+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Senate Rule change in Harry Reid's amendment?

  1. #1
    LMA
    LMA is offline
    Regular
    Join Date
    03 Sep 07
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    129
    Country: United States

    Senate Rule change in Harry Reid's amendment?

    Section 3403 section C has been getting quite a bit of interenet airplay the last day or so..

    Senator DeMint inquiring about this...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnmvVo_itT0

    you can read aobut it here...
    http://volokh.com/2009/12/22/future-...-out-of-order/


    Seems to me if it's a rule change than it needs 2/3 votes and if it's not a rule change then the language wouldn't be binding . What do you all think?

  2. #2
    Patron RadioPatrol's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Jan 08
    Location
    Peoples Republic of Maryland
    Posts
    175
    Country: United States
    I think a Person / Persons are trying to do an end run Around the Constitution, and against the other side to keep them from killing UHC when they resume a Majority in Congress but not the 60 votes needed to change the Rules again ...
    Μολὼν λαβέ
    Hakkaa Päälle

  3. #3
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    07 Oct 08
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    4,941
    Country: United States
    Actually we have tyranny by the minority now. The filibuster is used on damn near everything now a days and eventually it will be nuked. Neither party can really govern even with big majorities. Both sides are more ccerned with stifling the oppostion than us.

  4. #4
    Military Professional Prof's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Oct 09
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    847
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub View Post
    Actually we have tyranny by the minority now. The filibuster is used on damn near everything now a days and eventually it will be nuked. Neither party can really govern even with big majorities. Both sides are more ccerned with stifling the oppostion than us.
    Rooseveltrepub:

    Good. Anything that stands in the way of easy passage of legislation.

    Prof

  5. #5
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Shek's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Feb 05
    Location
    Krblachistan
    Posts
    11,426
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub View Post
    Actually we have tyranny by the minority now. The filibuster is used on damn near everything now a days and eventually it will be nuked. Neither party can really govern even with big majorities. Both sides are more ccerned with stifling the oppostion than us.
    The filibuster has been around since before the Civil War, at least. It's a valuable tool and should never go away. Majority rule by a single party results in lots of legislation that costs lots of money. Obstructionism has it advantages - we may have trouble pushing forward on legislation that makes sense sometimes, but it also prevents us from getting things too wrong, which is often just as beneficial.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

  6. #6
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    07 Oct 08
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    4,941
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Shek View Post
    The filibuster has been around since before the Civil War, at least. It's a valuable tool and should never go away. Majority rule by a single party results in lots of legislation that costs lots of money. Obstructionism has it advantages - we may have trouble pushing forward on legislation that makes sense sometimes, but it also prevents us from getting things too wrong, which is often just as beneficial.
    It's probably been used more in the last 15 years than in the previous 150. It becomes dysfunctional when both parties goal is to derail the opposition at all costs. It isn't about bad legislation when a party is filibustering a defense appropriations bill in an effort to stymie the majorities ability to govern. I am not for eliminating it but it's frequency of use is becoming a problem. I blame both sides and the hyper partisanship. The Liberals are treasonous and the Republicans Nazis crowds do everyone else a disservice

  7. #7
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    07 Oct 08
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    4,941
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof View Post
    Rooseveltrepub:

    Good. Anything that stands in the way of easy passage of legislation.

    Prof
    I strongly disagree. Look at it's history. IMO what we get is really poor legislation from both sides rife with special considerations to garner votes rather than sound legislation.

  8. #8
    Military Professional maximusslade's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 08
    Location
    New England, USA
    Posts
    798
    Country: United States
    Honestly, if you look at history, what is happening is that Congress is slowly making itself completely unable to govern. It will progress to the point where some large, disenfranchised segment of the population says, "to hell with this crap and to hell with the contstitution" and the fed up persons push for a much, much, much stronger executive. Sound familiar?
    Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...

  9. #9
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Shek's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Feb 05
    Location
    Krblachistan
    Posts
    11,426
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub View Post
    It's probably been used more in the last 15 years than in the previous 150. It becomes dysfunctional when both parties goal is to derail the opposition at all costs. It isn't about bad legislation when a party is filibustering a defense appropriations bill in an effort to stymie the majorities ability to govern. I am not for eliminating it but it's frequency of use is becoming a problem. I blame both sides and the hyper partisanship. The Liberals are treasonous and the Republicans Nazis crowds do everyone else a disservice
    Statistics on Cloture Motions - 93rd-110th Congresses - Learning About Filibuster

    It has become more frequent, but it's clearly not experiencing exponential growth. However, I think you'd have to look at the growth of the professional and personal staffs (allowing for more legislation to be crafted) as well as the change in cloture rules that have made it easier to filibuster.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

  10. #10
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    07 Oct 08
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    4,941
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Shek View Post
    Statistics on Cloture Motions - 93rd-110th Congresses - Learning About Filibuster

    It has become more frequent, but it's clearly not experiencing exponential growth. However, I think you'd have to look at the growth of the professional and personal staffs (allowing for more legislation to be crafted) as well as the change in cloture rules that have made it easier to filibuster.
    U.S. Senate: Reference Home > It exploded at the time of Watergate.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Chinese Westernization/Modernization
    By Inst in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 18 Jul 08,, 16:20
  2. Moral Authority?
    By kmchugh in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 06 Oct 05,, 06:28
  3. It Is Time To Get Serious…
    By Ulian in forum International Politics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 27 Sep 04,, 17:57

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts