Re: Scott Brown

[shirenomad]

For the record, I'm in favor of ending the filibuster. I was in favor of ending it when Republicans called "ending it" "the nuclear option" and the Democrats called it the end of civilization and the death of puppies. And I'm not going to be inconsistent now just because the shoe's on the other foot. It's a stupid system, too easy to abuse, and I don't think I care about the circumstances of removal so long as it's removed. Maybe out of good taste and common sense the Democrats could wait until it's no longer about the health care bill, but I'll take what I can get.

Just remember, no take backs the next time the Republicans are up 51-49 and refusing to compromise on PATRIOT Act III: This Time It's Personal.

Comments

[looniewolf.livejournal.com]

You want to end the filibuster? I'll tell you the Constitutional method of doing so. All you need is a majority in the Senate and a willing Vice President.

Vote for cloture. Have the majority party match the minority party's cloture vote precisely. The end result is a tie.

The Vice President then states ""The vote for cloture being a tie, the US Constitution takes precedence over any mere Senate procedural rule. I shall now cast the tie-breaking vote. I vote 'Yes' for cloture. The motion carries, and debate on the bill shall close 30 hours hence."

BANG! - the gavel comes down. A pregnant pause - and then howls of futile protest erupt from the minority side of the senate, as laughter and applause spill from the majority side.

[shirenomad]

Although that would be hilarious, I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. The Constitution just says the VP gets a vote in the case of a tie; it doesn't say anything about that vote being an instant win even though the result would be 51 for, 50 against. Definitely wouldn't work like that in the case of, say, overtaking a veto or convicting on impeachment, both of which require 2/3 vote, so it's unlikely that a vote that requires 60% would pass either.

[looniewolf.livejournal.com]

Yes, but in those cases there are clear Constitutional rules concerning the vote. What we have here is a Senatorial rule that is not written into the Constitution. It may end up in the Supreme Court, but I suspect the Supreme Court would look at the Senatorial rule and strike it down as unconstitutional as it strips away the power of the Vice President (because there are very few situations where the VP would have to cast a tiebreaking vote if a filibuster has to be overcome first).

In addition, the filibuster strips away power from the House of Representatives because any bill that goes into conference committee has to meet Senatorial demands or the filibuster can kill the bill. So the Senate becomes the primary law-making body, which is not what our Founding Fathers intended.

I suspect a conservative court that looks at the rule of constitutional law would find this is a breach of the balance of power between Legislative and Executive branches and strike it down.

Rob H.