Is there something wrong with majority rules?

[☭proletarian☭]

*YOU* Have NO Idea of what your saying. That is evident. YOU lost this one. Suck it up and try again.

Your response, and attack is evidence enough. My advice to you is get a life, (And NOT AT OTHERS' EXPENSE)...Yeah...*I* have YOUR NUMBER.

*I* am ON to *YOU*

YOU have telegraphed it enough to the point of NASEUM.

I know exactly what I'm saying, but the nuances of the English language are lost on the likes of you - you shouldn't have dropped out of high school..

The only thing you are on is bicycle without a seat by the sounds of it....

You DumbFuck...YOU don't know me -nor- my Education. *YOU* have NO EARTHLY CLUE. Therefore I leave this thread and *YOU* with a mild *chuckle* unto myself.

Keep stabbing in that darkness.

I've NAILED yer ASS.

And YOU may visit ME on MY home turf if you have the brass NADS to do so. Allsigns point that you don't. Yer a WIMP...a Keyboard Terrorist NAZI...

Internet badassery, threats of violence, and a Godwin all in one post.


​

 

[☭proletarian☭]

*I* am a Statist LOSER*

 

[JakeStarkey]

Article I Section 7 defines the powers of the legislative process in Congress. Nothing in that section can be construed in denying the majority party in the Senate from enacting its will by a single vote in excess of 50%..

huh?

I don't see what you see

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 7 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I don't see anything in the section that governs "legislative process" that prohibits or limits the Senate from using a simply majority vote on this issue.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. “Is there something wrong with majority rules?” Mr. Gregg asked. “I don’t think so.”

people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

very few were willing or able to.

bunch of losers.

 

[frazzledgear]

Article I Section 7 defines the powers of the legislative process in Congress. Nothing in that section can be construed in denying the majority party in the Senate from enacting its will by a single vote in excess of 50%..

huh?

I don't see what you see

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 7 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I don't see anything in the section that governs "legislative process" that prohibits or limits the Senate from using a simply majority vote on this issue.

And just think -Senators have been doing it all wrong all this time. All they really need is just 51 votes!! Who knew? ROFLMAO. Except you must have overlooked that sticky part in the Constitution that places no restrictions at all on how long a bill can be debated before it must face a vote. Which technically allows for UNLIMITED debate in the Senate on any bill. Which would mean a single Senator could refuse to allow a bill -or ANY bill -to ever come to a vote in the Senate even if the overwhelming majority of Senators favored passage of that bill by simply refusing to stop debating it -or filibustering it. Don't kid yourself, the founders knew this but they also knew they put in the means for self-correction. The reason they were able to set it all out for the creation of a brand new system of government in just 16 pages is because they didn't get bogged down in the minutiae of it all. (Which just BEGS the question of how is it possible to create an entirely new system of GOVERNMENT in just 16 pages, but that government needs more than 2,700 pages to figure out how to help a small minority of people get health care insurance and still can't do it without destroying the system for the overwhelming majority who are satisfied with how it works for them!!!)

It is why the founders also specified that both Houses had the authority to set up their own rules for procedures in their business beyond those specified in the Constitution. And one of those rules the Senate created for itself was Rule XXll and did so in order to prevent a single person or a small minority from holding up a bill that was heavily favored. Keep in mind without this rule the health care bill stood zero chance of ever seeing the light of day because it would only take one person to filibuster it to death. But with Rule XXll, if 2/3 of the Senators vote for cloture -meaning if 2/3 of the Senators vote in favor of ending debate -a bill can be brought to the floor for a vote. Even if a small minority strongly oppose it.

