Yesterday, the “Buffet Rule” failed in the senate with 51 votes. A measure supported by the majority of Americans and in fact, the majority of the United States Senate failed. And its not the first time. Last week, same story with oil subsidies. In fact, this has happened a lot. The constitution dictates that bills pass the senate by a majority vote. But by fillibustering everything, the GOP has effectively turned the senate into a body requiring 60 votes, not the constitutionally mandated 50. I’m not against the fillibuster, but using it every time is pretty clearly against the framer’s intent. So where’s the constitutional outrage over this? It seems like a much more fundamental principal than a spurious distinction between activity and inactivity.
-
Recent Posts
-
Archives
- March 2013 (8)
- February 2013 (19)
- January 2013 (39)
- December 2012 (29)
- November 2012 (16)
- October 2012 (35)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (52)
- July 2012 (38)
- June 2012 (34)
- May 2012 (53)
- April 2012 (32)
- March 2012 (29)
- February 2012 (39)
- January 2012 (51)
- December 2011 (16)
- abortion ann romney antonin scalia austerity ayn rand banks barack obama beer biofuels budget capital gains tax climate change congress constitution culture war culture wars debate debt defense deficit DOMA donald trump economy education election energy environment ethanol federal budget foreign policy gay marriage gay rights good government guns healthcare healthy eating housing inequality infrastructure Iran jobs libertarians media mitt romney NASA newt gingrich oil olympics opportunity paul ryan philadelphia public transportation rand paul regulation religion rick santorum ron paul rush limbaugh science SCOTUS sequestration SNAP star wars state of the union taxes tea party terrorism the stupid the west wing thomas jefferson transit unemployment violence war welfare
-
520 Chestnut 
Let me start out by saying I do not really like the fillibuster rule, but that’s different than me saying that I find it illegal. On the contrary, I take issue with your statement “the constitution dictates that bills pass senate by a majority vote”? I find no such language. The Constitution only mentions:
– each Senator shall have one Vote
-The Vice President … shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided
-in all cases [where a bill is vetoed and two thirds of each House shall agree] the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays
Super-majority voting is all over the Constitution. In fact, two thirds of the voting Senate is required to sign a treat. Ratification of the Constitution required nine of thirteen States. Two thirds of the Senate is required to convict an impeached President.
Majority voting is only implied by the Vice President’s vote, but I think that’s only because he’s the President of the Senate, and it would seem likey he should always get a vote unless it was spelled out that he should not.
An important principle is that each branch make its own rules. The Constitution does not spell out how bills make it to the floor (only in what House certain bills originate), or what number of yeas or nays are required (or even that yeas and nays are required at all most of the time). It does not indicated how many justices are on the Supreme Court. Furthermore, it doesn’t suggest how the Supreme Court may decide its cases.
Unless I read something incorrectly (and please correct me if I did), no, the Constitution does not dictate that bills pass the Senate by majority vote. You will get no Constitutional outrage out of me, simply a political criticism of the Senate. Overall though, I kind of prefer a Congress that has trouble passing legislation. We have too much of it.
The trouble is that it doesn’t work to moralize over this. We can say that the senate ought not to filibuster so much, but as long as they can, the Republicans will. Such problems need to be solved by changing the system.