This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Is a routine supermajority requirement constitutional?

#11LuigisBroPosted 4/18/2013 7:53:59 AM
the 60 vote is basically nothing more than a tool to keep these people in office cause it prevents them from having to take tough votes, we need term limits or lazy voters to start getting off their asses and hold these people accountable
---
2013 megatons - 3DS redesign with no 3D, WiiU flops, DS player for WiiU, no new PS or Xbox, MH4 flops
#12dirtyarmenianPosted 4/18/2013 7:54:26 AM
CountPopeula posted...
It's constitutional in that the Senate has the power to make its own rules. But the filibuster isn't in the constitution.

this
---
"...and Jesus went up to the mountain and said, 'The poor? F*** them, get a job!!!"
- Conservatroll New Testament
#13Evil Genius 9Posted 4/18/2013 10:13:15 AM
I've thought about whether rules of procedure even fit into the constitutional/unconstitutional paradigm. It's not a law. Is it even really an "exercise of power" if it only applies to that chamber? In the House, the Speaker wields enormous power -- they alone can set the agenda and decide which bills actually get voted on.

From: JIC X | #004
If I remember correctly, there was a time when cloture votes didn't exist at all, meaning that a single Senator could, in theory, stop the Senate's business entirely and indefinitely.


There is still something like that -- basically any senator can put a "hold" on any bill, preventing it from being voted on. They don't even have to give a reason, and they can do it anonymously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_hold

Yeah, our system is f***ed up.

---
---
#14Barenziah Boy ToyPosted 4/18/2013 10:24:38 AM
60 votes are needed to end discussion, only 51 are needed to pass a law
Can't pass a law until there's vote to end the discussion for the proposed law. /conservaderp
.
---
You don't need a treaty to have free trade. M Rothbard
{Self-Hating Token Asian of the Ivory Tower's Zionist Elite}
#15Barenziah Boy ToyPosted 4/18/2013 10:28:01 AM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#16Barenziah Boy ToyPosted 4/18/2013 10:28:11 AM
But is a routine 60-vote requirement a permissible exercise of that power? If so, why not 70? Why not 100?
Yes, it's Constitutionally permissible. The Founders figured that the voting public would replace their Senator if any of them abused such a power
.
---
You don't need a treaty to have free trade. M Rothbard
{Self-Hating Token Asian of the Ivory Tower's Zionist Elite}