAN ALTERNATIVE: When Reid files a cloture motion, the Senate should stay on that bill or motion continuously until cloture is voted on.

MOTIONS TO PROCEED

WHAT THEY’RE PROPOSING: There would be two hours, equally divided, on motions to proceed –- and Reid and McConnell would control the time.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT?: The ObamaCare fight should highlight the importance of being able to filibuster the motion to proceed to a bill. Once the motion to proceed is adopted, Reid can begin to buy votes by offering amendments (Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase, etc.). The fight over the motion to proceed is the last opportunity to fight an awful bill prior to the vote-buying stage.

REPUBLICAN ALTERNATIVE: You can’t withdraw a motion to proceed if you’ve filed cloture on it.

HOLD LETTERS

WHAT THEY’RE PROPOSING: No senator can object to a “unanimous” consent request on behalf of another senator without naming the other senator.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT?: It requires Republicans to plan for unanimous consent requests they aren’t able to anticipate.

At any time, Harry Reid can walk onto the floor and ask for “unanimous” consent on some issue of monumental importance which is not yet on anyone’s radar screen. The junior Republican who is assigned to monitor the floor and protect Republican interests has a choice: (1) he can “own” the objection against a bill he knows nothing about, or (2) he can allow the GOP to be irreparably damaged on an issue of earth-shattering importance by the so-called “unanimous” consent of the Senate.

REPUBLICAN ALTERNATIVE: Require that all unanimous consent requests be published 24 hours in advance in the Record.

TRUNCATED FILIBUSTERS ON NOMINATIONS

WHAT THEY’RE PROPOSING: Post-cloture time on nominations is shrunk from 30 hours to 2 hours.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT?: This could theoretically shrink debate on a Supreme Court nominee to a total of two hours.

There are several reasons for this: First, a motion to proceed to a nomination “as in executive session” is non-debatable. Second, increasingly Reid is adopting a motion to proceed to a matter, filing cloture on the matter itself, and moving onto another issue without allowing any debate. The issue is automatically jerked back two days later when it’s time to vote on cloture, but there’s no debate in between. Third, if post-cloture time for debate is shrunk to two hours, this may mean that total debate time will be two hours.

We may see a Supreme Court nominee who will be the pivotal vote on ObamaCare in the next two years. The RIGHT to debate on that nomination should surely be more than the guaranteed two hours proposed by this rules change.

REPUBLICAN ALTERNATIVE: Motions to proceed were made non-debatable by a sleazy ruling allowing the Majority Leader to combine the non-debatable motion to proceed to executive session with the debatable motion to proceed. Motions to proceed to nominations and treaties should be debatable again.

“RIGHT” TO OFFER AMENDMENTS

WHAT THEY’RE PROPOSING: At the end of post-cloture debate, right before the Senate votes on final passage of a bill, Reid and McConnell would each have the right to offer three “germane” amendments.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT: First, Reid would have an absolute right to offer his composite vote-buying amendment, while people like DeMint would probably be shut out.

Second, the definition of what is a “germane amendment” has evolved from a 1982 (criminal code recodification fight) definition which allowed almost no amendments to be in order to the current situation –- where “germaneness” has a politicized definition exercised by the parliamentarian with no objective standard. Republicans would be shut out of any meaningful amendments, while Reid would be allowed to do whatever he wanted. This is far worse than no change at all.

REPUBLICAN ALTERNATIVE: If a senator has offered an amendment, no one in his party may offer another amendment until the other party has had an opportunity to offer an amendment.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Reid’s vicious and violent attacks on Senate traditions are undermining civility.

    The filibuster has forced some measure of civility and consensus in that body.

    At this time, we are being asked to rethink how we behave politically. Fine, let us resolve:

    1. No ‘cram-down’ legislative attacks on Senate rules.
    2. The Senate should allow a vote on any bill that is passed in the House. At LEAST bring it up.
    3. Keep the filibuster.

    Has this Sen Reid no shame at the sensitive time?

    • edintexas

      Freedom’s Truth wrote: “2. The Senate should allow a vote on any bill that is passed in the House. At LEAST bring it up.”

      And you are assuming the Republicans will always be in the majority in the House? Apply your desired rule to this past session. Would you really want to force the Senate to bring up “Cap and Tax”? After all, it passed the House.

  • Spiral

    There are three separate issues with respect to the Senate rules in play here.

    (1) There is a debate over what the Senate rules should consist of (in contrast to the current Senate rules).

    (2) There is a debate over whether a simple-majority of the Senate can change Senate rules based on Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution or if a 2/3rds cloture vote, under Rule 5 of the Senate, prevents a simple-majority from changing Senate rules.

    (3) There is a debate over how vigorously Republicans should, while in the minority, take advantage of the current Senate rules.

    My answer to (1) is that after a reasonable amount of debate (perhaps 10 hours), an up or down vote should be held if a simple-majority of US Senators want to an up or down vote to be held on a given issue. 41 US Senators should not be able to block a vote on an issue indefinately.

    My answer to (2) is that the US Constitution clearly gives a simple-majority of the Senate the right to establish and/or change and/or interpret its rules.

    My answer for (3) is that the current Republican minority of 47 should take full advantage of whatever the Senate rules are, regardless of whether they believe these rules are optimal rules for the Senate.

    To use an NFL football analogy, one might oppose the two-point conversion based on a “tradiionalist” argument. But no responsible NFL football coach would, once the rule making a two-point conversion available, refuse to every try for a two-point conversion under any and all circumstances.

    Similarly, one might oppose the 60 vote cloture rule, as I do. However, while the 60 vote cloture rule is on the books, the Republicans should take full advantage of this rule. Same for Rule 5, which requires a 2/3rds cloture vote to end debate on rule changes.

    Here is what Article 1, Section 5 of the US Constitution says:

    Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

    Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

    The Framers of the US Constitution intended for both the US Senate and the US House to operate on a majority basis. That is why Article 1, Section 3 gives the Vice President a vote in the Senate when the Senate is evenly divided.

    Conservatives must look ahead to a time when there is a Republican in the White House, a Republican Senate majority and Antonin Scalia and/or Anthony Kennedy announce their retirement from the US Supreme Court. Clearly no conservative should accept the idea that 41 liberal US Senators out of 100 US Senators should have the capability of preventing a conservative judicial nominee from being confirmed. We do know, however, that during the 2003-2004 Senate several conservative judicial nominees were prevented from receiving an up or down vote because a minority in the Senate refused to allow an end to debate.

    Thus, the current 60 vote cloture requirement is wrong and it not in line with what the Framers of the US Constitution intended.

    The US Constitution gives the power of a simple-majority of the US Senate to govern the Senate. Here is Republicans US Senator Jon Kyl, speaking on the Senate floor on 19 May 2005, during a time when the Democrat Senate minority was blocking the confirmation of conservative judicial nominees to the federal court of appeals.

    Fortunately, the Senate is not powerless to prevent a minority from running roughshod over its traditions. It has the power

    • ohiohistorian

      I think he does a pretty good job of blowing all three of your arguments up. BTW, next time you quote a conservative, please quote a real one.

      http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/05/18/097/40350

      REID FLOOR SPEECH ON USE OF FILIBUSTER

      Mr. President, yesterday morning I spoke here about a statement the Majority Leader issued calling the filibuster a

      • Spiral

        Harry Reid is closer to the truth with respect to the filibuster today than he was when he was in the minority, which is what you are quoting from.

        The filibuster was established by accident, when Vice President Aaron Burr, in 1806, deleted a Senate rule, which removed any rule that would allow the Senate to end debate.

        The fact of the matter is that the US Constitution is clear. Article 1, Section 5 states that a simple majority is all that is required to do business. A simple majority of the Senate has the Constitutional right to establish, change and interpret its rules.

        This is what Republicans should do when they retake the majority of the US Senate in January 2013. They should not allow the Democrats to block conservative judicial nominees/conservative legislation as they did in the 2003-2006 time period.

        The filibuster didn’t stop Amnesty for illegal immigrants during the Reagan administration. The filibuster didn’t stop Social Security during the FDR administration. The filibuster didn’t stop Medicare during the LBJ administration. The filibuster didn’t stop Obama-care during the Obama administration.

        Why is it that the filibuster fails to stop liberal legislation? Simple. Liberal legislation usually means Senators promising “something for nothing.” So, it’s very easy to get 60, 70, 80 votes for liberal legislation.

        Conservative legislation, however, requires support from people who are ruled by their brain, not their emotions. This means that conservative legislation is likely to get only the support of a simple-majority of the Senate.

        Fortunately for conservatives, the US Constitution says that a simple-majority is all that is needed.

        • gekster

          If we had conservative Republicans who could band together, we wouldn’t get all those bad laws and judges.

          • gekster

            If we bring up a judge for nomination they don’t want or like, they threaten a filibuster and we cave.
            If they bring up a judge we don’t want or like, we threaten a filibuster, and then cave.
            It’s in the hands of the Senators we elect, and those squishes are to blame, not the rules.

          • Spiral

            If we bring up a judge for nomination they don

          • gekster

            It’s the squishes, not the rule.

            whup, whup, whup, whup…

          • Spiral

            I think another reason why the filibuster has been to the advantage of liberals is that while Democrats have periodicially held 60 or more seats in the US Senate, Republicans never have.

            So, liberal legislation gets passed when liberals win. But this liberal legislation usually does not get repealed when conservatives win.

            With respect to judges, Republicans don’t believe that judicial nominations should be filibstered. This is why we have not seen a liberal judicial nominee get filibsutered in recent memory.

            But conservative judicial nominees do get filibustered. Examples are Miguel Estrada and Carolyn Kuhl. They were both conservative constitutionalists nominated for the federal court of appeals. They were defeated by a minority of Senators, all Democrats, during the 2003-2004 senate.

          • gekster

            that ending the filibuster to simple majorities will
            give either party totlatarian rule.
            I don’t want that for my party let alone thiers.

          • gekster

            I’ll leave you to beat your horse.

  • Duke

    The tortuous rules being modified and further fashioned into legal corkscrews closely parallel the rule making of the government Reid and the other liberal rulers seek to create – very much like the twists and turns of the Revenue Code they use to fund more and more government. The entire importance of the November elections has so soon been lost on these hopeless political aparatchicks.

    As a member of a County Board I am required to provide open and responsive representation to my neighbors. I can’t begin to describe the utter and open disdain I have for the likes of those who do deals in secret in the middle of the night, and for those egoists who hide behind a morass of procedural rules in order to inflict their will on a helpless America!

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      “The tortuous rules being modified and further fashioned into legal corkscrews closely parallel the rule making of the government Reid and the other liberal rulers seek to create…”

      Excellent observation. This is all about ‘the ends justify means’ for them. Whatever it takes, and when the shoe is on the other foot, they will complain vociferously how unfair and power hungry the Republicans are. Indeed, they are capsizing every argument they made back in 2005 and 2006 when it WAS on the other foot.

      I stand in favor of maintaining the filibuster, as the less Congress does the better for us conservatives and for the country overall.

      • Spiral

        The senate filibuster goes against the Constitution’s intent that both the US Senate and the US House operate on a majority basis.

        Conservatives should stand by the Constitution, not the filibuster.

        Republicans made a mistake during the 2003-2006 time period when the GOP controlled the White House, the House and the Senate. During that time the Democrats, though in the minority in the Senate, were able to use Senate rule 22 to block the confirmations of conservative judicial nominees.

        At that time the Republicans should have done what many Democrats such as Udall are proposing to do now, use the Constitutional Option in which a simple-majority of the Senate changes the Senate’s rules/procedures.

        Instead there was a moderate faction within the GOP, consisting of Lindsay Graham, John McCain, Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Michael DeWine and John Warner, that negotiated a Gang of 14 agreement in which Democrats would retain the right to filibuster conservative judicial nominees.

        • gekster

          You know what that sound is??

          You beating a dead horse.
          And your only reason you don’t like the filibuster is laws you don’t like get passed, while laws you do like don’t get passed.
          Put your effort into electing conservatives into office.
          Become a precinct commity man and actually do some good.
          You really havn’t sold anyone on your arguement here.

