Kennedy Lays Out All the Rules They're Breaking

[beaconess]

Here are some of the rules and precedents the executive will have to ask its allies in the Senate to break or ignore in order to turn the Senate into a rubberstamp for the nominations:

First, they will have to see that the Vice President himself is presiding over the Senate so that no real Senator needs to endure the embarrassment of publicly violating Senate rules and precedent and overriding the Senate Parliamentarian the way our Presiding Officer will have to do.

Next, they will have to break paragraph 1 of rule V, which requires 1 day's specific written notice if a Senator intends to try to suspend or change any rule.

Then they will have to break paragraph 2 of rule V, which provides that the Senate rules remain in force from Congress to Congress, unless they are changed in accordance with the existing rules.

Then they will have to break paragraph 2 of rule XXII, which requires a motion, signed by 16 Senators, a 2-day wait, and a three-fifths vote to close debate on the nomination itself.

They will also have to break rule XXII's requirement of a petition, a wait, and a two-thirds vote to stop debate on a rules change.

Then, since they pretend to be proceeding on a constitutional basis, they will have to break the invariable rule of practice that constitutional issues must not be decided by the Presiding Officer, but must be referred by the Presiding Officer to the entire Senate for full debate and decision.

Throughout the process, they will have to ignore or intentionally give incorrect answers to proper parliamentary inquiries which, if answered in good faith and in accordance with the expert advice of the Parliamentarian, would make clear that they are breaking the rules.

Eventually, when their repeated rule-breaking is called into question, they will blatantly, and in dire violation of the norms and mutuality of the Senate, try to ignore the minority leader and other Senators who are seeking recognition to make lawful motions or pose legitimate inquiries or make proper objections.

By this time, all pretense of comity, all sense of mutual respect and fairness, all of the normal courtesies that allow the Senate to proceed expeditiously on any business at all will have been destroyed by the preemptive Republican nuclear strike on the floor.

To accomplish their goal by using a bare majority vote to escape the rule requiring 60 votes to cut off debate, those participating in this charade will, even before the vote, already have terminated the normal functioning of the Senate. They will have broken the Senate compact of comity and will have launched a preemptive nuclear war. The battle begins when the perpetrators openly, intentionally, and repeatedly break clear rules and precedents of the Senate, refuse to follow the advice of the Parliamentarian, and commit the unpardonable sin of refusing to recognize the minority leader.

Congressional Record, May 18, 2005, Page S5410

[kaygore]

1. This is great information

Thank you.

[BrendaStarr]

28. Yes, get it to the mixed boards and chatrooms

Let American know.

Because mostly people have been getting the right wing side.

We're supposedly Hitler and against women and minorities from the TV news.

[Tsiyu]

2. Kicked and recommended

:kick:

[unblock]

3. notice that they can't even change the rules, formally

because to explicitly change the rules to deny a filibuster would itself be filibustered and would require 60 votes to break the filibuster.

this is why they are using this concocted pretense of a loophole that somehow allows a bare majority to render all the "60 vote" rules moot.

[WillowTree]

17. I believe there is already a rule...

....against filibustering rule changes.

[beaconess]

18. No - rules changes CAN be filibustered

if it is based upon a finding that a rule is unconstitutional. That's why they're doing it this way. A question whether to table an objection to a ruling on a point of order can't be filibustered.

[AllegroRondo]

23. And a rule change requires 66 votes to pass.

a 2/3 majority.

[uppityperson]

4. kick, then off to read it more closely

[bonzotex]

5. Geeky rules stuff but this is great info

This is so hard to put into sound bites. People won't get it. All they here is Up or Down, Up or Down,Up or Down, Up or Down, Up or Down,Up or Down,Up or Down,Up or Down,Up or Down,Up or Down, Democrats are like Nazis, Up or Down,Up or Down, President wants, Up or Down, Up or Down,

.....SICKENING

[Tigress DEM]

11. Up Down, Up Down, what's a homophobe, daddy?

[AspenRose]

48. Wow, I need one of those seasickness bands

up down, up down, librul judges are the equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan, up down, up down

:eyes:

[mwb970]

50. Yes, they always say "up or down".

It is comical the way every Republican politician and commentator echos this same phrase, up or down, up or down.

