Atlantis Online
August 14, 2020, 08:18:28 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Update About Cuba Underwater Megalithic Research
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

We won--DREAM Amnesty defeated; gets only 55 votes, needed 60

Pages: [1]   Go Down
Author Topic: We won--DREAM Amnesty defeated; gets only 55 votes, needed 60  (Read 232 times)
Lord of the Rings
Superhero Member
Posts: 1728

« on: December 21, 2010, 04:21:38 pm »

Isn't the threshold of 60 votes the things that is dictatorial?  How much legislation can actually muster that?

It should be a simple majority, as it is any time a vote is taken in any other legislative body. The Senate is really backward, made for the status quo, and it's only intent is to slow down legislation.

If it weren't for CLOTURE RULES many of the civil rights laws that are on the books today would never have been passed cuz the Southern States would have filibustered for years and years.  Because CLOTURE RULES politicians in both houses were able bring civil rights isssues to the floor by ENDING delay tactic FILIBUSTERING.

Currently it takes 2/3rds to propose legislation and 3/4ths to ratify in both houses.  So we have 60% to call for cloture, 66% to propose a bill, and 75% to actually ratify it in one house then it actually goes to the other one to go through the same process.

In all cases it takes an increasing majority to get something done.

I think you're still missing the point here. It is true that it now takes 60 votes to move legislation to even getting legislation moved.  The point is, that the NEED to get 60 votes was used rarely before 2006 (when the Republicans became the minority in the Senate) because both parties had the good sense to allow there to at least be a vote.

This chart is an old one, going only to 2008, but you can see how much the procedure has increased since the Republicans became the minority:

And yes, there were some rare instances where Strohm Thurmond, for instance, filibustered Civil Rights legislation (something Rand Paul also said he would have been against, had he been in the Senate then), but that was the old-fashioned read from the phone book filibuster that we saw in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It is not like today's filibuster, where a Senator can simply say, "I object," to stall legislation.

Either way, it is wrong for a Senator, many even from very small states can stall progress for the whole country.
Report Spam   Logged

Pages: [1]   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy