The 60 Vote Rule In The Senate Under Attack

a reply to: dfnj2015

Uhhhh....it was Harry Reid that introduced the "Nuclear Option" . You did know this , right ? Guess not. He figured it would be easier to get the Dem's trash legislation through.
So , now it has snowballed into something much , much different'
And coming back to bite the Dems in the a**
Enjoy.

originally posted by: yeahright

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.

A "LEGAL CITIZEN" does not = "Human Being".

The Supreme Court and Legislators already agree that they are different degrees of citizenship.

But for all intents and purposes Corporations are Legal Persons otherwise you cannot possibly sue them. You can only sue Persons/Citizens.

Here's how the US Code defines it:

“Person” includes a natural person (including an individual Indian), a corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association, a trust, or an estate, or any other public or private entity, including a State or local government or an Indian tribe.

They are legal persons and MUST ALWAYS BE.
Otherwise I can rob the store and they cannot file charges.
Imagine how bad things would be if all corporations, partnerships, associations, trusts, estates, bla bla bla, had no rights at all???

Of course each entity has a different breadth of civil rights.

All entities share some rights, like Due Process. Everyone has that right always. Although what expectation of due process varies in all situations it is fundamentally an unalienable right.

But some rights may not apply to some entities, and in this situation the only thing at stake is the right to fund political campaigns. That's what the proposed Amendment to the Constitution is addressing specifically. It seeks to prohibit that and only that activity.

You will never convince lawyers to stop calling corporations "persons" or "citizens". That's insanity and makes no sense whatsoever. People who say this stuff simply are completely ignorant of the terminology employed or why such terminology must be used.

Corporations have rights that we have, just not as many. And they are subject to far heavier regulatory oversight. We both have a right to own property, to due process, to be free from unlawful search and seizure, to sue for damages in court and access to the courts, to legitimate taxation policies via representation, etc.

originally posted by: DupontDeux

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.

They are so "ineffective" that we have the largest body of law in not only the world, but in the entire history of the world ??

What is your criteria for the word "effective" anyways?

Congresses job is to pass bills into law (generally speaking), they have passed more law than any government ever.
I'd say they are the most effective legislative body in history - in that regard.

What you mean is probably "Congress is known as being illogical, corrupt, and shortsighted", which is absolutely true. But Americans overall are illogical, corrupt, and shortsighted. They are at their most fundamental level a reflection of the Spirit of this nation and of our ways.

If you (and others) believe they are not acceptable, what does that say about us as citizens who hold all the power at the end of the day? It says that we are ultimately illogical, corrupt, and shortsighted as citizens because we not only allow this farce to continue, but we promulgate and condone it as a whole.

By the way, can you articulate 5 instances where there was a bill that you believe absolutely NEEDED to be passed, yet was not passed because of the current organizational requirements Congress must abide by, and explain how that made life worse for everyone because not having that bill as law was absolutely detrimental (yet they had a majority) ???

I can definitely articulate 1000 examples of laws that were passed that are unnecessary, outrageous, and ended up hurting the citizenry in unacceptable ways. The courts simply cannot keep up with the barrage of the injustice and are ill equipped, corrupted, or simply incapable of handling the sheer volume of law they are expected to adjudicate.

And we haven't even begun to discuss the executive branch agencies and their masses of regulatory policies.

This thing is so freakin complicated and vast, there are so many aspects to it, that we could sit and discuss it for months and never even scratch the surface of how to "fix this system", it's that sophisticated and byzantine in it's workings. In fact, the word "byzantine" should be replaced with the word "American" because we are a far better example of "(of a system or situation) excessively complicated, typically involving a great deal of administrative detail." than the Byzantines ever were or could have hoped to be.

originally posted by: whywhynot
The Ds have been obstructing any movement that they can like spoiled brats. They are against anything that Trump is for. So it serves them right to get made irrelevant by dropping the 60 vote closure to 51 votes. Maybe we can start moving forward. There is a reason that Congress has carried such a low popularity with the voters. They squabble about everything and do nothing except take vacations.

If the R's don't pass legislation with positive results then the D's will no doubt get their chance. The D's passed Obamacare without a single R vote. I didn't get to keep my doctor, or my health plan and my cost doubled. The R's then were placed into power.

It's the gridlock that is hurting us.

To be fair...the GOP obstructed Obama at every turn. I like to see the 60 vote thing go away. Majority should be able to change and make law.

originally posted by: Xeven

originally posted by: whywhynot
The Ds have been obstructing any movement that they can like spoiled brats. They are against anything that Trump is for. So it serves them right to get made irrelevant by dropping the 60 vote closure to 51 votes. Maybe we can start moving forward. There is a reason that Congress has carried such a low popularity with the voters. They squabble about everything and do nothing except take vacations.

If the R's don't pass legislation with positive results then the D's will no doubt get their chance. The D's passed Obamacare without a single R vote. I didn't get to keep my doctor, or my health plan and my cost doubled. The R's then were placed into power.

It's the gridlock that is hurting us.

To be fair...the GOP obstructed Obama at every turn. I like to see the 60 vote thing go away. Majority should be able to change and make law.

Apparently if i heard correctly today the 60 vote is dead on this already as well. looks like its a 51 vote needed as well for the bill.

Yeah I agree...IT'S OVER..


www.youtube.com...