U.S. Constitution question

[veronica_rich]

Would somebody who's a better scholar than I please point me to the section in the federal Constitution where a supermajority vote to pass legislation is required in any instance other than that following a presidential veto?

I keep hearing a simple majority vote in the Senate and House - referred to now as "reconciliation" (I haven't heard that word in 16 years of being a reporter, regarding taking a vote, and I've covered Congressional legislation) - isn't legal. This runs counter to what I remember learning in school. It's been 20 years since I was in school - would somebody please point me to what I've forgotten or missed?

Thanks!

Comments

[xzombiexkittenx.livejournal.com]

I'm foreign and of no help to you, but here's a humorous video about writing the declaration of independence instead :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZfRaWAtBVg

[lizzie-omalley.livejournal.com]

I'm not much help but I think it has something to do with the new filibuster rules. But, in the interest of full disclosure, I don't understand them either.

[virginia-fell.livejournal.com]

Here's stuff as I understand it (though I could be wrong and if I am someone should correct me).

The first thing that's changed is that in order to filibuster, you don't actually have to stand up and keep the floor for as long as you can. As I understand it, you're basically just tabling it until one side or the other has enough votes to end the filibuster. Since filibusters are no longer as annoying as they once were to be in the assembly for, nobody ever cares enough to end filibusters (whereas back in the day, people would finally end them just to go home).

This means that filibustering basically means one side or other other has arbitrarily decided that this bill doesn't need 51 votes to go through. It needs 60 votes for cloture--to even be voted on as a bill--and then 51 votes to go through. It means that any bill could potentially suddenly need 60 votes to pass instead of 51, depending on whether someone filibusters it (which we've established doesn't actually cost anyone to do, so there's really no reason anymore not to use this to kill legislation).

This is how the Republicans ended up with a 49-seat majority in the senate. Reconciliation is a budget measure used to pass a financial bill in an emergency (such as "we have to pass a budget or the government has to shut down because we don't have a financial plan this year, so we're overriding a filibuster to get SOMETHING done at least). However, I think that Republicans used Reconciliation like, five times or something while GW was in office to defeat Democratic filibusters, so their bluster and moaning about what a dirty trick this is... kind of rings hollow to me.

Anyway, that's my understanding of it.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

OK, so the whole filibuster procedure is where I was falling down on understanding for this one. (It seems like it's used all the damn time anymore - then again, when you're the party who just likes saying "no" for no's sake, as modern Congressional Republications seem to be, it's sort of hard to tell when you have a sincere gripe against impending legislation, and when you're just playing games because you can.)

[virginia-fell.livejournal.com]

They'd filibuster less if it actually required them to do anything annoying. As it is, it's just a far more obnoxious way of tabling a piece of legislation indefinitely.

[a-silver-rose.livejournal.com]

I didn't think the Republicans were saying "No" for no's sake. I thought they were doing it because their guy lost. Not that the Democrats would do any different in this day and age. It seems like too many people are against one thing or the other because of the messenger rather than the message. *shrugs*