In 1995, these three senators voted to end all filibusters in the Senate....

[5stringJeff]

Definitely not.





I don't believe so. Can you provide documentation for any?




Nope.

Sorry... I misread your question. I thought you had asked if any body required only a simple majority. My bad.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

There is also a 2/3 Senate-only majority Constitutional requirement for the passage of treaties.

Aside from these exceptions explicitly required by the US Constitution, are there any legislative bodies anywhere which require other than a simple majority for anything?

Do you wish to mold the US government into the same kind of model that represents countries around the world? much like justice kennedy thinks we should look to international law and laws of other nations to guide us in our way of life?

 

[dilloduck]

Do you wish to mold the US government into the same kind of model that represents countries around the world? much like justice kennedy thinks we should look to international law and laws of other nations to guide us in our way of life?

STY--WHICH MINORITY IS GETTING THIER RIGHTS STOMPED ON AND WHO EXACTLY IS PROTECTED BY FILIBUSTERING??

 

[SmarterThanYou]

STY--WHICH MINORITY IS GETTING THIER RIGHTS STOMPED ON AND WHO EXACTLY IS PROTECTED BY FILIBUSTERING??

That group of voters who voted for (in this case democrats) say like massachussetts and other states that voted primarily democrat because they have a vision for this country, now their ideas, visions, and goals are being ignored by another political party(in this case republicans). Using the BS excuse of getting their electorate to 'perform better in the polls' is exactly that, BS.

 

[USViking]

Do you wish to mold the US government into the same kind of model that represents countries around the world? much like justice kennedy thinks we should look to international law and laws of other nations to guide us in our way of life?

There is also the US House of Representatives, plus 50 US state legislatures,
so my query is not limited to foreign examples.

And if there are foreign examples worth adopting, I would have no problem with adopting them.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

There is also the US House of Representatives, plus 50 US state legislatures,
so my query is not limited to foreign examples.

And if there are foreign examples worth adopting, I would have no problem with adopting them.

Other than amending the constitutions of the US and states, no domestic legislative body that I know of requires more than a majority vote. To understand WHY the senate body would require that, you would need to look at the reasons why the senate was created though.

 

[5stringJeff]

Other than amending the constitutions of the US and states, no domestic legislative body that I know of requires more than a majority vote. To understand WHY the senate body would require that, you would need to look at the reasons why the senate was created though.

While this is true, there is no constitutional justification for the filibuster as there is for ratifying treaties.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

While this is true, there is no constitutional justification for the filibuster as there is for ratifying treaties.

but neither is there a consitutional justification to deny the filibuster. As Frist said, the filibuster is part of his advise and consent responsibility. I believed that in 95, 2000, and now.

 

[dilloduck]

That group of voters who voted for (in this case democrats) say like massachussetts and other states that voted primarily democrat because they have a vision for this country, now their ideas, visions, and goals are being ignored by another political party(in this case republicans). Using the BS excuse of getting their electorate to 'perform better in the polls' is exactly that, BS.

WHAT? Oppressed democrats??? What goals and visions ?????

They dont' stand for anything---they only stand against things !!

 

[5stringJeff]

but neither is there a consitutional justification to deny the filibuster. As Frist said, the filibuster is part of his advise and consent responsibility. I believed that in 95, 2000, and now.

The filibuster is part of Senate rules, not part of the Constitution. I can't justify requiring a supermajority to consent to any of the President's nominations, judical or executive. It should be a simple majority.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

WHAT? Oppressed democrats??? What goals and visions ?????

They dont' stand for anything---they only stand against things !!

thats mighty subjective dillo, but it still stands, The rights of the minority MUST be protected, not at the expense of denying the majority, but the move to totalitarianism based on majority rules completely will devestate this nation.

 

[USViking]

Other than amending the constitutions of the US and states, no domestic legislative body that I know of requires more than a majority vote. To understand WHY the senate body would require that, you would need to look at the reasons why the senate was created though.

The Senate was created to protect the smaller states from complete legislative domination by the larger ones, and had nothing to do with political party factionalism; the founders originally hoped parties would not come into being at all.

At some point the Senate took what it considered to be a purely principled stance in favor unlimited debate, not contemplating, as far as I know, that it would be used for obstructionist tactics.

 

[dilloduck]

thats mighty subjective dillo, but it still stands, The rights of the minority MUST be protected, not at the expense of denying the majority, but the move to totalitarianism based on majority rules completely will devestate this nation.

Then do Repulicans get reparations for being "oppressed" for 8 years by democrats? STY--someone always is sucking hind tit but it's not always the same people.

 

[freeandfun1]

Other than amending the constitutions of the US and states, no domestic legislative body that I know of requires more than a majority vote. To understand WHY the senate body would require that, you would need to look at the reasons why the senate was created though.

Nevada has a 2/3 rds rule......

 

[USViking]

We seem to have established that US Senate supermajority rules are unique.

What evidence is there, through several hundred years of world-wide legislative activity, that simple majority rule has endangered Democracy?

thats mighty subjective dillo, but it still stands, The rights of the minority MUST be protected, not at the expense of denying the majority, but the move to totalitarianism based on majority rules completely will devestate this nation.

Totalitarianism is not based on "majority rules" if by that you mean legislative voting; it is based on the suppression of opposition- giving it NO voice.

As long as the minority is allowed to express its views, then it is merely Democratic, and not totalitarian, for the majority to pass legislation. Both the courts and the people themselves are trusted to have the sense to provide whatever checks are needed on majority misrule.

While the appointment of majority-biased judges may be a theoretical hazard, the history of our judiciary provides plentiful examples of judges exercising true independence to the discomfort of the parties which nominated them, the Warren and Burger courts being two outstanding examples. I believe the actual fact of true judicial independence renders any theoretical hazard not worth losing sleep over.

 

[USViking]

Nevada has a 2/3 rds rule......

OK- There's one. I'd like to know more about it. Can you provide a source?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Then do Repulicans get reparations for being "oppressed" for 8 years by democrats? STY--someone always is sucking hind tit but it's not always the same people.

well, then to quote a few people here that non-chalantly accepted that it was wrong for the republicans when they blocked judges, do two wrongs make a right?

why not CHANGE the system to make it work instead of RAMMING the political agenda with brute force and pissing people off? Maybe THAT way the republicans would actually KEEP power for alot longer.

 

[freeandfun1]

Well, let me rephrase that....

We HAD a 2/3 rule but the state supreme court overturned it and the SCOTUS refused to hear the case on appeal.....

 

[dilloduck]

well, then to quote a few people here that non-chalantly accepted that it was wrong for the republicans when they blocked judges, do two wrongs make a right?

why not CHANGE the system to make it work instead of RAMMING the political agenda with brute force and pissing people off? Maybe THAT way the republicans would actually KEEP power for alot longer.

they don't call em "whips" for nothing-----one side ALWAYS crams thier stuff on the other side.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

We seem to have established that US Senate supermajority rules are unique.

What evidence is there, through several hundred years of world-wide legislative activity, that simple majority rule has endangered Democracy?

Totalitarianism is not based on "majority rules" if by that you mean legislative voting; it is based on the suppression of opposition- giving it NO voice.

As long as the minority is allowed to express its views, then it is merely Democratic, and not totalitarian, for the majority to pass legislation. Both the courts and the people themselves are trusted to have the sense to provide whatever checks are needed on majority misrule.

While the appointment of majority-biased judges may be a theoretical hazard, the history of our judiciary provides plentiful examples of judges exercising true independence to the discomfort of the parties which nominated them, the Warren and Burger courts being two outstanding examples. I believe the actual fact of true judicial independence renders any theoretical hazard not worth losing sleep over.

merely allowing the opposition to have a voice, but still denying it any recourse or input is not a democracy, nor is it a republic. It is exactly as I stated, totalinarianism.