The 60 Vote Rule In The Senate Under Attack

President Donald Trump threatened Tuesday to force a government shutdown later this year after congressional Democrats and Republicans struck a budget deal that largely neglected his priorities.

“The reason for the plan negotiated between the Republicans and Democrats is that we need 60 votes in the Senate which are not there!” the president wrote on Twitter. “We either elect more Republican Senators in 2018 or change the rules now to 51%. Our country needs a good ‘shutdown’ in September to fix mess!”

The message appeared to encourage the Republican-controlled Senate to change rules that now require 60 votes to end a filibuster of legislation. Republicans reduced the threshold to 51 votes for Supreme Court nominees this year and could do the same for legislation with a simple majority vote.

www.bloomberg.com...

The 60 vote rule in the Senate is unconstitutional in my opinion. Article I, section 5, refers to both the House of Representatives and the Senate, “…a majority of each [house] shall constitute a quorum to do business…”. Majority not super-majority.

Article I, Section 3 states, in part, "Each Senator shall have one Vote." ONE VOTE NOT TWO!!!

I am beginning to like Trump more. I like what he said about the 60-vote rule.

I think this is horrible.

Making it easier for Congress to pass EVEN MORE LAWS sounds insane.

Why do we need new laws this badly?
Surely if the law proposed is that important, a super majority would be easy to achieve.

What are the hundreds of thousands of pages of laws we have not good enough?

This is a horrible decision.
I'll be criticizing and attacking this vehemently.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

I am beginning to like Trump more.

I am beginning to not like Trump.
This is starting to look like he was a Nazi in a Tea-Partier's wool.

Not really a big surprise though.
Every president we've had for decades did the SAME THING.

Campaigned on all this pro-Liberty pro-Peace stuff then turns around and tries to increase government power, ignore corruption, and rattle the saber for more wars.

a reply to: dfnj2015


They used the "nuclear option" to approve Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Use it again for HealthCare reform, Tax Reform, etc.. as needed.


The Liberal Media and Democrats made the Nuke option out to be such a horrible thing to do before its use, but afterward, things continued creeping along in the Senate, as usual.

More shortsighted BS from D.C. because these two minority parties refuse to work together and compromise on solutions that benefit the majority of the American populace. Sure, it seems like a "great idea" now that Republicans have the majority, but that circumstance isn't going to last, and it will come back to bite them in the ass when the pendulum naturally swings back to Dems because the pendulum never stops swinging.

This reminds me of Florida. In Florida the republicans changed their electoral process to "winner takes all" when it comes to their electoral college votes. This was to guarantee that Jeb would get all of Florida's E.C. votes in 2016, and then... Trump came along, completely shattered that "guarantee", and punched establishment republicans in the gut by taking all of Florida's E.C. votes.

Greedy power grabs like this never work out as intended in the long run.

a reply to: muzzleflash

I think you are missing the point. First it is unconstitutional. And second, it creates gridlock and the will of the people and their vote becomes irrelevant. If the Republicans control all three branches of government I would like to see them pass a law banning abortion because that is what the people voted for. Now I disagree with banning abortion personally. But I would like to see voting actually matter for change.

And thirdly, who are you to judge we do not need new laws? Our Constitution is a form of self-government by the people. What you are advocating is anarchy. The idea of forming a "more perfect union" means some laws are going to pass the help some people and hurt others. I have no problem with people who have grievances with their government having the ability to pass laws to address those grievances in an attempt to create a more perfect union.

If the Democrats continue to obstruct for no other reason than to obstruct (as in not supporting legilsation they were for until President Trump proposed it), then I'm all for strict interpretation of the Constitution in only requiring a majority, NOT a self-imposed super majority.

The Ds have been obstructing any movement that they can like spoiled brats. They are against anything that Trump is for. So it serves them right to get made irrelevant by dropping the 60 vote closure to 51 votes. Maybe we can start moving forward. There is a reason that Congress has carried such a low popularity with the voters. They squabble about everything and do nothing except take vacations.

If the R's don't pass legislation with positive results then the D's will no doubt get their chance. The D's passed Obamacare without a single R vote. I didn't get to keep my doctor, or my health plan and my cost doubled. The R's then were placed into power.

It's the gridlock that is hurting us.

originally posted by: whywhynot
The Ds have been obstructing any movement that they can like spoiled brats. They are against anything that Trump is for. So it serves them right to get made irrelevant by dropping the 60 vote closure to 51 votes.

How short is your memory?

Republicans earned the title "The party of NO" for a reason while doing the EXACT same thing when Obama was in charge. Both parties are "spoiled brats". The real issue is that they need to start working together in the interest of the American people (the majority of whom are not registered republican, or democrat).

If this passes, then it's going to bite republicans in the ass once they loose their trifecta of control, and they will loose it because both parties screw over the majority of the populace in their own self interests, and that's why the pendulum never stops swinging.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I find what youre saying to be interesting.

60 votes sure makes it difficult to get anything passed, which as mentioned above is probably a good thing.

Has Ron Paul, Tom Woods or Judge Napolitano rendered an opinion?

a reply to: redmage

Yes, the 60-vote rule is a greedy power grab by those in power who want to preserve the status quo.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Why is it a good thing?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: redmage

Yes, the 60-vote rule is a greedy power grab by those in power who want to preserve the status quo.

No, making it easier to pass even more laws in the interests of their fickle lobbyists is the power grab.

If something would truly benefit the greater American population, then 60 votes shouldn't be difficult to get. It's only divisive BS that would need to slip by with a mere 51 votes.

I just find it amazing people advocating gridlock in Washington. I can't count how many times I've heard people say Congress never gets anything done. And now the argument is it is better that Congress does not act at all.

If you are benefiting from the status quo you don't want anything to change. I think that is a very valid position. We will see what happens. Recent history has shown doing NOTHING is the norm.

Remember, the majority today will be the minority tomorrow

Make the weapons today you want to give your opponent tomorrow

originally posted by: dfnj2015
I just find it amazing people advocating gridlock in Washington.

You seem confused. No one is advocating gridlock.

What's being advocated is compromise in the interests of the greater population instead of shoving through needless legislation that only benefits a political minority.

Remember Republicans and Democrats are both minorities. Most Americans refuse to register with either of these two parties.

Super majorities seemed like a good idea, when you could count on Senators to have reasoned debate to come to conclusion about what should be best for the country. If something's really a good idea, it should cross party lines and you ought to be able to at least get a few from the other side of the aisle to buy in.

That ship's sailed, and not just recently. It just may be worse now than it's ever been because it's been getting worse every year.

Now, Congress cares not a whit what's best for the country, only what's best for The Party.

It's going to get worse before it gets better. Much worse.

I think we're all familiar with addiction and addicts and how until they hit bottom, no meaningful change is likely. We have 435 power addicts in Congress and until it all goes to hell, that's not going to change.

The change will come when The People get fed up enough, hit that intolerable pain point, that they (we) stop doing what we've always done, expecting a different result.

Strap in, it's going to get bumpy.

60 vote "rule" seems to promote monstrosities like omnibus spending bills where both sides of aisle get payola for their political base - this seemingly being the case, I'd rather see simple majority in place of the bribery that wastes taxpayer dollars on massive scale.

If one or other party abuses majority votes they will suffer at election time as Constitution intended.

originally posted by: yeahright
Super majorities seemed like a good idea, when you could count on Senators to have reasoned debate to come to conclusion about what should be best for the country. If something's really a good idea, it should cross party lines and you ought to be able to at least get a few from the other side of the aisle to buy in.

Exactly, and removing super majority rules only enables these spoiled brats (from both sides) to keep throwing tantrums; refusing to come to reasonable compromises, and only being concerned with their own political-minority self-interests at the expense of the greater population.

What a surprise. Trump didn't get his way and now he's whining like a child.

Maybe instead of changing the number of votes required for something to pass we should change things so Congress doesn't get to set their own salary. Make it a referendum on the state level. Then we'll see how's many of them prioritize the Party over their own constituents.