60 vote rule in the Senate

There are two groups of people in this country. People who want change and those who don't. The 60 vote rule in the Senate pretty much guarantees NOTHING will change. The 60 vote rule is an abuse of power and I'm not sure it is Constitutional.

"Senate 60-vote rule is an abuse of democracy"

"It’s time to enforce the “one-senator-one-vote” mandate of the 17th Amendment."

thehill.com...

"Why we need 60 votes for everything, in plain language": www.dailykos.com...

"Even when a bill is supported by a majority of Senators and has enough votes to pass if an up or down vote were held on the bill itself, if you cannot get the 60 votes for cloture, to end discussion of the bill, you never get to vote on the bill itself!"

I really don't think the 60 vote cloture rule is Constitutional. The 17th Amendments clearly states, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote."

ONE VOTE NOT TWO MOTHER EFFERS!!!!!

a reply to: dfnj2015
In the House of Commons, a simple majority has been enough to enable "the guillotine" since Gladstone's time. It was necessary to overcome the deliberate obstruction of the Irish members.
It needed a change in the rules of procedure. I suppose the same would apply in the case of the Senate.

P.S. I see your link is voicing an old Democrat complaint on the subject. What are the chances that they won't have changed their minds?

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: dfnj2015
In the House of Commons, a simple majority has been enough to enable "the guillotine" since Gladstone's time. It was necessary to overcome the deliberate obstruction of the Irish members.
It needed a change in the rules of procedure. I suppose the same would apply in the case of the Senate.

P.S. I see your link is voicing an old Democrat complaint on the subject. What are the chances that they won't have changed their minds?

I am not Democrat. I am a firm believing in NOTHING changing. I have no delusions about power in this country. I think the Republicans with all their enthusiasm for Trump changing the world is most likely not going to happen.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Yes. Just another way to give cover to both wings of the Incumbent Party hiding from accountability.

a reply to: dfnj2015
I only commented about the Democrat link because it showed them supporting your proposal in the past, and I was being sceptical about whether they would be consistent enough to support it when it worked against their own interests.

The article states "that's not democracy". Well their right about that, it's a constitutional republic. Where the minority gets equal representation.


From Wikipedia:

The term republic does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, but does appear in Article IV of the Constitution which "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." What exactly the writers of the constitution felt this should mean is uncertain. The Supreme Court, in Luther v. Borden (1849), declared that the definition of republic was a "political question" in which it would not intervene. In two later cases, it did establish a basic definition. In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of a republic.

Donald Trump: "I Have A Pen and A Phone".

There are many different majority requirements in the American Republic. Its set up that way so that the process is intentionally slower and more deliberative. It protects the republic from the whims of the times.

Its a good thing imo.