Comments on: Health care victory a narrow, partisan win http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/20171 The oldest political news site on the Internet Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:29:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: John Farley http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/20171/comment-page-1#comment-55090 John Farley Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-55090 The article says that the Democrats need 60 votes in the Senate. They really don't, they only need 50 votes (with the Vice-President breaking a tie). Here's why: the "60-votes rule" to break a filibuster is not in the Constitution. It's only a Senate rule, and can be changed by a simple majority vote (50+VP). A few years ago, when the Republicans had a majority in the Senate, they threatened to do just this. It was referred to as "the nuclear option." The Dems do NOT need 60 votes. The article says that the Democrats need 60 votes in the Senate. They really don’t, they only need 50 votes (with the Vice-President breaking a tie).

Here’s why:
the “60-votes rule” to break a filibuster is not in the Constitution. It’s only a Senate rule, and can be changed by a simple majority vote (50+VP).

A few years ago, when the Republicans had a majority in the Senate, they threatened to do just this. It was referred to as “the nuclear option.”

The Dems do NOT need 60 votes.

]]> By: Kent.Shaw http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/20171/comment-page-1#comment-55095 Kent.Shaw Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-55095 You are correct, John. Senate rules do not carry the weight of law. They are nothing more than a "gentleman's agreement". A 2/3 majority is required for amendments to the constitution. The 60 vote rule is so totally bogus and unconstitutional. I wonder what will happen if the bill passes in the senate with less than 60. This is a bad bill anyway and deserves to be shot down. Forcing people to purchase insurance is fascist. Kent Shaw You are correct, John. Senate rules do not carry the weight of law. They are nothing more than a “gentleman’s agreement”. A 2/3 majority is required for amendments to the constitution. The 60 vote rule is so totally bogus and unconstitutional. I wonder what will happen if the bill passes in the senate with less than 60. This is a bad bill anyway and deserves to be shot down. Forcing people to purchase insurance is fascist.

Kent Shaw

]]> By: almandine http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/20171/comment-page-1#comment-55096 almandine Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-55096 why would the 60-vote rule be unconstitutional? why would the 60-vote rule be unconstitutional?

]]> By: Kent.Shaw http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/20171/comment-page-1#comment-55097 Kent.Shaw Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-55097 Because the constitution specifies a 2/3 majority for amendments but only a 51% majority for other legislation, or in case of a tie the vice president casts the deciding 101st vote. The 60% rule is a fairly recent addition to the Senate rules. This figure is not law. It is a custom, not a law. Kent Shaw Because the constitution specifies a 2/3 majority for amendments but only a 51% majority for other legislation, or in case of a tie the vice president casts the deciding 101st vote. The 60% rule is a fairly recent addition to the Senate rules. This figure is not law. It is a custom, not a law.

Kent Shaw

]]> By: Warren http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/20171/comment-page-1#comment-55099 Warren Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-55099 Just because something does not appear in the Constitution does not make it 'unconstitutional'. Just look around you at the tens of thousands of pages of federal law plus hundreds of thousands of pages of federal agency rules and regulations that carry the weight of law in court. I dare say the Constitution mentions nearly none of it. The 60% rule is a rule of parliamentary procedure in the Senate. It's just how they agree to do business. What nobody wants to do is set the precedent of making rules changes just in order to pass individual pieces of legislation. If you think our legislators are unruly now, you don't want to see what would come of setting such a precedent. —W— Just because something does not appear in the Constitution does not make it ‘unconstitutional’. Just look around you at the tens of thousands of pages of federal law plus hundreds of thousands of pages of federal agency rules and regulations that carry the weight of law in court. I dare say the Constitution mentions nearly none of it.

The 60% rule is a rule of parliamentary procedure in the Senate. It’s just how they agree to do business. What nobody wants to do is set the precedent of making rules changes just in order to pass individual pieces of legislation. If you think our legislators are unruly now, you don’t want to see what would come of setting such a precedent.

—W—

]]> By: almandine http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/20171/comment-page-1#comment-55100 almandine Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-55100 The 60 vote rule refers to the number of votes that is necessary to invoke cloture, i.e., break a filibuster. There's a pretty good discussion of "cloture" in Wiki. In fact, it says there that changing a procedural Senate rule requires a 2/3 majority and not just 60 votes. I wonder how that squares with the 50+ majority suggested above. The 60 vote rule refers to the number of votes that is necessary to invoke cloture, i.e., break a filibuster. There’s a pretty good discussion of “cloture” in Wiki.

In fact, it says there that changing a procedural Senate rule requires a 2/3 majority and not just 60 votes. I wonder how that squares with the 50+ majority suggested above.

]]> By: Kent.Shaw http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/20171/comment-page-1#comment-55106 Kent.Shaw Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-55106 I stand corrected. Thank you for straightening me out. Kent Shaw I stand corrected. Thank you for straightening me out.

Kent Shaw

]]>