Courts have a gutless history on the filibuster

[cthulu2016]

There is much to be said for the federal courts' hands-off stance on legislative and executive prerogatives, and the houses of Congress are empowered to make their own rules.

Courts shy away from things like Senate rules, labeling them, "political questions."

But when a legislative rule thwarts the constitutionally dictated character of a body that is a simple matter of Constitutional interpretation.

The Constitution says that votes in the senate are decided by majority rule except in a series of enumerated cases. Treaties. Impeachment conviction. Constitutional amendments. Over-riding vetoes. Etc..

This implies to almost the point of statement that adding a new kind of super-majority vote beyond those listed in the Constitution ought to require a Constitutional amendment to put it in the freaking Constitution.

Congress can do a LOT of crazy shit. The Republicans could expel every Democrat from Congress. For reals. Any time they wanted. Congress could over-ride the electoral college and make some guy who wasn't even running President. Congress can do plenty of wacky things.

But it cannot pass rules that effectively require a super-majority for the progress of a bill.

IMO.

Imagine of the Senate passed a rule that to over-ride a veto in the Senate requires 70 votes, instead of 66. That would be blocked by a court the first time it was invoked. Why is a rule effectively requiring 60 votes for a bill to becom a law different?

[PoliticAverse]

1. At the first session of the senate, the senate chooses its rules (using 50 votes to pass)

and it kept the filibuster the way it is.

There wasn't 50 votes to change it as several Democrats wanted to keep things the way they are.

Many people believe that the filibuster can be changed at any time using just 50 votes, but again, there
aren't 50 votes for the change.

[Tx4obama]

2. Because the bill DOES take only 51 votes to pass. The vote that takes 60 votes...

... is only what 'allows the bill to be voted on to be passed'.

There is a difference.

The U.S. Constitution is actually being followed since the actual vote to 'pass' the bill takes only a simply majority.

Look at it this way - as it is now not all bills are voted on, only the ones that the majority leader 'decides' to bring to the floor.
The 'cloture' vote is the whole chamber deciding IF they will have a final vote on a bill.
So, what the majority leader does and the full chamber does is basically the same thing - it's stuff that is done 'before' there is a final vote on a bill.

[former9thward]

3. Where in the Constitution does it say votes are decided by majority?

Mine does not say that.