Pathetic Display by Dems in Senate

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

But again, I believe you need 60% to change the rule and oh 60% to get a quorum.  So I suspect if they change the rule, they get the quorum as well.

 

You might be right - I honestly don't know. Nor, frankly, do I care enough to check. Congress is at its most productive when its prevented from doing anything.

 

Be pretty shortsighted to vote for the change and then sit the vote out. 

 

And for the most part we're talking about professional politicians here. They're never shortsighted...

[JimBob2232]

Section II, Clause 2

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

Lets disect this...

 

"He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

 

Notice this says 2/3s Of the senators present... which at a minimum would now mean just 33 Senators if only a bare minimum Quorum were present - 51 Senators. This is what the text actually says.

 

Then in Regards to Nominations:

 

"He (the President) shall have Power, and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advise and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court , and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not otherwise herein provided for, and which shall be established by Law; but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

 

Now, there is a common standard for interpretation: if a word or phrase is used with similar usage in the same or related documents then those words or phrases may be taken to mean the same thing.

 

In this second half of the passage the Senate is again authorized to provide both Advise and Consent; however, there is no requirement for a 2/3s majority of "the Senators present" ...

 

The Democrats are overstepping their bounds.

 

Also, let the democrats threaten to walk out of the senate. A quarom is defined by the constitution. The Constitution requires a majority of Senators (51) for a quorum. Let them walk out. The republicans will still have a quarom to conduct business, and the senators will not be doing their jobs representing their people.

 

This is going to get ugly...

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Section II, Clause 2

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

Lets disect this...

 

"He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

 

Notice this says 2/3s Of the senators present... which at a minimum would now mean just 33 Senators if only a bare minimum Quorum were present - 51 Senators. This is what the text actually says.

 

Then in Regards to Nominations:

 

"He (the President) shall have Power, and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advise and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court , and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not otherwise herein provided for, and which shall be established by Law; but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

 

Now, there is a common standard for interpretation: if a word or phrase is used with similar usage in the same or related documents then those words or phrases may be taken to mean the same thing.

 

In this second half of the passage the Senate is again authorized to provide both Advise and Consent; however, there is no requirement for a 2/3s majority of "the Senators present" ...

 

The Democrats are overstepping their bounds. 

 

Also, let the democrats threaten to walk out of the senate.  A quarom is defined by the constitution.  The Constitution requires a majority of Senators (51) for a quorum.  Let them walk out.  The republicans will still have a quarom to conduct business, and the senators will not be doing their jobs representing their people.

 

This is going to get ugly...

341524[/snapback]

 

I wish these ignorant !@#$ers who swear an oath to protect the Constitution had read it as closely as some of us here have...

[VABills]

I wish these ignorant !@#$ers who swear an oath to protect the Constitution had read it as closely as some of us here have...

341541[/snapback]

Why the non-constitutional judges just change it because they say it doesn't keep up with the times , and it is their duty to change it.

[UConn James]

Why the non-constitutional judges just change it because they say it doesn't keep up with the times , and it is their duty to change it. 

341544[/snapback]

 

Something they really does need to change is all of the "He"s that describe the President. Does that mean only a man can be POTUS (but hey, it'd be a nice thing for if Hillary tried to run. Uhp! Sorry Mrs. Clinton! )? How that's managed to stay the same....

[AKC]

Why the non-constitutional judges just change it because they say it doesn't keep up with the times , and it is their duty to change it. 

341544[/snapback]

 

That's a point of interest- the first use of "living breathing document" to describe the U.S. Constitution gets attributed to Al Gore in a Google search.

[KRC]

Section II, Clause 2

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

Lets disect this...

 

"He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

 

Notice this says 2/3s Of the senators present... which at a minimum would now mean just 33 Senators if only a bare minimum Quorum were present - 51 Senators. This is what the text actually says.

 

Then in Regards to Nominations:

 

"He (the President) shall have Power, and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advise and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court , and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not otherwise herein provided for, and which shall be established by Law; but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

 

Now, there is a common standard for interpretation: if a word or phrase is used with similar usage in the same or related documents then those words or phrases may be taken to mean the same thing.

 

In this second half of the passage the Senate is again authorized to provide both Advise and Consent; however, there is no requirement for a 2/3s majority of "the Senators present" ...

 

The Democrats are overstepping their bounds. 

 

Also, let the democrats threaten to walk out of the senate.  A quarom is defined by the constitution.  The Constitution requires a majority of Senators (51) for a quorum.  Let them walk out.  The republicans will still have a quarom to conduct business, and the senators will not be doing their jobs representing their people.

 

This is going to get ugly...

341524[/snapback]

 

The Senate is allowed to change the rules, as long as it does not conflict with the Constitution. The only thing requiring a supermajority is the treaty thingy. Other than that, it is a simple majority. Judicial nominations, according to the Constitution, require a simple majority.