You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #94: The Constitution authorizes the Vice President to break a "tie." [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-11-10 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #36
94. The Constitution authorizes the Vice President to break a "tie."
There are 100 senators. A "tie" exists when a vote is 50 to 50.

In my 1997 Random House dictionary, the 8th definition of "tie" is "to make the same core as; equal in a contest." I would argue that is the meaning of "tie" as used in the Constitution. Thus 50 is a tie and was intended by the Founding Fathers to be a majority.

The problem is the filibuster rule.

A filibuster is actually just the strategy of talking to prevent a vote.

The Senate rule requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. That is what needs to be changed.

The Supreme Court has ruled that it would take only 50 votes to change that rule.

In the United States Senate, the Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless 3/5ths of the Senate (60 out of 100 Senators "duly chosen and sworn")<15> brings debate to a close by invoking cloture. According to the Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could however be achieved by a simple majority:<16>

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

The Senate can vote to change the filibuster rule by a simple majority.

Whatever happened to the nuclear option threats of the Republicans when Democrats wanted to filibuster. Why aren't Democrats talking about nuclear options.

ome talking heads on the right are already suggesting that this is impossible; that its unconstitutional. But there's nothing in the Constitution about filibusters. And in spite of what some may say to the contrary, the Senate Rules can be changed without a 2/3 majority. This goes all the way back to the 1892 Supreme Court case of US v Balin, which held:

The constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. <...> The power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the house, and, within the limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/22/152218/323
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC