| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| The White House Makes a Prediction | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 14 2010, 11:17 AM (384 Views) | |
| JBryan | Mar 15 2010, 04:22 AM Post #26 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
The Constitution does not specify any number of votes to pass legislation. It is very specific about some things (veto overrides, Costitutional amendments, etc.) but for all else it is a matter of what the rules written by each body specifies. So far, everything that has happened has been within the established rules. What the House is contemplating now clearly is not. That opens the process up for abuse by any party finding itself in the majority. There does not have to be a vote at all under what is currently being considered. Now you might think the filibuster has run its course and you may be right (although I think turning the Senate into a body that can pass legislation in the same way as the House is wrong) but it is still within the current rules. There is a procedure for changing those rules but if the rules are simply circumvented by whoever has the power to do so then there are no rules at all and all bets are off. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Mar 15 2010, 07:18 AM Post #27 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
That is arguable.
It could be argued that the filibuster rule prevents the doing of business, and therefore that forty-one members are preventing the quorum from doing business. On balance, that's probably not the stronger argument, but, given the lack of clarity on the required vote, it's not facially absurd. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Mar 15 2010, 07:25 AM Post #28 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Clearly, that was meant to prevent a few legislators getting together and enacting laws without the consent or knowledge of the rest of the body. The filibuster doesn't seem to fit that. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2








11:12 AM Jul 11