The 60 Vote Rule In The Senate Under Attack

Gridlock is caused by entrenched partisan politics, want them to get together and work again? SCREAM for term limits! 2 to 4 years and done! Make a law that says once you have been an elected official it is illegal to go into the business of lobbying as well, for that matter just outlaw lobbying.

Its all BS anyways we have enough money in this country to give everyone free top notch medical care and still have the worlds best military. We could lead the world by example if it wasnt for greedy + power hungry types, yet we bicker with those that would be our brothers over scraps and meaningless things.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
If the Republicans control all three branches of government I would like to see them pass a law banning abortion because that is what the people voted for. Now I disagree with banning abortion personally. But I would like to see voting actually matter for change.

Except that's not how government works. They can't "pass a law banning abortion" because the Supreme Court has not overturned their standing legal decision that abortion is legal. Until such time as someone challenges the Supreme Court ruling, no law banning abortion could be passed.

a reply to: TAWonATS

Term limits only will just trade one clown for another.

You need in addition, an end to gerrymandering. Districts are drawn to practically ensure a victory for a particular party. You could run a tomato can in most districts and as long as it's the party of choice, it'll win.

The next and probably most controversial change would be to increase the number in the House by about a factor of 5. House numbers were determined over 100 years ago. Every year that goes by, an individual's voice is diluted. Which makes the corporate voice even more at the forefront.

Repeal that nonsensical Citizens United thing. Corporations are NOT people and money is NOT speech. Sheesh, what an Orwellian nightmare.

Knock those out then get back to me. Until then, here we are and here we go.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
I think this is horrible.

Making it easier for Congress to pass EVEN MORE LAWS sounds insane.

Why do we need new laws this badly?
Surely if the law proposed is that important, a super majority would be easy to achieve.

What are the hundreds of thousands of pages of laws we have not good enough?

This is a horrible decision.
I'll be criticizing and attacking this vehemently.

Amen!

Muzzle, you have impressed me of late. Not pulling any punches! Keep on, keeping on.

a reply to: yeahright

Agreed. Besides, we already have term limits. The voters can limit the term of any given politician by not re-electing him/her the next time. Why pass a law to force something that we have the freedom to do at every election?

a reply to: carewemust

Because apparently people are idiots. Congress can have a single digit approval rating and an incumbent will still get reelected 9 times out of 10.

Besides, didn't Trump want term limits for Congress during the election?

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: redmage

Yes, the 60-vote rule is a greedy power grab by those in power who want to preserve the status quo.

No, making it easier to pass even more laws in the interests of their fickle lobbyists is the power grab.

If something would truly benefit the greater American population, then 60 votes shouldn't be difficult to get. It's only divisive BS that would need to slip by with a mere 51 votes.

Regardless of how it is used it is unconstitutional. The lobbyists can't change the rules of government without a Constitutional Convention.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
The 60 vote rule in the Senate is unconstitutional in my opinion. Article I, section 5, refers to both the House of Representatives and the Senate, “…a majority of each [house] shall constitute a quorum to do business…”. Majority not super-majority.

You're misunderstanding the meaning of "Quorum." The quorum rule has nothing to do directly with the actual passage of laws. It only exists to define what a legal gathering of Congress constitutes. In other words, if 49 Senators decide to boycott a session, while 51 attend, a 26-25 vote is Constitutionally valid and represents a majority decision. This is why we often see representative attend a vote, but abstain from actually voting... their presence in the quorum counts towards the denominator used to define what the "majority vote" number will be whether they actually vote or not.

I'm not a fan of the idea of killing the filibuster. I am a fan of representatives acting like adults and not turning every damn vote into "OMG, we must have 60 votes for this to pass!!!" ridiculousness. But adult and representative seem to be on the outs these days, looking doubtful that the marriage will survive.

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy

originally posted by: dfnj2015
If the Republicans control all three branches of government I would like to see them pass a law banning abortion because that is what the people voted for. Now I disagree with banning abortion personally. But I would like to see voting actually matter for change.

Except that's not how government works. They can't "pass a law banning abortion" because the Supreme Court has not overturned their standing legal decision that abortion is legal. Until such time as someone challenges the Supreme Court ruling, no law banning abortion could be passed.

I do not think the judicial branch is singularly more power than the executive and congressional branches as you are implying.

The Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017 (H.R. 490) mandates that abortionists check for a fetal heartbeat before committing abortions. They may not commit an abortion if a fetal heartbeat is detected.

The only exception to this law would be if a mother's life was in danger. The bill specifies that this does not include "psychological or emotional conditions."

www.lifesitenews.com...

a reply to: redmage

Precisely why the 60 vote rule needs to go. The voter's votes have meaning. Laws will get passed based on the voters. That's just the way it is.

The 60 vote rule is clearly unconstitutional. If you want to change the constitutional then have constitutional convention. But breaking the rule of law because you are anti-lobbyists or anti-laws is still breaking the law.

Another inch closer to a one party system...

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: carewemust

Because apparently people are idiots. Congress can have a single digit approval rating and an incumbent will still get reelected 9 times out of 10.

Besides, didn't Trump want term limits for Congress during the election?

Yes, Trump wanted Term Limits, but he was a businessman then. Easy to say. Hard to do. It's like asking them (Congress) to cut off their arm.

The Supreme Court could do it if some "Term Limit" case were to rise to that level...maybe.

a reply to: TAWonATS

I'm not sure term limits would give us better government. I think our country worked better when we had pork-barrel politics. At least we had spending programs that would benefit local economies as opposed to defense spending which only helps a handful of communities.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
Another inch closer to a one party system...

If only we knew all the things that were going on in your mind. Why in the hell would come to that conclusion that getting rid of the 60 vote rule would lead to a one-party system?

originally posted by: redmage
If this passes,

You really shouldn't be saying this. This idea isn't even a bill being considered yet, let alone a possibility of passing. It's just another Trump whine because he can't work within the rules of government to get them to work together (nevermind him promising his base that he alone could cut through the gridlock with ease). So instead of upping his political game, he instead wants to do a hasty power grab because the patience he doesn't have cannot handle the slow speed that government really operates.

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy

originally posted by: dfnj2015
If the Republicans control all three branches of government I would like to see them pass a law banning abortion because that is what the people voted for. Now I disagree with banning abortion personally. But I would like to see voting actually matter for change.

Except that's not how government works. They can't "pass a law banning abortion" because the Supreme Court has not overturned their standing legal decision that abortion is legal. Until such time as someone challenges the Supreme Court ruling, no law banning abortion could be passed.

Don't ever say I'm a hole. You may be right. It may be the way you are saying. The Supreme's would have to overturn the ruling before a law could be established.

Is Mr Santorum at all accurate in believing that Congress—as an extension of the “final say” of the American people—has the power to overturn the Supreme Court? As it happens, yes. Congress can indeed expand rights beyond those recognised by the Supreme Court, as it did in reaction to Employment Division v Smith when it passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. And if the constitution does not safeguard a certain right, Congress can create or amend laws to ensure such protection itself. For example in 1976 the court ruled in General Electric v Gilbert that pregnant women could be discriminated against in the workplace, as such discrimination was neither unconstitutional nor legislated against. So Congress came back two years later with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, thereby legally adding this protection. When the court put sharp limits on bosses' liability for under-paying female employees, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in her dissent that "the Legislature may act to correct this". It did: Congress passed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. Indeed, lawmakers regularly craft laws in response to narrow or undesired rulings based on existing statutes, as Matthew R. Christiansen and William N. Eskridge junior show in a recent study in the Texas Law Review. But Congress is not entitled to scale back on rights the Supreme Court says are protected by the constitution.

www.economist.com...

a reply to: yeahright

I've been helping the Wolfpack in their quest to repeal Citizens United.

Here's the deal though, Corporations ARE legal citizens. They have to be or else you couldn't sue them. Someone has to be named in the lawsuit. If we cannot sue corporations anymore than they will have ultimate power and become unstoppable.

The Amendment to the Constitution that is being pursued currently argues that Corporations don't have the same Rights as actual Voters, because they cannot vote. Namely being, that they cannot pour all of this money into politics to sway things their way all of the time.

If you google around you'll find the actual language.
I'll ask Michael if he'll send me a copy of the Tennessee resolution so you can see the exact language.
I think they are going to have meetings this summer over it, not sure on the latest developments.

a reply to: dfnj2015

We could make an Amendment to the Constitution banned abortion, that's the only other way to do it aside of the SCOTUS changing thier rulings.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
Here's the deal though, Corporations ARE legal citizens.

Not exactly. They can't vote. They can't be arrested or incarcerated. They can't be conscripted. They can't get married. There's a long-standing legal notion that there's such a thing as 'corporate personhood' but it always stopped short of bestowing the rights of human beings onto a corporation. That's a recent blasphemy.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
I think this is horrible.

Making it easier for Congress to pass EVEN MORE LAWS sounds insane.

Really?

The U.S. Congress is internationally known for being horribly ineffective because of all the compromises needed in order to secure the necessary majority.

A simple majority would make it a LOT easier to avoid compromises, intercongressional quid pro quos, and those ridiculous last minute amendments that has nothing whatsoever to do with the bill.

In my opinion supermajorities should be reserved for constitutional amendments.