My game is to count how many words there are between when they start talking about the filibuster issue and when they put out the first "up or down". It's usually in the first sentence, with an average of 12 words preceding it.

These guys sure know how to obey orders!

[meow2u3]

6. This is not the "nuclear option" NOR the "constitutional option"

One can better and more truthfully term this push for Repunk tyranny the "mafia option" or the "criminal option."

[Tigress DEM]

10. I guess it "feels" nuclear because of the irreparable devastation

it seems that it would render unto the Constitution.

[liberal43110]

7. Thank you

Last week, a caller to a local radio program made a comment about this--that even to change the rules (and eliminate the filibuster) requires 60 votes--and the guest couldn't answer. I have been confused ever since. Thanks for clearing this up.

Nominated.

[smartvoter]

8. This is why, in my opinion, it's uselessto bargain with them on this. nt

[Tigress DEM]

9. And if they are violating all these rules....

Doesn't that make null and void whatever they do?

Isn't this a congressional equivilant to a mistrial?

I think we should seriously consider a citizen called Constitutional Congress and just put together our own ammendments or mandates that the present irregularities and direct violations of clear and present Constitutional Process committed show that these offenders are unfit for office and subject to massive public recall.

I'm sick and tired of it I tell you.

:banghead:

[FreedomAngel82]

12. Not any more

Where these people are considerned the Constiution is just a little piece of paper. It won't matter. If Bush was to go in the front lawn of the White House or on Captiol Hill with the Constiution and Bill of Rights in his hands and Tom DeLay took a cigarette lighter or march and burned them and all his neocon buddies clapped everybody else there watching would clap and cheer as well.

[mcscajun]

35. Much as I want to stop this nuclear option 'exercise",

a Constitutional Convention in the present atmosphere would be far, far, more dangerous.

You literally throw open the entire Constitution, without any exception, to total change. We could lose far more than we'd ever gain. We could conceivably have all of the Bill of Rights dramatically amended, selectively wiped out, etc.

Everything goes up for grabs in a Constitutional Convention. Everything we hold dear. Everything.

[Tigress DEM]

39. Do you have more resource info on it?

I understand what you're saying, but the Republicans are doing this to the Constitution right now, day by day.

Who gets to call it? Isn't it the citizen's right or would it be the same people who are in office right now? If that is the case, then I agree.

If it is the PEOPLE and we can get enough DEMS together and some clear guidelines, like putting things back the way they were, establishing transperancy for voting verification and prosecuting the War Criminals...

I don't know enough about it, I guess.

[mcscajun]

41. Here's some research I did a while back, updated for your convenience.

:)

You'll find some unusual citations in here, in that I've used a combination of public records and certain wingnut sites. I don't apologize for this; when you're talking about Constitutional Conventions, it pays to know your enemy.

Apparently a lot of conservatives, right-leaning libertarians, religious extremists, and several wingnuts have considered the risks of such a convention, while just as many support the idea. Paul Weyrich's fingers were in this some years back, also; what a surprise.

I'm no constitutional scholar, but the fact that there's much uncertainty about the interpretation of Article V, how it would be applied, and who would be making the interpretations and decisions before such a convention was convened, gives me pause. And when even the guys on the other side have concerns, you must wonder if the risks are real, and the idea worth the risks. The biggest risk is the paradox: we can't know what the risks are until and unless we actually call such a convention, and then it would be too late to stop it.

When the first (and so far only) Constitutional Convention met in 1787 at Philadelphia, Congress stated it would meet ‘for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation’. Well, we all know how that turned out; a contentious time was had by all, the Articles of Confederation were abandoned, and they wound up writing our original Constitution. We have no guarantees that Congress or indeed anyone could stop a repeat of that event.

========================================================

Article V of the United States Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

========================================================

After the convention of 1787, when talk was brewing of holding yet another convention, Madison warned against it. Holland had recently loaned America money to keep it solvent, and Europeans feared a convention would negate that loan by some new procedure. Madison stated:

"Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second, meeting in the present temper of America ...the prospect of a second convention would be viewed by all of Europe as a dark cloud hanging over the Constitution." -- Letter to George Turberville from James Madison, 1787.

http://libertylaws.us/id44.htm

Chief Justice Warren Burger (supposedly) wrote a letter to Phyllis Schafly in 1983. As Schafly was a member of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution (something that to this day boggles my mind) this shouldn't be too hard to believe.

