A colleague just received a mass email action from California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton reiterating my call days ago on the Huffington Post to change the number needed to bust a filibuster.
Burton, the former California Senate President and Congressman, is a bastion of Democratic politics and probably more influential than national party chair Howard Dean given his close relationship to Nancy Pelosi and the San Francisco Democratic donor establishment.
My earlier post pointed out that climate change and real health care reform should not depend upon the likes of Joe Lieberman or Kent Conrad or Ben Nelson. Senate Majority Whip Robert Byrd changed the math needed to overcome the filibuster in 1975, when the number needed to invoke cloture and overcome the filibuster changed to three fifths of the Senators sworn (60 votes) from the previous two thirds of those voting (66) . Historically the filibuster has been used to stall progressive change, including the Civil Rights Act of 1957, when Strom Thurmond set a record of 24 hours and 18 minutes of talking a bill to death.
Rule 22 of the Senate, governing filibusters, can be changed or eliminated by a simple majority according to the US Supreme Court in U.S. v. Ballin (1892) Senate rules call for 67 to change the cloture rule, but Democrats should be able to rewrite the rules since they control the Rules Committee. Rule 22 can go out the door all together or be modified. Republicans under Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened to blow up the filibuster in 2005 with far fewer numbers. What are Democrats waiting for?
Burton's voice will help the chorus grow but progressives need to make this is their new cause if they hope to move the ball forward not only on health care but climate change, financial regulation and other key priorities too. Progressives need to heed the warning of Joe Hill: Don't mourn, organize.
Huff TV: Arianna Discusses Health Reform, State Of The Nation: 'The Lobbyists Are Winning'
Arianna was a guest on MSNBC's Morning Joe today to discuss the health care reform bill making its way through the Senate. She criticized the...
" As the construction to be given to the rules affects persons other than members of the Senate, the question presented is of necessity a judicial one." 'United States v. Smith, 286 U.S. 6 (1932)
'''''2)'''The Constitution provides that "a majority of each [house] shall constitute a quorum to do business." In other words, when a majority are present the house in a position to do business. Its capacity to transact business is then established, created by the mere presence of a majority, and does not depend upon the disposition or assent or action of any single member or fraction of the majority present. "All that the Constitution requires is the presence of a majority, and when that majority are present, the power of the house arises."''
'''5.''' [[Byrd Bill]] of 1981 also know as the "[[Nuclear Option]]" or the [[Constitutional option]] by statutory authority say that a simple majority is all that is needed to pass legislation in the Senate, [[Reconciliation]] also is restricted on the type of bill it may pass, stripping legislative powers from the Senate by not allowing full and impartial bill to decide the most important question to be voted on in order to pass legislation as also stated in ''Ballin, supra'' as the court also stated the following,
''
"For, according to the principle of all the cases referred to, a quorum possesses all the powers of the whole body; a majority of which quorum must, of course, govern. . . . '''The constitutions of this state and the United States declare that a majority shall be a quorum to do business, but a majority of that quorum are sufficient to decide the most important question."
e have an Aristocracy, Not a Democracy being that the Senate has a silent control that allows a Veto of legislation whether is Democratic or Republican.
Thus removing and limiting the Power of the President of the United States, voiding the Executive Branch that has the right to pass the bill or send it back by" Veto" so that the legislative Branch then would have the opportunity to "over-ride" the veto by a full Senate body present required with 2/3 of the body needed to over-ride a Presidential" Veto".
Herealso, with those 67 senators present, only a "[[Simple Majority]]" need to vote in the affirmative (yeas) in order to pass legislation as clearly defined in the ''Ballin decision of 1892''. In other words, only 67 Senators need to be Present out of 100 members to conduct Business and of those 67, only 34 Senators (yeas) over 33 (yeas)need to be cast in order for a legislative bill to pass the United States Senate. therefore the Senate Rule XXII of "Cloture" goes above and beyond the constitutional Authority per ''Ballin'' as stipulated by the courts opinion.
The underlying argument is that the filibuster prevents a "vote on the merit" of introduced legislation. This only serves the public interest when matched with two other changes: 1) Mandate that any piece of legislation be publicly available for digestion and reaction for an adequate period of time, and that the process by which that legislation is created be transparent. 72 hours is not adequate public exposure for a 2500 page bill. 2) Mandate that the legislation remain uncontaminated by pork barrel add-ons to "buy" individual legislative votes. The legislation should be good enough of its own accord to pass on its intrinsic merit without back-room sweetheart deals.
Perhaps the most important reform needed to reform democracy itself. This should be a top issue with anyone who cares about the health of our democracy.
Doomed to repeat history over and over.
• "the proposed change should be informed by the experience, knowledge, and traditions of society, tailored for a specific purpose and accomplished through a constitutional construct that ensures thoughtful deliberation by the community. change unconstrained by prudence produces unpredictable consequences, threatening ordered liberty with chaos and ultimately despotism." Mark Levin