Senate Rule change in Harry Reid's amendment?

**LMA** · 23 Dec 09,, 15:14

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?

**RadioPatrol** · 26 Dec 09,, 04:57

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 ...

**Roosveltrepub** · 26 Dec 09,, 11:02

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.

**Prof** · 26 Dec 09,, 14:00

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

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

**Shek** · 26 Dec 09,, 14:43

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

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.

**Roosveltrepub** · 26 Dec 09,, 15:56

Originally Posted by Shek

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

**Roosveltrepub** · 26 Dec 09,, 15:57

Originally Posted by Prof

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.

**maximusslade** · 26 Dec 09,, 23:09

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?

**Shek** · 27 Dec 09,, 01:58

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

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.

**Roosveltrepub** · 27 Dec 09,, 10:19

Originally Posted by Shek

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.