# Harry Reid: Filibuster Reform Will Be Pursued In The Next Congress **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 9, 2012, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513 "2012-11-09T19:46:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2012, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/41 "2012-11-12T09:11:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’d support that…knowing that the GOP will have the majority again one of these days and the Democrats will have to then live with this. > > The prevailing mood here appears to hint, without saying outright, that the best rule would be that Democrats in the minority should be able to halt legislation because their ideas are good, and Democrats in the majority should likewise be able to move forward generally unimpeded with legislation for the same reason. I’m sure that some poster somewhere has said that, but no one has said it in this thread. Why don’t you take your strawman somewhere else? The filibuster is broken. It lets the minority party have control that it shouldn’t have. We can’t help it that the Republicans were the first to abuse it by blocking things just because Democrats like them, or to try to run Obama out of office. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2012, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/42 "2012-11-12T09:21:25Z")
> [@kjckjc](#): > > And what I meant by my second question was if the Bush tax cuts affect everyone, why would you sunset them, raising the taxes on everyone, then try to restore almost all of them again and blame the people who already gave you the tax break in the first place for not reinstating the break (if that is what they choose to do). If you want to eliminate tax breaks for the richest 2%, then eliminate them. Don’t take away tax breaks for the middle class they already have and then point the finger at the GOP if they don’t restore them fast enough. I should have explained the procedural problems in more detail. 1. The GOP has a stranglehold on the House of Representatives. It is impossible to pass any legislation without their votes. 2. The Bush tax cuts are temporary. In the absence of legislation, they will expire on 31 December. Only cooperation from two parties could restore these cuts, since each Party has one House. 3. Therefore, the Democrats should do the only thing they can do. Let all tax cuts expire automatically, then vote to restore the cuts on all but the richest 2%. 4. The GOP has voted against this before, and will presumably vote against it again. They only care about the 2%. (Enough of the 98% are stupid enough to vote Republican regardless.) 5. Now, the Democrats appear on David Letterman, etc., using blackboards and small words and show videos of the GOP voting against tax cuts on the 98%. This _might_ wake America up. Is this clearer? ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2012, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/43 "2012-11-12T13:00:14Z")
Put me in the “This is why we can’t have nice things” camp. The filibuster was fine as a rarely-used symbolic gesture. But now it has become a regularly-used means of obstructionism. Republicans don’t fight fair, and I would bet dollars to donuts that, having turned the filibuster into a standard weapon, the first time they gain control of the Senate they will change the rules to prevent the Democrats from doing the same. Why not beat them to the punch for once? ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2012, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/44 "2012-11-12T13:07:51Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Because the Dems are just part of the dog and pony show in Washington. Their JOB is to lose. The filibuster is an excellent screen to hide behind. The surprising part is that Reed is talking about ending filibusters at all. But reading some of the other comments, perhaps it’s because that doing so will not prevent Republicans from logjamming the Senate. Well, I don’t buy that for a minute. It was obvious to me that Obama believed the Republicans would play nice long after they had shown that they had no intention of doing so. I suspect Reid, et al, still playing nice, feared that the Republicans would eventually retaliate if they changed the filibuster rules, whereas in fact the Republicans will retaliate no matter what. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2012, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/45 "2012-11-12T13:25:18Z")
From [HuffPo](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/filibuster-reform-democrats-republicans_n_2113285.html): > [@](#): > > Democrats say that vote to change the rules would require a simple majority of senators, and they argue that the Constitution lets Senate majorities write new rules for the chamber. That, in effect, would mean Democrats could change the rules over GOP opposition, assuming 51 Democrats go along. > > Republicans say they filibuster legislation because Reid blocks them from offering amendments. They also note that Senate rules require that the body’s procedures can be changed only by a two-thirds majority. > > Changing Senate rules by simple majority, rather than a two-thirds vote, is rarely done and referred to as “the nuclear option” because it is considered an extreme move that can trigger all-out partisan battling. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2012, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/46 "2012-11-12T13:42:00Z")
