How the DOJ could end the shutdown

[Robert Urbanek]

President Trump could use the Department of Justice to end the filibuster and allow the Senate to pass the CR and reopen the government.

While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly state that the Senate shall pass measures by a majority vote, that margin is implied in the section that states, “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.” In other words, a tie vote does not enact a law, but a majority vote does.

Thus, taking a majority vote could be interpreted as an official proceeding. Preventing a majority vote by requiring a supermajority of any kind is obstruction, which is a crime codified as 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) which states “Whoever . . . otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years.”

The offending party in this case is Senate Republican Leader John Thune, who is adamant in requiring 60 votes for passage of the so-called “clean CR.”

If President Trump becomes impatient with Thune, he could warn the senator that he will be the subject of a Department of Justice investigation if he continues to obstruct Senate proceedings.

 

[Eman623]

Article 1, section 5 clearly says, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." If the Senate rules allow for filibustering bills, then the DOJ has no authority to say otherwise.

In fact if Trump attempted to force the Senate to eliminate the filibuster, that would very plausibly be seen as obstructing the normal business of the Senate and would probably lead to Trump's impeachment and removal from office.

 

[Mack The Finger]

While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly state that the Senate shall pass measures by a majority vote, that margin is implied in the section that states, “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.
In other words, a tie vote does not enact a law, but a majority vote does.

No disrespect mean but are you a legal genius ?

That sounds like it would take 50 years just to set the ground rules and than another 50 year to hear the case.

PAX TIBI

 

[Robert Urbanek]

Article 1, section 5 clearly says, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." If the Senate rules allow for filibustering bills, then the DOJ has no authority to say otherwise.

In fact if Trump attempted to force the Senate to eliminate the filibuster, that would very plausibly be seen as obstructing the normal business of the Senate and would probably lead to Trump's impeachment and removal from office.

The Court noted in National Labor Relations Board v. Canning:

The Constitution explicitly empowers the Senate to ‘determine the Rules of its Proceedings.’ And we have held that ‘all matters of method are open to the determination’ of the Senate, as long as there is ‘a reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought to be attained’ and the rule does not ‘ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights.'

One might argue that the filibuster rule does ignore constitutional restraints or violates the fundamental rights of constituents.

 

[kyzr]

1. The filibuster is off the table. No Republican support.

2. The CR is agreed to, we think. The new deadline is January 31st to get the ACA subsidies agreed to.

 

[CrazyTrader55]

President Trump could use the Department of Justice to end the filibuster and allow the Senate to pass the CR and reopen the government.

While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly state that the Senate shall pass measures by a majority vote, that margin is implied in the section that states, “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.” In other words, a tie vote does not enact a law, but a majority vote does.

Thus, taking a majority vote could be interpreted as an official proceeding. Preventing a majority vote by requiring a supermajority of any kind is obstruction, which is a crime codified as 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) which states “Whoever . . . otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years.”

The offending party in this case is Senate Republican Leader John Thune, who is adamant in requiring 60 votes for passage of the so-called “clean CR.”

If President Trump becomes impatient with Thune, he could warn the senator that he will be the subject of a Department of Justice investigation if he continues to obstruct Senate proceedings.

NO

This is the kind of nonsense that the left might try.

The filibuster stays. Can you imagine the Democrats in full control, with no filibuster?

 

[Eman623]

The Court noted in National Labor Relations Board v. Canning:


One might argue that the filibuster rule does ignore constitutional restraints or violates the fundamental rights of constituents.

Are you suggesting that if a bill presented in the senate never gets an up or down vote in the full senate, someone's fundamental rights have been violated? Whose rights? The sponsor? The voters?

Bills get tabled indefinitely all the time in committee and never come out before the session ends, at which point they become null and void. That has been perfectly constitutional for 250 years, and even longer under British common law.

The filibuster itself only requires a simple majority to keep in place, so I don't see you can't argue the supermajority requirement it created is unconstitutional.

In any case, NLRB v Canning was not about the filibuster, or even about the Senate. It was about the president making recess appointments while the Senate was by its own rules, still in pro-forma session. The court ruled in this case that did not violate the President's fundamental rights.

Lastly, as a practical matter, if the SCOTUS did rule the filibuster unconstitutional, but the Senate ignored them and continued to use it anyway, what then? The SCOTUS has no way to enforce such a decision on a co-equal branch of government. They would have just provoked a Constitutional crisis of their own making.

 

[EMH]

President Trump could use the Department of Justice to end the filibuster and allow the Senate to pass the CR and reopen the government.

While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly state that the Senate shall pass measures by a majority vote, that margin is implied in the section that states, “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.” In other words, a tie vote does not enact a law, but a majority vote does.

Thus, taking a majority vote could be interpreted as an official proceeding. Preventing a majority vote by requiring a supermajority of any kind is obstruction, which is a crime codified as 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) which states “Whoever . . . otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years.”

The offending party in this case is Senate Republican Leader John Thune, who is adamant in requiring 60 votes for passage of the so-called “clean CR.”

If President Trump becomes impatient with Thune, he could warn the senator that he will be the subject of a Department of Justice investigation if he continues to obstruct Senate proceedings.

GREAT IDEA. LET's DO IT NOW!!!

The only thing that could stop it is the courts, and that's pretty funny since, if they stop it, their courts remain shut down aka they don't matter, and they are unlikely to believe they don't matter.

LOL!!!