Rent Party: Vlad_the_Inaner: Rent Party: That doesn't bypass anything. The VP came down, cast his vote, and broke the tie. That doesn't mean the measure passes. You seem to believe that the constitution says a simple majority means a measure passes, when in fact, it says "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." So if the rule they determine is 60 votes, an outright unanimous vote, or the minorty leader's consent, that is entirely within their purview, and the courts have absolutely NO authority or standing to tell them differently. That "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings" language is where the "separation of powers" lies. It is not within the courts power to determine Senate rules, it is within the Senate's power to do so.

Gee. That's an interesting position to take. That the courts have no say in the dealings of rules of the Senate. So who DOES enforce the rules of the Senate then.


The Senate does. Duh.


Suppose the the President of the Senate (the VP) ignores Rule XXII, takes a vote on a Bill. Gets a majority assent. Orders it sent to the Conference Committee, does the same when it comes back, writes it into the Congressional record as such, gets it sent to the President for his signature. Who does the minority whine to when they want to say "UNFAIR! That doesn't count!"? Can't be the Courts, according to you.


Well, since the VP is only entitled to vote in one very specific circumstance, that law would be challenged in the courts. That isn't a Senate rule, sport. That's the Constitution. The one that says the Senate makes it's own rules. In plane farking English.


Since you seem to be of the opinion that the Senate doesn't have to follow constitutional provisions to avoid deadlocks, why should they follow constitutional implications to have rules that must be followed? VP tells the POTUS "yeah, we passed that, sign it."


There is nothing about the VP having a vote when the senate is equally divided that is even remote ...

Cool. The Senate enforces it. The scope of your vision of Senatorial powers evokes in me images something like ThunderDome. (A method of operation your take doesn't exclude)

In fact, there are limitations on how the Senate makes rules, and yes, that key is they can't willy nilly redefine words. You know "Plain farking English"

"Pass" meant a particular thing to the Founding Fathers, and that's a position backed up by the Federalist Papers. Pass meant the most votes of the quorum. They gave specific exceptional cases were a supermajority is required. Your description is chaos. Thuderdome would be OK. Unanimous vote required would be OK (but they'd only need 2/3rds that to over-ride a veto). The intent of the founders was for the VP to be a breaker of deadlocks. The 'make their own rules' isn't cart-blanche to re-define what a deadlock is. (Or for that matter,re-define what a 'recess' is either)

Even now the 'cloture' rule XXII is a rule of procedure, not the actual vote upon a measure. It is not the sole procedure for calling a vote on a measure, but one that can limit the time of debate on a measure. The Senate never tried to re-define passage.

So yes, Biden could be there and force the opposition to pull a Mr-Smith-goes-to-Washington style filibuster instead of this BS doesn't-meet-rule-XXII type.

Now back to 'Senate enforces' Really? How? If a Majority is 'breaking the rules (whine whine)', then how does it get enforced? Thanks for admitting that it would be the Courts that could say 'No, that bill wasn't passed right, the law is void'. (COULD say, not WILL say.)

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States"

Your claim is that the Constitution lets the Senate make its own rules. That would make the rule authority comes from the Constitution, ergo judicial power extends to cover them. So go there is you want to argue that some congresspeople's votes are better than others, or that procedural tricks should outflank the the intent of the Founding Fathers. Guess where the validity of the appointment of Richard Cordray to head the CFPB will be tested. That's a "Senate Rules" dispute too. Free clue: It won't be in the Senate.

Dan the Schman: In short, your behavior has been a tad bit disingenuous.

and Stalin was just a teensy bit mean.