Oh, no! “all-out partisan battling”! Whatever shall we do? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2012, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/47 "2012-11-12T13:51:29Z")
Clutch our pearls, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![kjckjc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e36b37/32.png) [@kjckjc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kjckjc)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2012, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/48 "2012-11-12T15:02:28Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I should have explained the procedural problems in more detail. > > 1. The GOP has a stranglehold on the House of Representatives. It is impossible to pass any legislation without their votes. > > 2. The Bush tax cuts are temporary. In the absence of legislation, they will expire on 31 December. Only cooperation from two parties could restore these cuts, since each Party has one House. > > 3. Therefore, the Democrats should do the only thing they can do. Let all tax cuts expire automatically, then vote to restore the cuts on all but the richest 2%. > > 4. The GOP has voted against this before, and will presumably vote against it again. They only care about the 2%. (Enough of the 98% are stupid enough to vote Republican regardless.) > > 5. Now, the Democrats appear on David Letterman, etc., using blackboards and small words and show videos of the GOP voting against tax cuts on the 98%. This _might_ wake America up. > > Is this clearer? Actually, it is much clearer, thank you. (I meant what I said about it being an honest question.) I was under the wrong impression that it was set to expire automatically only if nothing was done. That, if desired, the Senate and House could have a motion to extend the tax cuts for an additional 10 years. I assume if that were possible the GOP would vote to extend, and the Dems would vote to not extend so as to try to eliminate the top 2%. So in that case it would be the Dems voting to allow the cuts to expire and by extension, allow taxes to increase. If I understand you, you are saying they can’t extend the cuts at all but would have to reintroduce them in a separate bill and try to get it passed. In which case I believe you would be right about the GOP blocking passage. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2012, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/49 "2012-11-12T15:35:00Z")
I’d be curious to see what sort of partisan battling the republicans can bring that they already haven’t brought. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2012, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/50 "2012-11-12T18:21:32Z")
> [@kjckjc](#): > > If I understand you, you are saying they can’t extend the cuts at all but would have to reintroduce them in a separate bill … No. They can vote in December to extend the cuts, and in fact have done this before. Either way, the effect is similar: Democrats want to help the 98%, GOP the 2%. Letting the cuts expire in December is a way to give psychological clarity. In January a tax-cut bill will be introduced to benefit 98% of Americans; the GOP will have to show its true colors. ETA: If this sounds like Demos playing “hardball” … Yes, that’s the point. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2012, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/51 "2012-11-12T19:07:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Rules changes are not subject to the filibuster. They get an up or down vote. > [@Jas09](#): > > Senate rules, at the start of each session, are voted by simple majority and cannot be filibustered. At least that’s how I understand it. Jeezus Fuckin H Christ. Havn’t we had enough threads disproving these urban legends? Read Rule 5 > [@](#): > > SUSPENSION AND AMENDMENT OF THE RULES > > 1. No motion to suspend, modify, or amend any rule, or any part thereof, shall be in order, except on one day’s notice in writing, specifying precisely the rule or part proposed to be suspended, modified, or amended, and the purpose thereof. Any rule may be suspended without notice by the unanimous consent of the Senate, except as otherwise provided by the rules. > > 2. The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules. So to yet again repeat. The Senate Rules are in effect at the moment each session of the Senate opens. The adoption of the rules are simply pro forma. Since a rules change is a motion, there are no differences in adoption except that there must be one day’s notice in writing viz. the filibuster rule still applies. Does that answer your question El Zagna? The reason is John Mace is completely wrong. At best, he is discussiong the nuclear option which is NOT about rule changes but rather the motion Appeal. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/52 "2012-11-13T08:19:49Z")
[QUOTE=U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 5] … Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. … [/QUOTE] Many (or most) interpret this to mean that each House of the 113th Congress may determine its own Rules (by simple majority except to expel a Member) if it chooses to do so. Yes, there is a contrary view, but I’d be comfortable with the U.S. Supreme Court going on record to settle _Mitch McConnell v. President of the Senate_.) [QUOTE=Wikipedia] In their 1995 Open Letter to Congressman Gingrich, Bruce Ackerman and 16 other well-known law professors asserted that rules of procedure in Congress that require more than a simple majority of those voting to pass legislation are unconstitutional, in part basing their conclusion on the holding of _Ballin v. United States_. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/53 "2012-11-13T13:41:46Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Many (or most) interpret this to mean that each House of the 113th Congress may determine its own Rules (by simple majority except to expel a Member) if it chooses to do so. And they would be wrong. The Constitution does not say that each SESSION gets to determine its own rules, but that each House does. The Senate as a House of Congress has decided that the rules continue from session to session. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/54 "2012-11-14T01:43:06Z")
Saint Cad: Sincere thanks for weighing in on this matter. FWIW, your view conflicts with that of some Democrats. [AP article quoted by Jamelle Bouie of WAPO](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/return-of-the-nuclear-option/2012/11/12/6cdb80ae-2cd7-11e2-89d4-040c9330702a_blog.html): Democrats say that vote to change the rules would require a simple majority of senators, and they argue that the Constitution lets Senate majorities write new rules for the chamber. That, in effect, would mean Democrats could change the rules over GOP opposition, assuming 51 Democrats go along. There’s also chatter about that being a “Nuclear Option” though as well as hopes that [some Republicans might go along with the idea](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-07/could-this-be-end-of-evil-filibuster-.html). Frankly, I see mixed evidence: I would have to read the entire Senate Rules to see whether there are any conflicts. Or maybe a Slate-style Explainer. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/55 "2012-11-14T04:27:45Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Saint Cad: Sincere thanks for weighing in on this matter. FWIW, your view conflicts with that of some Democrats. [AP article quoted by Jamelle Bouie of WAPO](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/return-of-the-nuclear-option/2012/11/12/6cdb80ae-2cd7-11e2-89d4-040c9330702a_blog.html): Democrats say that vote to change the rules would require a simple majority of senators, and they argue that the Constitution lets Senate majorities write new rules for the chamber. That, in effect, would mean Democrats could change the rules over GOP opposition, assuming 51 Democrats go along. There’s also chatter about that being a “Nuclear Option” though as well as hopes that [some Republicans might go along with the idea](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-07/could-this-be-end-of-evil-filibuster-.html). > > Frankly, I see mixed evidence: I would have to read the entire Senate Rules to see whether there are any conflicts. Or maybe a Slate-style Explainer. How does that conflict with anything I said? Of course a majority can change the rules. A rules change is a main motion that carries with a majority vote and _United States v. Ballin_ would agree with that. All I said was that there never is a time the filibuster rule is not in effect and that for that particular motion it must be in writing one day in advance. Incidently _Ballen_ would imply that the nuclear option is perfectly legal as well. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/56 "2012-11-14T05:37:19Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Of course a majority can change the rules. According to the AP article, rules passed under “Regular Order” require 2/3 majority to pass and that “Changing Senate rules by simple majority, rather than a two-thirds vote, is rarely done and referred to as “the nuclear option” because it is considered an extreme move that can trigger all-out partisan battling.” [http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/brewing-senate-fight-over-curbing-filibusters-could-threaten-postelection-co-operation/2012/11/11/2056f428-2bfd-11e2-b631-2aad9d9c73ac\_print.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/brewing-senate-fight-over-curbing-filibusters-could-threaten-postelection-co-operation/2012/11/11/2056f428-2bfd-11e2-b631-2aad9d9c73ac_print.html) If I understand your correctly, you’re saying that any majority vote to change the rules could be filibustered. Or am I mistaken? As I said, I don’t have a good grasp on these matters. For example I don’t know what “Motion Appeal” refers to 5 posts up. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/57 "2012-11-14T05:55:28Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > And they would be wrong. The Constitution does not say that each SESSION gets to determine its own rules, but that each House does. IANAL, but simple common-sense tells me that the 112th Congress should not be able to dictate the rules of the 113th Congress. I know that people who are constitutional lawyers have differing opinions on the matter. Do you have a cite that your interpretation is the generally accepted one? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/58 "2012-11-14T13:15:05Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Jeezus Fuckin H Christ. Havn’t we had enough threads disproving these urban legends? No, we haven’t. Why don’t you link to one. