Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Uncle Joe

(64,926 posts)

24. That's a pretty small fig leaf as no policy can be passed if debate isn't ended.

Reply to tritsofme (Reply #20)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 10:05 PM

Jan 2022

The Senators' individual votes are diminished to less than 1 as a result of filibuster requiring a super-majority for issues and polices not covered in the Constitution.

Each chamber can set its' own rules so long as they don't violate the Constitution but the current manifestation of the filibuster is in conflict with the 17th Amendment as it damages or degrades the Senators' one vote rule.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The filibuster isn't just absent from the Constitution - it's blatantly unconstitutional. [View all] Uncle Joe Jan 2022 OP

true--let's start giving it the treatment it deserves librechik Jan 2022 #1

This filibuster crap is just repetitive whining. keithbvadu2 Jan 2022 #2

☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️ PortTack Jan 2022 #3

Here is a good article on the filibuster LetMyPeopleVote Jan 2022 #4

Thanks for the addition LetMyPeopleVote. Uncle Joe Jan 2022 #5

Wow, are the Democrats actually, really, going to do filibuster reform? joshcryer Jan 2022 #16

This is pretty silly. The Constitution empowers each chamber the exclusive power to set their own tritsofme Jan 2022 #6

It isn't unconstitutional either. Congress is allowed to make the rules and this is the rules Groundhawg Jan 2022 #7

Article 1 Section 5 Clause 2 Kaleva Jan 2022 #8

As currently practiced, I believe the filibuster is in conflict with the 17th Amendment Uncle Joe Jan 2022 #9

The Senate can make its own rules. former9thward Jan 2022 #10

So long as those rule don't violate the Constitution. Uncle Joe Jan 2022 #11

Which is why in the graph 21% of the population... joshcryer Jan 2022 #14

The vote for final passage is always only a simple majority. tritsofme Jan 2022 #20

That's a pretty small fig leaf as no policy can be passed if debate isn't ended. Uncle Joe Jan 2022 #24

Not necessarily true, cloture is not required when there is unanimous consent to move forward. tritsofme Jan 2022 #26

Requiring a super majority to overide a filibuster is still one vote for every Senator. Kaleva Jan 2022 #12

Each Senator has one vote. Nothing in the Constitution requires a simple majority to pass a Bill brooklynite Jan 2022 #19

Reich is arguing simple+1 would be unconstitutional. joshcryer Jan 2022 #13

Robert Reich has certain skills...Constitutional Law is not one of them brooklynite Jan 2022 #15

But an originalist might agree with him. joshcryer Jan 2022 #17

"Any Senator may call for a vote..." brooklynite Jan 2022 #18

Here: joshcryer Jan 2022 #23

Yes, I know that any Senator CAN bring up a vote: no reason to assume Democrats will support it. brooklynite Jan 2022 #25

Yeah, unity isn't a Democratic party attribute. joshcryer Jan 2022 #27

The courts, least of all those purporting to be "originalist" would never entertain the idea tritsofme Jan 2022 #22

Tyranny of the Minority: The Unconstitutionality of the Filibuster BeckyDem Jan 2022 #21

Thanks RobtREICH, I needed this exegesis. Am convinced. UTUSN Jan 2022 #28