I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’

With George Washington as chairman, they were able to deliberate in total secrecy, with no press coverage and no leaks. A constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation.

Our 1787 Constitution was referred to by several of its authors as a ‘miracle.’ Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risks involved. A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention. In these bicentennial years, we should be celebrating its long life, not challenging its very existence. Whatever may need repair on our Constitution can be dealt with by specific amendments."

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/burger.htm

When the repubs were busy in 1999 on the idea of embracing a limited Con-Con to address their pet issue of 'term limits', there was a bill up for consideration in the Judiciary Committee; here's an excerpt from the commentary:

Another problem with a Constitutional Convention is that even if it isn't a ''run-away'' convention (that is, even if the Constitutional Convention met to adopt only one amendment), the mere fact that the states met could have a far-reaching jurisprudential impact. Would the Supreme Court view a Constitutional Convention which kept the pre-existing Constitution as an implicit ratification of prior Supreme Court rulings? This would cause those on the left (who oppose certain Rehnquist Court rulings) and those on the right (who oppose certain Warren Court rulings) a considerable amount of trouble."

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju57226.000/hju57226_0f.htm

Corpus Jurus Secundum is a compilation of State Supreme Court findings. Following is the collection of findings regarding the unlimited power of the delegates attending a Constitutional Convention. Legal "experts" have asserted that it would be highly unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court would overturn findings from several separate and concurring State Supreme Courts. The footnote numbers after the citation quoted reference the particular cases from which the citations were made.

These citations, along with the letter from Chief Justice Warren Burger clearly and concisely tell us that if a Constitutional Convention were to be opened, for whatever "alleged" purpose, there would be no controlling the outcome. State Legislators have been lulled into a false sense of safety by assurances that there is no danger in a Con-Con because, "of course, you would never ratify a bad amendment or a total rewrite of the Constitution". What the State Legislators are NOT told - and probably 99% of them are unaware of the fact - is that there are two modes of ratifying an amendment, and the U.S. Congress decides which that would be. In other words, state's legislatures can be bypassed in favor of ratifying conventions.

From Corpus Jurus Secundum 16 C.J.S 9

The members of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people (1) and, as such, they may exercise all sovereign powers that are vested in the people of the state. (2) They derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from the people: (3) and, hence, their power may not in any respect be limited or restrained by the legislature. Under this view, it is a Legislative Body of the Highest Order (4) and may not only frame, but may also enact and promulgate, Constitution. (5)

Citations:

(1) Mississippi (1892) Sproule v. Fredericks; 11 So. 472
(2) Iowa (1883) Koehler v. Hill; 14 N.W. 738
(3) West Virginia (1873) Loomis v. Jackson; 6 W. Va. 613
(4) Oklahoma (1907) Frantz v. Autry; 91 p. 193
(5) Texas (1912) Cox v. Robison; 150 S.W. 1149

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/corpus.htm

[Tigress DEM]

44. Thanks - food for thought.

[cindyw]

13. so what do senate rules say about punishing rule breakers?

nt

[beaconess]

19. There's no remedy in this situation

[Clarkie1]

14. "refusing to recognize the minority leader"

That sounds so awful, and is.

Whatever party the minority leader is from, that's just not the American way.:puke:

[leftofthedial]

15. cheating lying scum

with no respect for anything except "winning"

even when they must cheat and lie to "win"

which even they know is losing

which pisses them off even more

and makes them lie and cheat and lie and cheat and lie and cheat

[liberalla]

16. I hope this hit home with any fence sitters or

fair-minded moderate Republicans. I hope they listen to public opinion and use caution when this comes down next week.

[Firenze777]

20. They must feel they have impunity

at the ballot box, in 06 and 08, or they wouldn't risk so much (polls show people are against this). And BTW- I think I read that Dean is appearing on Meet the Press on Sunday. Good timing!

[ChemBob]

34. Balloting in 06 or 08

probably won't matter. They own the ballot boxes and that means they don't really need to win the actual vote. They have already gone beyond the pale. Our choices at this point may be limited to those confronted by the founding fathers. However, the other issue at which they have won is convincing most liberals that the second amendment was a bad one. What we are confronting is precisely why the founding fathers placed the second amendment in such an important position, right after the first. They knew first hand what could happen. And so a large percentage of the true patriots are left unarmed in the face of tyranny.