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/59 "2012-11-14T15:47:28Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > According to the AP article, rules passed under “Regular Order” require 2/3 majority to pass and that “Changing Senate rules by simple majority, rather than a two-thirds vote, is rarely done and referred to as “the nuclear option” because it is considered an extreme move that can trigger all-out partisan battling.” [http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/brewing-senate-fight-over-curbing-filibusters-could-threaten-postelection-co-operation/2012/11/11/2056f428-2bfd-11e2-b631-2aad9d9c73ac\_print.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/brewing-senate-fight-over-curbing-filibusters-could-threaten-postelection-co-operation/2012/11/11/2056f428-2bfd-11e2-b631-2aad9d9c73ac_print.html) > > If I understand your correctly, you’re saying that any majority vote to change the rules could be filibustered. Or am I mistaken? As I said, I don’t have a good grasp on these matters. For example I don’t know what “Motion Appeal” refers to 5 posts up. I read that article and in it the Republicans claim that rules changes need 2/3 majority. However, neither Rule V or Rule XV say that. The 2/3 is in reference to Rule XXII. A normal cloture vote needs 60 votes however a cloture vote on a rules change needs 2/3 of those present. Here is the actual section of Rule XXII > [@](#): > > “Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?” And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn – except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting – then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of. This clearly answers your question that rule changes can be filibustered. Assuming no filibuster or a cloture vote that passes, rules changes are passed with a simple majority. Let’s talk about this nuclear option because we saw a test of it during the Obamacare debate. But first, SCOTUS ruled in _United States v. Ballin_ (1892) that a majority of those present can approve the business of the House or Senate. If you are familiar with Robert’s Rules it may sound strange as there are some votes requiring 2/3 majority\* but suffice to say in the Senate it only takes a majority to pass a motion. During the Obamacare debate, a Senator asked for a amendment to be read in its entirty as a delaying tactic. The Senator withdrew the amendment and so Reid said it did not have to be read which is a violation of Senate Rules and general parliamentary law. Upon a Point of Order (a motion to bring to the Chair’s attention that the rules were violated) and in opposition to the Parliamentarian’s opinion, Reid ruled that the amendment did not have to be read. The ruling was Appealed (brought to a vote of the body) and of course the Democrat majority upheld Reid’s ruling. Under _Ballin_, this was perfectly legal. - A close reading of Robert’s Rules indicates that in actuality a majority of those attending a called meeting where it is indicated that there will be rules changes. Since legislatures are different in that attendance is the primary job of the legislator and there are Quorum Calls and rules changes are always known in advance, the 2/3 majority needed at a regular meeting doesn’t make sense. Mason’s Manual also support the simple majority for rules changes. > [@septimus](#): > > IANAL, but simple common-sense tells me that the 112th Congress should not be able to dictate the rules of the 113th Congress. > > I know that people who are constitutional lawyers have differing opinions on the matter. Do you have a cite that your interpretation is the generally accepted one? Why not? It happens all of the time. Let’s say the moderators start a Board to look at changes to the SD. Members of the Board are elected annually. The first thing they are going to do is draw up Bylaws and their Rules of Order (probably Robert’s). So next year there is an election and guess what - those same rules are still in effect. Does that mean that the 2014 SD Board can’t change them? Of course not but deliberative bodies do not start their rules over from scratch every session. So basically the 113th Congress is not a different body than the 112th Congress, just a new session with some different members. My cite for the Senate is Rule V which explicitly states that the rules carry over from one session to the next. And why do you think a session can’t change the rules if they want? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/60 "2012-11-14T20:16:12Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > My cite for the Senate is Rule V which explicitly states that the rules carry over from one session to the next. Your cite for the claim that a House can impose a Rule on its future sessions is … such a Rule. Do you see the circularity? (I don’t claim such Rules are forbidden, merely that they must be rescindable.) > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > And why do you think a session can’t change the rules if they want? I’m afraid I’m not sure what we’re arguing. I claim that Rules can be forcibly passed _by simple majority_. This necessarily means that it must be possible to bypass any filibuster rule imposed _from a previous session_. If it were true that a House could impose non-rescindable(\*) rules on its future instances, what’s to stop the Senate, first time one Party has 60 votes, from imposing a Rule that, for example, on cloture motions votes are counted only from Senators who are “Daughters or Sons of the American Revolution”? (\* - and yes, note that rules allowing filibusters can be effectively non-rescindable.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513.md?page=4)