Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
Actually, the senate was supposed to do all that because it does not allocate it's seats proportionally, and as such it is a sort of protection for smaller states.
This whole thing about the "rule of 60" and the "spirit of the constitution" is a bit meaningless, given that cloture was established in 1917 and current 60 vote rules were established in 1975.
Add to that the fact that filibusters were never used this widely
and it's hard to argue for "tradition" or "spirit."
The fact is that the filibuster is a procedural move that has been used historically to block an up and down vote. The reconciliation process is also a procedural move that has also been historically used to get around a filibuster. There is no more nobility to one of these acts than the other. And as far as using a reconciliation to pass healthcare legislation, isn't healthcare legislation essentially a matter of budget? Especially this bill: raises taxes on some types of insurance, subsidize others, etc. |
You are absolutely correct.
However, it does say that a rule change requires 60 votes. Isn't this a "rule change" since the current rule is "must have 60 votes". So, aren't they still violating the current Senate rules by using 51 votes to proceed without first having 60 votes to change the cloture rule from 60 to 51?
---------- Post added at 03:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Not until some constituency elects you to be its representative, you don't.
|
So, let me get this straight: You have used an interpretation of the "general welfare" clause to justify every federal social program we have ever debated and now you are saying I don't have the right to interpret the Constitution during an internet argument? Um, okay.