[loudsue]

37. Spot On, ChemBob! Good post!

:hi::toast::beer: And a BIG welcome to DU!! :applause::woohoo::party:

:kick::kick::kick:

[ChemBob]

43. Thanks!

Glad to be here. Truth is I've been reading DU for quite some time and have recently decided to start speaking up a little. I've been preaching to other (non-political) lists where I'm a member for the past two years and hammering on everybody I can in public about what is going on in this country. Most people don't have any idea just how bad it is. About half of them don't seem to care because they want to focus on American Idol and the latest ball game. I think there is a lot of inertia to do anything about it because most folks just can't wrap their brains around the breadth and intensity of this overthrow of our rights and the attempted empire-building. The RR has been working on this since the Nixon days but, in a sense, the fruition of their goals seems to have happened suddenly. The manipulation of the media has been so total during the past couple of decades that the average (i.e., not particularly focused on politics) person has been broadsided. It's almost as though much of our population is just now beginning to realize that they have been knocked down and they're trying to shake off the grogginess. I just hope everyone wakes up in time.

[paineinthearse]

21. OK, I'll go on the record

I'm supporting Ted Kennedy for re-election in 2006!

[ktowntennesseedem]

22. There needs to be rule against being nasty,

because they've been breaking that rule non-stop.

[Tigress DEM]

38. They are supposed to abide by Robert's Rules of Order

calling each other "my respected colleague" when they mean smarmy toad & waiting to be recognized before talking etc...

[wschalle]

24. Someone should make a Senate Card game.

Then maybe we could get kids interested and educated about the legislative process at the same time.

[crispini]

25. Very useful to know.

And very disappointing.

[aion]

26. Dissolving the Senate, and Re-instating them without rules

If the Senate is ignoring/suspending its own rules, then how is that any different than having them dissolved, and re-instating the same senators, but without any rules?

Don't kings/emperors have the power to dissolve parliament?

[mcscajun]

36. "Dissolving Parliament" by executive fiat is just what this reminds me of

Charles the I, anyone?

Paging the Sun King..."L'état, c'est moi!"

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

27. To which the neocons reply...

"Yeah. What's your point?"

[sui generis]

29. what is the least number of senators required

to be present to take a vote on a bill? What about a senate walkout done on a declaration of nonconfidence and corruption? What kind of "nuclear" option can we take back to them?

[grumpy old fart]

30. Refuse to attend, except for a rotating lone Dem Senator to suggest....

the absence of a quorum on every little item that used to be done with the ubiquitous "unanimous consent"....

[ClintonTyree]

31. Then the Democrats must.....

SHUT THIS FUCKING GOVERNMENT DOWN! :grr: If ONE Democrat so much as flinches from this position, that Democrat will NOT be in office in 2007. That is MY position, I've told them as much, and I will do everything in my power to see that it happens. If these cheap thugs are going to break most of the rules to achieve their twisted agenda.... SHUT THE GOVERNMENT DOWN!


I'm about to go nuclear myself! :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[lfairban]

32. I'll bet you told them that about Iraq . . .

. . . and we got Kerry as the presidential nominee.

[ClintonTyree]

33. Your pretty much right on the money there.....

I was a Deaniac all the way but got behind Kerry when it was clear the DLC had weaseled him into the nomination. Anybody is better than bush.
Democrats elect Democrats though, and without our support some of these Congressmen (I can't think of a single woman that doesn't deserve to be re-elected, though Hillary's tepid support of bush on some issues is disturbing) are going to kiss our asses royally if they want to get re-elected.
I think 2006 is going to be a whole lot of fun. ;)

[redacted]

40. Isn't there a penalty for breaking these rules?

[TaleWgnDg]

42. When you get your way 95% of the time, what do you do?

.
When you get your way 95% of the time, what do you do? That is, if you are a congressional rightwing radical in 2005? Why, of course, you totally disembowel your opposing party -- trammel em -- in order to get 100%.

