Making the point that the Constitutional presumption was that the Senate would function by majority rule (the V.P. is the tie-breaker), and that the 60% super-majority Rule 22 requires to close debate frustrates majority rule, 27 Members of Congress (including Jerrold Nadler - Fordham Law graduate) have moved that the House call on the Senate to "adjust its rules".
Sen. Harkin has proposed a declining super majority: 1st vote 60 vote, 2 days later vote again, 58, vote, declining further in successive votes.
I suppose it all has a snowball's chance in hell, but there are some valuable public points to make:
* the Bush tax cuts - of huge consequence - avoided filibuster by using the budget reconciliation rule - which requires only a majority vote
* the filibuster used to be rare (mainly used to block civil right measures by southern Democrats) and now it is the norm, thanks to the Republican decision to pursue a strategy of obstruction rather than negotiation.
HR 1018
. Whereas the procedural filibuster rule of the Senate effectively removes the Vice President’s constitutional right to cast a vote when the Senate is equally divided;
Whereas the Senate’s filibuster rule, Rule 22, extends the power of individual Senators and the minority in the Senate beyond the power intended by the Constitution;
Whereas the Constitution does not contemplate in letter or spirit allowing a single member of Congress in either house, or the party in the minority in either house, to prevent votes from being taken on bills and amendments; and
Whereas the Senate’s filibuster rule prevents the majority from governing and, therefore, distorts the outcome of elections: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives requests the Senate to adjust its rules to reflect the intent of the framers of the Constitution by amending the Senate’s filibuster rule, Rule 22, to facilitate the consideration of bills and amendments.
No comments:
Post a Comment