Now how many do you really think it takes to pass a bill in the Senate? Technically and without bothering to understand what the practice really means, you could claim that a mere 51 Senators could pass any bill they want and just steamroll over anyone in their way. But they couldn't before and they still can't now. Prior to Rule XXll, to absolutely guarantee the passage of a bill it would have taken all 100 Senators. ANY even slightly controversial bill would never pass and if a single Senator were unhappy about the bill it would not pass. But now as the result of Rule XXll it takes 2/3 of Senators to pass a bill in PRACTICE -or 60 votes. Senators are not stupid people. They don't vote for cloture on any bill they don't want to see passed or strongly oppose. That is how it works in the Senate. So while the Constitution doesn't specify the Senate needs at least 2/3 to pass a bill in practice they do first because of the unlimited debate clause in the Constitution and now because of Rule XXll. And that will never be changed to ANYTHING that would ever allow just 51 Senators to pass legislation and create new law with a significant and 49 member opposition. NEITHER party would EVER agree to change that rule that would allow just 51 Senators to bring about cloture on a bill. Not only would it be political suicide, it would render THEM 100% useless, powerless and irrelevant anytime they lost the majority and even if they still held 49 of those 100 seats.

The fact the Senate changed a rule that would allow a simple majority to handle budget matters was NEVER intended to be used to pass legislation, especially not significant legislation of this magnitude. That fact was agreed upon at the time which is why there are rules about what does and does not fall under reconciliation and why Robert Byrd, the creator of this measure even said using reconciliation to pass this bill would be WRONG. Reconciliation has a limit on debate of just 20 hours and requires zero votes to end debate. Just the notion Democrats will try to ram this bill through and allowing ONLY 20 hours of debate -less than 3 working days for a LIFE ALTERING MONSTROSITY like this just goes to show the sheer ARROGANCE of Democrats and their CONTEMPT for WE THE PEOPLE as well as for our system of government. Maybe Byrd still has enough on the ball to realize what other Democrats seem to have overlooked when he urged Dems not to do this.

Trying to use reconciliation to pass something of this magnitude -if successful -will end up biting Democrats in the ass big time because it will open the door to allow the passage of just about ANY bill the majority wants and render the minority party irrelevant entirely. You use it once to muscle through a hugely unpopular piece of crap legislation like this and any time Republicans want to pass ANYTHING Democrats oppose -they have the example of how it is perfectly acceptable! And even if Democrats are a 49 member minority, they become irrelevant. The very tyranny of the minority by government the founders specifically sought to prevent and was circumvented by DEMOCRATS who will no doubt go to their grave insisting it was what reconciliation was created for.

And no one in their right mind is stupid enough to believe Democrats will hold the majority forever are they?

 

[JakeStarkey]

frazzledgear, the majority can cut off debate any time it wants by one vote plus fifty percent. So that is not the question at all. The only question is whether the voters will rebuke either, both, or neither of the parties in the next election. And think that is going to happen: the bill will pass, the President will sign it, and then the battle royale is on for the fall. Going to be very interesting.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Article I Section 7 defines the powers of the legislative process in Congress. Nothing in that section can be construed in denying the majority party in the Senate from enacting its will by a single vote in excess of 50%..

huh?

I don't see what you see

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 7 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I don't see anything in the section that governs "legislative process" that prohibits or limits the Senate from using a simply majority vote on this issue.

Nor anything preventing Senate rules from being passed requiring more than a simple majority.

 

[JakeStarkey]

huh?

I don't see what you see

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 7 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I don't see anything in the section that governs "legislative process" that prohibits or limits the Senate from using a simply majority vote on this issue.

Nor anything preventing Senate rules from being passed requiring more than a simple majority.

Of course. And such a rule can be easily overturned by a majority vote.

 

[frazzledgear]

frazzledgear, the majority can cut off debate any time it wants by one vote plus fifty percent. So that is not the question at all. The only question is whether the voters will rebuke either, both, or neither of the parties in the next election. And think that is going to happen: the bill will pass, the President will sign it, and then the battle royale is on for the fall. Going to be very interesting.

