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.
I should have explained the procedural problems in more detail.
The GOP has a stranglehold on the House of Representatives. It is impossible to pass any legislation without their votes.
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.
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%.
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.)
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?
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?
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.
From HuffPo:
Oh, no! “all-out partisan battling”! Whatever shall we do?
Clutch our pearls, I guess.
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.
I’d be curious to see what sort of partisan battling the republicans can bring that they already haven’t brought.
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.
Jeezus Fuckin H Christ. Havn’t we had enough threads disproving these urban legends?
Read Rule 5
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.
[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]
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.
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: 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.
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.
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
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.
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?
No, we haven’t. Why don’t you link to one.
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
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.
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?
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.)
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.)