Treaties

The Constitution, The US Senate, Exceptions To Majority Rule, And The Filibuster Crisis

Ronald Leave a comment

Anyone who studies Congress knows that the House of Representatives is based on majority rule, the need to have 218 votes, if everyone is voting, to pass legislation through the chamber.

One would like to think that the same idea applies to the US Senate, that 51 votes are needed to take action, or 50 votes with the Vice President casting the tie breaking vote.

But, actually, the Constitution, drawn up by the Founding Fathers, set up FIVE conditions, where a two thirds vote was needed to take action.

A Constitutional Amendment requires a two thirds vote.

A vote to remove a President, Vice President, Cabinet Officer, Supreme Court Justice, or a lower level Federal Court Judge, after an impeachment trial, requires a two thirds vote.

A treaty with a foreign nation requires a two thirds vote for ratification.

An attempt to override a Presidential veto of legislation requires a two thirds vote.

The expulsion of a Senator, after investigation of his actions and behavior, requires a two thirds vote.

That is it, no other time when the Constitution requires more than a majority vote.

However, the evil action known as the filibuster has emerged to become a monster, which bottlenecks and paralyzes Senate action in recent times.

A rarity until 2007, the filibuster dates back a century, but was rarely used. But when it was, it required the individual or the group to spend hours upon hours speaking on the floor of the Senate.

Now, with 386 “filibusters” in the past six years by the Republican minority, with none of them leading to debate for hours and hours, but simply blocking action by the threat itself, it has become clear that action should be taken against this weapon of the minority to cripple the Senate,

So action is being planned to lower the filibuster numbers required to stop action from 60 senators to a number likely to be 55, but other plans are also being developed, and the decision will be made at the beginning of the new Senate on January 3, 2013.

More discussion of the filibuster will be done by this author in the weeks leading up to that momentous decision, to try to allow the Senate to act in a manner which allows action, rather than total paralysis, which has made the Senate lose its respectability!

The Need For Supreme Court Reform By Constitutional Amendment

Ronald 1 Comment

THe controversy over the US Supreme Court has grown in recent years, with the Bush V. Gore case of 2000, where the Court, by partisan majority, chose a President; and the Citizens United case of 2010, which also, by partisan majority, the Court claimed that corporations and labor unions had the same right to freedom of speech in politics as did ordinary citizens, and has led to the Super PACs that are now distorting campaign finance in the Presidential Election of 2012.

That, along with the concern that the Court might strike down the Obama Health Care legislation by another 5-4 partisan majority, and the Strip Search decision of the Court this past Monday, also by partisan majority, makes many wonder if there is not a need for Supreme Court reform.

This is nothing new, as a century ago, during their Progressive Party campaigns for President of former President Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 and Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette, Sr. in 1924, as well as proposals of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937, suggestions for changes, including constitutional amendment changes by TR and La Follette. were advocated.

Of course, the constitutional amendment route is a very difficult one, and it could be a long road to necessary change, but even if not imminent, the changes that this blogger proposes are worthy of consideration, if not adoption.

These proposed changes would include the following:

A term on the Supreme Court should not be lifetime, but instead 15 years maximum, which in most cases, would mean the Justice would be over 70 at the end of the term.

No one should serve on the Supreme Court past the age of 80, with only a handful who have so served, including outstanding men, such as Oliver Wendell Holmes and John Paul Stevens. Losing such luminaries at age 80 is a shame, but no one can be considered as irreplaceable, as the President and the Pope are replaceable, as well as any other position in any government!

While 5-4 decisions on normal cases would continue, any attempt to override legislation passed by Congress should require a super majority of 6-3 to have such effect. Since we have a two thirds vote for a constitutional amendment to pass Congress and go to the states for ratification; a two thirds vote to override a Presidential veto; and a two thirds vote to ratify a treaty in the US Senate, it seems reasonable that a two thirds vote should be necessary to overturn a congressional law.

What these suggested amendments do is allow turnover on the Court more regularly, and stop the image of the Supreme Court as being out of touch with America, and as an arrogant, unelected group that can hold back progress!