DAP Forums > DREAM Act > The News Room

End of the filibuster?

#1
01-02-2011, 02:05 PM
Junior Member
Joined in Oct 2010
21 posts
dell
0 AP
will be a double edge sword

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/pol...ter.cnn?hpt=C2
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#2
01-02-2011, 02:20 PM
BANNED
Joined in Aug 2010
970 posts
MiGSTeR
0 AP
I just heard something regarding this on ABC 7's with kristie Amanpour this morning and they mentioned that they need 67 votes for this to be changed. If not, then the filibuster reform will be "filibustered".
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#3
01-02-2011, 03:41 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Dec 2010
260 posts
tlr91
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiGSTeR View Post
I just heard something regarding this on ABC 7's with kristie Amanpour this morning and they mentioned that they need 67 votes for this to be changed. If not, then the filibuster reform will be "filibustered".
67 votes are not neccesarily needed. If the democrats ask biden the vice president for a simple majority vote and he agrees then only 51 votes will be needed. The main thing is that biden has to agree on a simple majority vote. Democrats would not even try if 67 votes were mandatory.
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#4
01-02-2011, 04:01 PM
BANNED
From Los Angeles NOT Elle-Ayy
Joined in Nov 2010
851 posts
Thecure
0 AP
biden? ask? ugggh! I smell political drama again....
I would insert a ridiculously offensive .jpg but i'd be pics'tur baiting.... ughh.
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#5
01-02-2011, 04:02 PM
Senior Member
From Dallas, TX
Joined in Oct 2010
1,152 posts
cooltalker's Avatar
cooltalker
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlr91 View Post
67 votes are not neccesarily needed. If the democrats ask biden the vice president for a simple majority vote and he agrees then only 51 votes will be needed. The main thing is that biden has to agree on a simple majority vote. Democrats would not even try if 67 votes were mandatory.
Can you link a source stating that the president of the senate can get senate rules changed by a simple majority?
Last edited by cooltalker; 01-02-2011 at 05:16 PM..
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#6
01-02-2011, 04:25 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Dec 2010
260 posts
tlr91
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooltalker View Post
Can you link source stating that the president of the senate can get senate rules changed by a simple majority?
I read it in a article this morning online i dont remeber which tho. Try looking for it but im 100% positive what i said is accurate.
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#7
01-02-2011, 04:32 PM
BANNED
Joined in Jul 2010
569 posts
Immigrant
0 AP
There is no point in filibuster reform this year since the Congress will be in gridlock with nothing getting done.

Better try this in 2012, when people expect Democrats to retake the Congress and Obama defeats Sarah Palin.
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#8
01-02-2011, 04:38 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Dec 2010
260 posts
tlr91
0 AP
i found the link here it is below :

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ter-reform.php
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#9
01-02-2011, 05:18 PM
Senior Member
From Dallas, TX
Joined in Oct 2010
1,152 posts
cooltalker's Avatar
cooltalker
0 AP
Do you believe Biden will help the filibuster reform? Either way, the Republicans have control of the House, so everything will be gridlocked.

Anyways, I want to share my view on the filibuster. I believe the filibuster is unconstitutional. The constitution clearly states that we need a simple majority, not a super-majority, in the senate to pass a bill.

Source: http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20...nal-filibuster

Quote:
First, the Constitution explicitly requires supermajorities only in a few special cases: ratifying treaties and constitutional amendments, overriding presidential vetoes, expelling members and for impeachments. With so many lawyers among them, the founders knew and operated under the maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” — the express mention of one thing excludes all others. But one need not leave it at a maxim. In the Federalist Papers, every time Alexander Hamilton or John Jay defends a particular supermajority rule, he does so at length and with an obvious sense of guilt over his departure from majority rule.

Second, Article I, Section 3, expressly says that the vice president as the presiding officer of the Senate should cast the deciding vote when senators are “equally divided.” The procedural filibuster does an end run around this constitutional requirement....

Third, Article I pointedly mandates at least one rule of proceeding, namely, that a majority of senators (and House members, for that matter) will constitute a quorum....It would be illogical for the Constitution to preclude a supermajority rule with respect to a quorum while allowing it on an ad hoc and more convenient basis any time a minority wanted to block a vote. Yet that is essentially what Senate Rule 22 achieves on any bill that used to require a majority vote.
Last edited by cooltalker; 01-02-2011 at 05:22 PM..
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#10
01-02-2011, 05:27 PM
Senior Member
From Connecticut
Joined in Mar 2009
8,670 posts
2Face's Avatar
2Face
0 AP
How will the filibuster end exactly? Does this mean they'll need just simple majority to pass bills?
Post your reply or quote more messages.


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Contact Us - DREAM Act Portal - Archive - Top
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.