At one time, it took 61 senators to stop a filibuster, which was defined as a protest debate by a member who just kept talking in order to stop a vote on a matter.
Now, however, the Senate requires a fake filibuster vote for legislation to go forward.
I believe that requiring 61 senators to agree that legislation should go forward is unconstitutional.
The US Constitution makes it very clear that the Senate should be "majority rules" unless the Senate is voting on a treaty, a conviction of impeachment, or expelling a member. Article 1, section 3 states, "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."
US Constitution makes it clear that it only take a majority vote to pass legislation unless it is a treaty, etc.
It may have been OK to have a 61 vote requirement to stop debate, but not to send every bit of legislation forward. (Actually, a argument can be made that even the old filibuster rules is unconstitutional.) I believe that the Senate can not make a rule for itself that changes the intent of the US Constitution.
I am not a constitutional attorney. It does, however, seem clear that the Senate rules almost certainly violate the US Constitution.
Who can bring a lawsuit regarding this matter? Good question. I think a US Senator could bring a Writ of Mandamus to the US Supreme Court.
Again, I am not a constitutional attorney.
No comments:
Post a Comment