Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






Changing US Senate rules with a simple majority vote is considered so controversial it is sometimes called the nuclear option.
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
Partisan Proponent of Filibuster
Reform Claims to Have 51 Votes

The Hill
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), a leading proponent of filibuster reform, said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has the 51 votes he needs to change Senate rules with the "nuclear option."

The maneuver would be controversial, however, and could heighten partisan tensions at the start of the 113th Congress in January. Republicans say using 51 votes to change Senate procedures -- and to prevent the minority party in the Senate from blocking a majority-vote -- amounts to breaking the rules to change them.

"The crucial thing for all of you to know is Harry Reid's got 51 votes to do the Constitutional option at the beginning of the Congress," Udall said. "My sense is if he can't get agreement on the other side, then he's going to go forward."

Changing rules with a simple majority vote is considered so controversial it is sometimes called the nuclear option. Democrats backing the maneuver have described it as the "Constitutional option."

A bipartisan group of senators including Senate Rules Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), the ranking Republican member of the Rules panel, are meanwhile working on a bipartisan compromise to change filibuster rules under regular order, which requires 67 votes.

Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Carl Levin (D-MI) are part of the ad-hoc group working on a compromise to avoid the nuclear option.

The bipartisan group of senators floated their plan Friday afternoon.

It stops far short of the broader weakening of the filibuster that Udall, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and other Democrats are pushing to adopt with the "nuclear" or "constitutional" option.

Under the bipartisan plan, the Senate would adopt an order at the opening of the next Congress that would give the majority leader more tools to overcome procedural barriers to debating bills.

"The key, number one part is to give the majority leader options to overcome the filibuster and the threat of a filibuster on a motion to proceed. That has been the greatest problem around here in terms of getting to the business of working on bills," Levin said at a press conference.

The plan, according to a summary, would limit and substantially expedite debate on a "motion to proceed" to legislation, and seek to ensure that both parties have the option to offer amendments to bills.

Elsewhere, the plan would consolidate motions to go to conference on bills with the House, and expedite action on some judicial nominations, among other features.

It also calls on the respective Democratic and Republican leaders to less formally press their caucuses not to hold up bills.

READ FULL SOURCE ARTICLE: 12/28/2012

Editor's Note: While the US Constitution allows for each body of Congress to make its own rules, so, too, did it mandate that Senators be selected for office by each State's legislatures...We're just saying...Additionally, any move to decrease the protection of the minority -- whether the minority of the populace in government, or the minority party in government -- is a dangerous and slippery slope that can only lead to majority rule (pure Democracy abhorred by our Framers), or mob rule, where minority rights are not protected.








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server