So goes comity, compromise, collegiality, and the art of politics to congressional rightwing radicals on their road to capture the third branch of our government -- the Judiciary. So goes the "checks and balances" that will no longer check nor balance.








.

[jvdassam]

45. This is not as evil as it appears...

While I agree that it is unfortunate (and possibly politically favorable to us) that the Repugs may take this extraordinary measure, it's not that unusual for legislative majorities to change the rules in order to get things through with majority votes rather than super-majorities. When I worked for California speaker Willie Brown in the early 1980's we used to regularly circumvent super-majorities by changing the rules. For example, California law at that time required 2/3 votes to enact tax increases, but we regularly increased taxes with majority votes through rules changes. In the end, all legislative bodies operate under majority rule. Super-majorities are an accommodation granted to the minority by the majority. To claim somehow that it is unconstitutional or despotic is silly.<p>
I think the upside is that this should motivate us to get off our keesters and get the majority back as they will have transformed the senate into a body of action rather than inaction, and having control of it will have significant meaning in the future.

[CTPatriot]

56. Hello??

Maybe this wasn't a big deal in CA, but this is a HUGE deal in the US Senate. It has NEVER .. I repeat ... NEVER ... been done before. It blatantly breaks the rules of the US Senate, it gives a finger to the constitution, and it will have absolutely devastating consequences for this country - the kind that may impact us for the next 40-50 years.

For you to minimize the seriousness of this is silly.

[chomskysright]

46. Narcissitic rule-breakers bullying the populace: do as I say, not as I do

[Rainscents]

47. I just this guy... He is true Liberal and sincerely cares about people.

[TaleWgnDg]

49. Yup. I've voted for Ted Kennedy since he first ran . . .

.
Yup. I've voted for Ted Kennedy since he first ran . . . for his brother's (JFK's) Senate seat upon the election of JFK. And I will continue to vote for Ted. He's the best. His voting record is all for the people.

And, I'm damn proud of having voted for Ted Kennedy since the 1960s.


If you co-mingle religion with the politics of the majority in power,
then you establish a state religion -- sound familiar?




.

[teryang]

51. Destruction of traditional institutions equals tyranny

Such activity is a necessary part of the movement to totalitarianism.

[rhett o rick]

52. All together now: NO COMPROMISE NO DEALS DEMOCRACY OR FIGHT

[slor]

53. Thanks for posting...

will print and pass out!

[Robworld]

54. Has this received any real media attention?

http://www.dumdumgoestothecircus.com /

[chomskysright]

55. FENCE SITTING SENATORS W/ E MAIL CONTACT HERE:

Mike DeWine of Ohio: http://dewine.senate.gov/

Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania: http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInfo.Home

John Warner of Virginia; http://warner.senate.gov/contact/contactme.cfm

Lisa Murkowski of Alaska; http://murkowski.senate.gov/contact.html

Chuck Hagel of Nebraska: http://hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Offices.Contact

John Sununu of New Hampshire; http://www.sununu.senate.gov/webform.html

Susan Collins of Maine: http://collins.senate.gov/low/contactemail.htm


made up his mind -- but wouldn't hurt to let him know where you stand on this issue before Tuesday.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200...

Sunday, May 22, 2005
Senator DeWine center of debate to end filibuster

By Malia Rulon
Gannett News Service


WASHINGTON - Sen. Mike DeWine of Ohio, who has emerged as a key Republican holdout in a congressional battle over whether to end judicial filibusters, is getting pressure from both sides over a pivotal vote that would make it easier for President Bush to get his nominees approved.

The Senate could take up the issue as early as Tuesday if lawmakers vote on Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, one of several controversial nominees Democrats threaten to block with a filibuster, a stalling tactic intended to thwart votes on nominees or bills.

DeWine said he has made up his mind but won't tell whether he'll side with Republicans, who plan to use a so-called "nuclear option" if Owen's nomination doesn't get the necessary 60 votes to stop a filibuster.


OTHERS who won't say which way they are voting:

The seven Republican senators who haven't declared whether they'll support the GOP plan to scrap judicial filibusters and force the approval of President Bush's nominees:

[0rganism]

57. and now they don't even have to break the rules to get what they want

How nice to be a republican in bush's Amerikkka. All you have to do is threaten to cheat and your "opposition" will simply forfeit the match.