NO NO NO! A simple majority CANNOT vote to just cut off debate in the Senate. I already explained the Constitution does not specify how long debate must remain open or even how to close debate -it only says the Senate must open debate among all Senators before a bill can even be voted on. But says nothing about how long it must allow debate or anything about how to close debate. Instead the Constitution said the Senate can make its own rules about this. AND IT DID. And the first rule it made was an unchangeable rule that all these rules are permanently binding on all members of the Senate regardless of their party affiliation and regardless of which party is in the majority/minority.

The Senate created Rule XXll so there would be an acceptable way of closing debate and bringing a bill to the vote, a way that did not tyrannize the minority, protected the voices of the minority in this country, still insured their voices would be heard and considered - yet still properly gave deference to a significant majority that may favor a bill. That is a BINDING rule on all members regardless of who has the majority and it requires 2/3 of the Senate to end any filibuster and close debate on bills regarding legislative changes and new laws. Period. So in practice it also means it will take 2/3 of the Senate to even pass that bill at all. Senators would not favor passing a bill yet refuse to vote in favor of allowing it come to a vote and Senators who oppose it aren't going to vote in favor of closing debate. THAT is how our system works and has been working for more than 200 years. This Senate Rule XXll isn't arbitrary and isn't up for discussion. There is no way to for a majority to come in and unilaterally do away with any Senate rule for their own advantage to put the minority at even greater disadvantage. POLITICS may be a game to many people -but how our government operates is not and cannot be altered to give one party a better advantage over the other.

Because there aren't 60 Senators who will vote to close debate and aren't 60 votes to pass this bill is why Reid is trying to bypass this Senate rule entirely in order to TYRANNICALLY ram through legislation opposed by a significant minority in the Senate as well as strongly opposed by a large majority of the people -by AVOIDING the binding process for passing a bill into new law and instead using another Senate Rule called Reconciliation. Pretending a life altering and nation altering piece of crap legislation that will double the size of government and massively expand its powers is actually just a routine budget and housekeeping issue and on the same par as when Republicans used it for tax cuts -which oddly enough did not expand the size and power of government whatsoever -is pure bullshit and just shows the arrogance of Democrats and their UTTER CONTEMPT for the people of this country! When the Reconciliation Rule was adopted by the Senate -which means it too is binding on all members regardless of party affiliation -it was adopted with the specific proviso that it was never to be used to pass legislation and new laws but only to be used for mundane budget and housekeeping issues ONLY. In whose nightmare is this bill a mundane and routine budget issue that doesn't require the full input and due deliberation of all members?

Seriously -if you really think it only takes 51 votes to pass whatever the majority wants in the Senate -then why do you think it has actually taken at least 60 all this time until now? It has because of the BINDING Senate Rule XXll. Why do you think there is outrage about Reid trying to bypass this binding Senate rule and ram this strongly opposed bill through by bastardizing another Senate rule about routine housekeeping issues instead? If he could have done with just 51 it would have already happened!!! We have a system with built in measures intended to protect the minority and the ability of their voices to be heard in our government. They can't be protected in the least if a scant majority can impose whatever they want and just steamroll over everyone else and make it impossible for their voices to be heard or considered at all. That isn't a system that tries to prevent tyranny -it would be a system that guaranteed it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

frazzledgear is absolutely wrong about the 60-vote procedure being binding.

It's not.

Reconciliation is an absolutely valid procedure, and FG can have a hissy fit that will change nothing.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. “Is there something wrong with majority rules?” Mr. Gregg asked. “I don’t think so.”

people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

some things need repeating

 

[Si modo]

frazzledgear is absolutely wrong about the 60-vote procedure being binding.

It's not.

Reconciliation is an absolutely valid procedure, and FG can have a hissy fit that will change nothing.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not binding. It is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

frazzledgear is absolutely wrong about the 60-vote procedure being binding.

It's not.

Reconciliation is an absolutely valid procedure, and FG can have a hissy fit that will change nothing.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not binding. It is.

si modo, it's you reactionaries that refuse to understand what it is. The senate will probably do it, and all the caterwauling of the far reactionary right means nothing. Your definitions don't count.