Monte wrote:
No he didn't. Clinton didn't have senators rubbing elbows with people who accuse him regularly of not even being a legal citizen of the country. This President has the single most hostile opposition party since the Civil War. Hands down. Senators and members of congress have called for open revolution. They have accused the President of not being a legal citizen (without evidence, mind you, an act that would have been seen as treason by those same lawmakers under Bush).
Right, sure.
Quote:
People keep touting this supermajority BS as if it's real. It's not. Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat. He's an independent. The Democrats do not have 60 seats. They haven't had (in real terms) 60 seats. Parliamentary maneuvering on the part of Republicans has stalled or stopped over 200 pieces of legislation. They lost the seat in Massachusetts (heh, how's that working out for the Tea Party these days?), which put them at 58, 59 if you count Barney Frank.
He Caususes as a Democrat so they have a theoretical supermajority. If they can't get their legislation passed because of Joe Lieberman, then maybe their legislation just sucks.
Barney Frank, is a Representative, not Senator, so what he has to so with a Senate supermajority is beyond me. Oh, wait, that's right. Nothing. You just have no idea who is who.
Quote:
So, really. Take a reality pill for once and take a long hard look at the Republican party. They want to force this country to fall on it's face so they can reap the rewards. Tres patriotic, those blokes.
Yeah, sure. Because the Republicans really just
know deep down that Obama's policies will make things better and are opposing it out of sheer bloody-mindedness... oh wait, they don't. What they relly think is that the cpuntry will fall on its face if this **** passes, and are trying to stop it and reap the political rewards.
Quote:
They don't have a super majority. They haven't had one for a long time. The Republicans filibuster everything as a matter of course. All of you constitutionalists need to take a long hard look at what it ought to take to get legislation passed, based on the document you claim to revere so much. Because it doesn't say anything about a super majority.
Except that they do have a supermajority. If they can't convince that supermajority to pass legislation or break filibusters... it indicates they're idiots.
As for the Constitution, it does mention a supermajority 3 times - in relation to impeachment, to expel a member, and to override a Presidential veto. Other than that, however, it does not perscribe a supermajority, a majority, or even a plurality to pass laws - it perscribes that Congress make up its own rules. Congress has the power to make legislation pass on one vote if it wants. It also can create filibusters and other parlimentary procedures, so claiming that they're a problem just because your boys aren't getting your way is just whining that the rules are unfair when things don't go your way. Here is the relevant line, from Article 1, Section 5:
Quote:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.