Saint_Cad:
Let’s start with the fact that nowhere in The Constitution does it say anything about how many votes are needed to pass legislation and that each House of Congress can make their own rules. All it says is that a majority is needed for a quorum. If you are thinking of the Ballin case, all it really says is that a quorum is sufficient for conducting business i.e. requiring a majority of the whole House to pass a bill is unconstitutional.
I was thinking that they specifically call out when a supermajority was necessary, and that the first senate had a 50 vote threshold. To my knowledge, none of the framers said, “Hey, that’s not what we said!”
Admittedly, it doesn’t say explicitly that 50 is what is required, but that’s been the rule for the entire existence of the country, and is even the rule now, except the ability to filibuster without effort has been added on top of it.
And while we are talking about majorities, in a House of 100, a majority is 51 not 50 and if it the vote splits 50-50, then the President of the Senate votes for the 51st vote.
Presumably the Veep would vote with his party.
Lobohan:
I was thinking that they specifically call out when a supermajority was necessary, and that the first senate had a 50 vote threshold. To my knowledge, none of the framers said, “Hey, that’s not what we said!”
Admittedly, it doesn’t say explicitly that 50 is what is required, but that’s been the rule for the entire existence of the country, and is even the rule now, except the ability to filibuster without effort has been added on top of it.
Presumably the Veep would vote with his party.
So back with the first Congress and there were 26 Senators, 50 votes were required? It’s a surprise anything was passed.
I’m also surprised that a bill could pass the Senate if the vote is 50-50*.
Or according to you 50-51 if the PotS votes against it.
Saint_Cad:
So back with the first Congress and there were 26 Senators, 50 votes were required? It’s a surprise anything was passed.
I’m also surprised that a bill could pass the Senate if the vote is 50-50*.
Are you being obtuse on purpose? Is that because you don’t have actual arguments that can intelligently persuade?
Perhaps I meant 50%. Derp .
Or according to you 50-51 if the PotS votes against it.
Oh you!
Then say 50% if that’s what you mean, especially in a thread with a focus on 50 votes . And it is not 50%, it is a majority. 50% voting for a bill means the bill does not pass.
Perhaps you should lighten up when someone ribs you for being unclear? Your post explicitly said “50 vote threshold.”
Your angry response is disproportionate. Back off.
[ /Moderating ]
Lobohan
April 29, 2013, 11:42pm
126
Perhaps I should.
I don’t see what I said as angry though. The Derp! was addressed at myself for getting it wrong.