          • Spiral

            Oh, I think in the 2012 elections, we will elect more conservative Republicans to the US Senate. I think we will likely end up with a Republican majority US Senate where Republicans hold about 55 seats and Democrats hold 45 seats.

            However, under the current filibuster rule it takes 60 votes to end debate.

            So, even after Americans do what you request, “electing conservatives into office,” as long as the current filibuster rule remains on the books, 41 liberal Democrat US Senators will be able to block the conservative agenda.

            I think conservatives need to think about the past and the future, not just the present.

            The Democrats have used the filibuster to effectively block the conservative agenda, be it putting Miguel Estrada and Carolyn Kuhl and other conservative judicial nominees on the federal court of appeals, be it passing medical liability reform, be it reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be it giving school choice for parents.

            Telling conservatives to go out there and get conservative elected to the US Senate is a great suggestion. But that’s only a first step. The second step must be to eliminate the 60 vote cloture requirement so that 41 liberals can not continue to block the conservative agenda.

            And by the way, the liberal agenda has been passed into law over these past 80 years despite the filibuster rule. Social security has become law. Medicare has become law. Amnesty for illegal immigrants has become law. All of this has become law even though the filibuster rule has been on the books.

            It’s very reasonable to look at the Constitution to see if the Framers of the Constitution really wanted to give a minority of the US Senate the power to block conservative judicial nominations and/or conservative legislation.

          • gekster

            Our so called conservatives won’t band together to stop the bad laws.
            And I wouldn’t want any party to have that much power.
            Ours or theres.

          • oses

            …was a Reagan policy as well.

          • edwyrd

            if the filibuster is repealed. doesn’t that mean we only need 4 new senate seats in 2012 instead of 13 (along with the WH) to completely roll back obamacare et al. and get a real conservative agenda passed, fairtax, tort reform, make a law that requires everyone to drill for oil in their back yard, and add obamatard to the dictionary? well?

          • Spiral

            You have it right. If we want to roll back the liberal laws that are ruining the United States, we only need to gain 4 Senate seats if the filibuster is repealed.

            IfRepublicans continue to worship the filibuster, instead of the Constitution, we will have little or no hope of saving the country from the disaster that liberals have been pushing American into over these last 80 years. Right now the Republicans have 47 seats in the Senate. That’s 13 seats short of the 60 needed to shut off liberal filibusters of conservative agenda items.

          • dmccracken

            After all, if conservatives can’t filibuster the next Obama judge, then they get confirmed and we live with it for a long time!

            To say that the filibuster denies the intent of the Constitution doesn’t fly either, since the constitution gives a quorum the right to make the Senate rules by simple majority, and one of the rules passed by that majority requires 2/3 to modify the rules. That is entirely within the right of the Senate to do.

            Yes, it would be nice to not have liberals with the ability to filibuster conservative nominees, but the danger is the next 2 years. A lot of damage can be done in federal courts and treaty approval that the House get’s no vote on. You need to get through the next 2 years before you opine on life after 2012.

          • JSobieski

            Can Congress pass a law that requires a super-majority to overturn the law? I.e. can a law say that it can only be repealed by a unanimous vote of both houses and signed by the President in order for the law to be overturned?

            I would argue that a Congress cannot so burden a future Congress or even that same Congress at a future date. With the exception of what the Constitution specifically provides (including the Amendment provisions) allowing Congress to bind a future Congress is sidestepping the Constitution.

            Why should a Senate rule, which is even lower than an enacted statute, be given higher credence than a law?

            A future Congress is free to ignore the procedural requirements set forth by a past Congress. To say otherwise is to cheapen the requirements for amending the Constitution.

          • dmccracken

            The constitution gives the legislative branch the right to set their rules. These are procedural rules governing the parliamentary proceedings of the legislative body, not laws that are passed by both House and Senate and signed by the President. Two different animals.

            That being said, wasn’t there something put into the Health Care Bill that was similar to this? Trying to protect against repeal? I am sure I read that somewhere on here. Now the same people who did that object to such a requirement on the Senate rules.

            Hypocritical.

          • JSobieski

            enacted at 12 noon on July 1, 2011 cannot bind that same Senate from changing that same rule at 12:01pm on July 1, 2011.

            You are giving procedural rules greater power than statutes, which is backwards.

            The Senate can set their rules, and they can change their rules by majority vote.

            No hypocrisy here—the Senate is free to change its rules by a majority vote at any time it so wishes. The only voting requirements that are binding are those set forth in the Constitution (treaties, constitutional amendments). Everything else can be done or undone by a simple majority.

            Any other interpretation allows for the present Congress to make future Congresses vassals of the present Congress.

            If a statute cannot bind a future Congress, then neither can a rule.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            doctrine, the Supreme Court would not intervene.

          • Spiral

            Article 1, Section 5 of the US Constitution gives the right to conduct Senate business to a majority of the US Senate.

            Therefore, whenever a Senator or group of Senators complains about “majority rule” in the Senate, their criticism is not only of the current Senate majority. Their criticism is also directed at the US Constitution itself.

          • dmccracken

            Making rules is conducting business

            Any legislative matters are conducting business

            A vote is conducting business

            Determining if they have a quorum is conducting business.

            I don’t see how any of this is impeded by the filibuster. Many matters are transacted without it coming into play.

          • Spiral

            Making rules is conducting business

            Correct. Thus, a simple majority of the Senate can, at any time, decide to adjust, modify, change its rules or the way the current rules are interpreted. Thus, at any time a simple majority of the Senate could decide to change the filibuster rule. This would be entirely consistent with Article 1, Section 5 of the US Constitution.

          • JSobieski

            What we are saying is that the filibuster can be removed by a simple majority vote to change the rules on filibusters. That is what the Constitution provides, and any logic to the contrary would allow one Congress to eliminate the discretion of all future Congresses.

            What stops the Senate from requiring unanimous votes to do anything? Why stop there, when one can add extraneous requirements, such as unanimous votes, held at the stroke of midnight, on Christmas Eve, if the stock market has increased by 100% that year, and if the President is singing Silent Night.

            Making rules is conducting business. Thus a rule that requires a supermajority for rules changes is essentially void since the Constitution already provides what is required for the conduct of business–a majority vote.

            Its not that the filibuster impedes these functions, its that the filibuster can be removed by majority vote.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • JSobieski

            you and Spiral succeeded in convincing a noted contrarian that his position was 100% wrong. That law review article on the legality of fast track trade authority was definitely eye opening.

            Base closing commissions, fast track trade, filibusters, etc are all susceptible to getting blown away by a Congress that decides not to put up with such games.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            apples

            We appreciate that a certain JSob’ responds logically to relevant data.

            oranges

            Spiral’s arguments were logical on the merits.

            castor oil

            Can you send the link to the above-referenced law review article?

            Happy King Day! Feel free to have non-violent, yet civilly disobedient dreams today…

          • JSobieski

            http://www.student.virginia.edu/~jalopy/PDFs/19-4/345-410.PDF

          • Spiral

            I hope that either the current Democrat Senate majority or a future Republican Senate majority will use the Constitution Option to eliminate or significantly change the filibuster rule.

            A good modification of the filibuster rule would be to require 60 votes to invoke cloture on an initial cloture vote and require 51 votes to invoke cloture on subsequent cloture votes on the same legislation or amendment or nomination.

            No more situations where Miguel Estrada and Carolyn Kuhl are denied their seats on the federal court of appeals because 41 Democrat US Senators don’t like conservative constitutionalist judicial nominees.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            that enough Republicans would join Dems to have a 60-67 vote majority to change the rule on changing rules and on the filibuster.

          • Spiral

            My main concern with respect to the filibuster rule is the way in which it has disadvantaged conservatives over the years.

            If the Senate changes its rules so that a simple-majority of the Senate can move to have a vote on legislation or on nominations (judicial or executive), then there is a level playing field.

            When Democrats win a majority of US Senate seats at the ballot box, the Democrats can set the agenda and have Senate floor votes on that agenda. When Republicans win a majority of US Senate seats at the ballot box, the Republicans can set the agenda and have Senate floor votes on that agenda.

            However, if, as seems to be the case with Senator Udall’s proposed reforms, there is only an effort to “tweak” the Senate rules and modify the filibuster rule in a modest way, I would rather the Republicans oppose any changes to the current Senate rules.

            Why? I think it would be better if the Republicans forced the Democrats to use the Constitutional Option in order to affect a Senate rules change, thereby relieving everyone of the fiction that it takes a super-majority to change Senate rules. Then, when, as I hope, the GOP wins the Senate majority in 2012, by January 2013 the GOP can use the Constitutional Option to get around the Democrats’ obstructionist tactics, especially if the Democrats attempt to filibuster any conservative judicial nominees from President Mike Pence!!!

          • JSobieski

            So I would support all sorts of tinkering around with everything as much as possible and as often as possible.

            Of course, explicit repeal of the 2/3 requirement for Rule changes would be optimal.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • papakilo

    If we do this, we might as well go ahead and repeal the 17th Amendment. No need having two lower Houses.

    • MrAleGuy

      I think precisely this point is missed by proponents of “filibuster reform”.

      The framers intended two houses, one which was responsive to the people directly and frequently held accountable; the other responsive to the state on behalf of their citizens and more deliberative to act as a brake on the whims of the population causing the destruction of the state.

      Remember, the PEOPLE are citizens of the USA because the STATES agreed to be bound together for a common good.

      I wouldn’t lose a minute’s sleep over filibuster reform if the Senate wasn’t subject to the same mob mentality as the House.

  • caboose

    US Constitution put int the same exactly what they intended it to say. What others say that the Framers “intended” is pure, every day, ordinary BS. The only mention of “Majority” in Article 1, Section 5, refers to meeting a quorum to conduct business. Article 1, Section 5, also states : ‘with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.” So much Bull for the simple majority. The filibuster overall protects this country from a simple majority of the congress subverting or overthrowing the government. If the democrats go through with their threat to destroy the filibuster, then the House of Representative should immediately declare that any bill originating in the Senate is dead on arrival to the House. Furthermore, the house should adopt rules that prevent the Democrats in the House from any debate on any bill.

    • JSobieski

      In your view, every law could include a provision requiring unanimous consent of both houses in order to be repealed. Yet, such an outcome gives near Constitutional status to mere statutes.

      The only thing that binds a future Congress in its legislative process is the Constitution.

      Congress today cannot decide that a mere 40% plurality of votes are required to enact future laws, much less that 66.7% of the votes would be required to change the “rule”.

      So why can Congress decide that 60% of the votes are required to enact future laws, and can only be repealted by 66.7%?

      • JSobieski

        nt

        • carolina

          that no current congress can bind any future congress to anything. (main reason for the short term funding of long-term projects).

  • mattice44

    1. In my opinion, filling the “amendment tree” is one of the most odious practices the Senate has. The Republican alternative should make sense to both sides. Let germane amendments be brought up and discussed on the floor. There was a time legislation was written this way instead of in backroom deals.

    2. Secret holds – neither of these options really makes sense. Why don’t they require a Senator to take “ownership” of the hold within 24 hours after it’s made? The amount of UC requests made on both sides is too high to require them to be posted a day in advance.

    It seems like Reid is under the assumption that requiring Republican senators to “own” their holds will drastically change the amount of legislation he is able to get through. This doesn’t make sense – wouldn’t a Republican senator holding up something unpopular get a lot of support from his base?

    3. Regarding the change from 60 to 50 votes, this won’t help Democrats at all. I think it was Boehner who said it best – there is absolutely no shot that any bill that passes the Senate by that thin a margin will get traction in the House. If anything, this would seem to help Republicans in the next election cycle. So I don’t think anybody should be fearing this in the near term and I frankly don’t get why they are even bringing it up.

  • CJB68

       Harry Reid will be known to me as the man who ended the United States of America as a representative republic, if this move is neither stopped before it can take effect nor reversed when the conservatives and friends of the Constitution are able to replace his dictatorial faction in the next couple of election cycles.  We can thank the “housepets” of America for giving us these could-be Caesars.  I’m chalking this up as one more nail in the Republic’s coffin, one more step towards the United States following Rome into history.

       Let’s hope that the Republican leadership in the House can put a damper on the Obama-Reid regime…