60 votes needed

[Pro Street]

why am I seeing 60 votes needed to pass a bill in the Senate? Is there some elementary level rule on needing 60 votes that I missed?

[kinggovernor]

because you need 60 votes to end debate

[Thorgrim]

The GOP, who won in 2002 on the theme of Democrats obstructing judges and other minor issues, are filibustering everything the Democrats try to pass and being complete obstructionist...

Example #9839847 of the GOP being hypocrits

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

why am I seeing 60 votes needed to pass a bill in the Senate? Is there some elementary level rule on needing 60 votes that I missed?

It is called a super majority...it is a Silver Bullet to get past things like invoking kloture, or to amend a senate rule etc.

here is link

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The GOP, who won in 2002 on the theme of Democrats obstructing judges and other minor issues, are filibustering everything the Democrats try to pass and being complete obstructionist...

Example #9839847 of the GOP being hypocrits

possibly being a little more informed might help the person, rather than making a simple question a partisan issue...

Super Majority was part of the Framers original thoughts...

Here is a quote from the link I posted...

Constitutional Super-Majority Requirements

In the judgment of several of our Founding Fathers, among the infirmities of the
Articles of Confederation was a super-majority requirement for deciding such questions
as coining money, appropriating funds, and determining the size of the army and navy. As
Alexander Hamilton declaimed in Federalist No. 22, “To give a minority a negative upon
the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a
decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the
lesser.” Overall, the Framers generally favored decision-making by simple majority vote.
This view is buttressed by the grant of a vote to the Vice President (Article I, section 3)
in those cases where the Senators are “equally divided.”
On the other hand, the Framers also recognized the virtue of super-majority votes in
certain circumstances. In Federalist No. 58, James Madison (like Hamilton a proponent
of majority voting for most things) noted that super-majority votes could serve as a “shield
to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures.”
Hamilton, too, in Federalist No. 73 highlighted the benefits of requiring an extraordinary
majority of each chamber to overturn a president's veto. “It establishes a salutary check
upon the legislative body,” he said, “calculated to guard the community against the effects
of faction, precipitancy, or of any impulse unfriendly to the public good, which may
happen to influence a majority of that body.”
CRS-2
The original Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of either the House, the Senate,
or both in five situations. They include: (1) overriding presidential vetoes, Article I,
section 7, clause 2; (2) removing federal officers through impeachment proceedings with
conviction by two-thirds vote of the Senate, Article I, section 3, clause 6; (3) ratifying
treaties by two-thirds vote of the Senate, Article II, section 2, clause 2; (4) expelling
members from the House or Senate, Article I, section 5, clause 2; and (5) proposing
constitutional amendments, Article V. In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution, ratified in 1868, disallowed anyone who engaged in “insurrection or
rebellion” from holding any civil or military office unless each house removed this disability
by a two-thirds vote. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1967, addresses the issues
of presidential succession and inability. In the case of an Acting President, the House and
Senate, by a two-thirds vote of each chamber, may determine that “the President is unable
to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by MTdream

possibly being a little more informed might help the person, rather than making a simple question a partisan issue...

Super Majority was part of the Framers original thoughts...

Here is a quote from the link I posted...

[/size][/font]

[/left]

While what you posted it true, thorgrim is correct also.

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

While what you posted it true, thorgrim is correct also.

you mean like non-binding pontifications on the war?

lets get them to get a put forth a real bill like one that has teeth...

it is mere smear...

[MTdream]

Original post:

Originally Posted by Pro Street

why am I seeing 60 votes needed to pass a bill in the Senate? Is there some elementary level rule on needing 60 votes that I missed?

Originally Posted by DosEquis

While what you posted it true, thorgrim is correct also.

here is his response...

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The GOP, who won in 2002 on the theme of Democrats obstructing judges and other minor issues, are filibustering everything the Democrats try to pass and being complete obstructionist...

Example #9839847 of the GOP being hypocrits

his response took a simple question and turned it into political rhetoric...it is sad people cannot even ask a question without political BS

[grembert]

The Democrats made their point and the Republicans made their's. Events in Iraq are going to influence future votes.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by MTdream

his response took a simple question and turned it into political rhetoric...it is sad people cannot even ask a question without political BS

Last I checked this was a politcal OPINION forum.....he was stating his opinion, nothing wrong with that.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by tbone

Last I checked this was a politcal OPINION forum.....he was stating his opinion, nothing wrong with that.

You are correct in your assertion that this is a political forum, and he is free to post whatever opinion he may have. However, you are wrong in assuming he is free to post any opinion in any thread. There are rules to this forum, and those rules must be followed. I fail to see how his opinion is relevant to the OP's topic.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

You are correct in your assertion that this is a political forum, and he is free to post whatever opinion he may have. However, you are wrong in assuming he is free to post any opinion in any thread. There are rules to this forum, and those rules must be followed. I fail to see how his opinion is relevant to the OP's topic.

Actually it answered the OP question, just with his opinion rather than a complete explanation.

Question:
"why am I seeing 60 votes needed to pass a bill in the Senate? Is there some elementary level rule on needing 60 votes that I missed?"

His answer/opinion:
"The GOP, who won in 2002 on the theme of Democrats obstructing judges and other minor issues, are filibustering everything the Democrats try to pass and being complete obstructionist..."

You need 60 votes to end debate and thus end a filibuster. Granted he could have said it a lot more plain and take out the rhetoric, but it is factually correct.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by tbone

are filibustering everything the Democrats try to pass

You need 60 votes to end debate and thus end a filibuster. Granted he could have said it a lot more plain and take out the rhetoric, but it is factually correct.

Everything?

Be careful what you claim to be 'factually correct' when such extreme words such as 'everything' are used. It only takes one example of the Republicans not filibustering a Democrats' proposal to render his statement factually incorrect.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by tbone

Actually it answered the OP question, just with his opinion rather than a complete explanation.

Question:
"why am I seeing 60 votes needed to pass a bill in the Senate? Is there some elementary level rule on needing 60 votes that I missed?"

His answer/opinion:
"The GOP, who won in 2002 on the theme of Democrats obstructing judges and other minor issues, are filibustering everything the Democrats try to pass and being complete obstructionist..."

You need 60 votes to end debate and thus end a filibuster. Granted he could have said it a lot more plain and take out the rhetoric, but it is factually correct.

that's a stretch!

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by MTdream

you mean like non-binding pontifications on the war?

lets get them to get a put forth a real bill like one that has teeth...

it is mere smear...

non binding resolutions are a first step in attempting to gain further support for more fruitful legislation. It is a process of government that has been there for years. It is basically forces the issue to be part of a debate and then gets a signature to see which side of the debate you are on. Republicans did it during the Clinton administration regarding Kosovo. Were they just doing a mere smear back then too? Maybe they were just doing it to pile it on top of the lying about his blow job? Why didnt THEY put a "real" bill with teeth through? Are they big pussys like people like to label democrats?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

non binding resolutions are a first step in attempting to gain further support for more fruitful legislation. It is a process of government that has been there for years. It is basically forces the issue to be part of a debate and then gets a signature to see which side of the debate you are on.

Excellent summary!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Republicans did it during the Clinton administration regarding Kosovo. Were they just doing a mere smear back then too? Maybe they were just doing it to pile it on top of the lying about his blow job? Why didnt THEY put a "real" bill with teeth through? Are they big pussys like people like to label democrats?

I might point out however that while I think historical politics is fair game it is not according to one of the boards moderators. And some might think you are posting a very partisan attempt at distraction from the actual current issue. The personal language used was much stronger, but that was the point made since we are bringing up proper debate in this thread.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I might point out however that while I think historical politics is fair game it is not according to one of the boards moderators. And some might think you are posting a very partisan attempt at distraction from the actual current issue. The personal language used was much stronger, but that was the point made since we are bringing up proper debate in this thread.

History establishes precedence. History is 100% valid when comparing apples to apples. One apple is the republicans submitting non-binding resolutions regarding kosovo, while making comments that it will be the next vietnam and how we will never get out of there. The other apple is democrats submitting non-binding resolutions regarding Iraq. The apples in this case is non-binding resolutions regarding a conflict, not the conflicts themselves.

In the case today pundits will bring up that the democrats are bringing up toothless legislation that accomplishes nothing. They say it distracts from the war effort, damages the moral of the soldiers, emboldens the enemy, and overall counter productive to the country's goals and ambitions for Iraq. The legislation gets labeled "slow bleed" "cut and run" "appeasement" and the drafter of the legislation gets called "defeatocrat" or other political buzzwords. Some pundits even call former senators "faggot" for being against the war thus, per the pundit, implying the former senator is a wuss (not gay).

I bring up history because these same pundits 10 years ago were bringing up non-binding resolutions because they had reservations about using our military for removing an murderous dictator. They were all about using non-binding resolutions to make their point. It was perfectly acceptable when they try to make their point, but when democrats do it today it chaps their ass. If you called the republicans slow bleeding cut and runners who embolden the enemy when they question government action...the outcry would be massive by them.

In a two party government, nearly everything is going to be partisan.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Everything?

Be careful what you claim to be 'factually correct' when such extreme words such as 'everything' are used. It only takes one example of the Republicans not filibustering a Democrats' proposal to render his statement factually incorrect.

Wow, semantics here. Let's not hijack a thread on semantics please.

I didn't say "everything," he did. The general reply insinuating the GOP will fillibuster and the democrats need 60 votes to end debate is factually correct. I acknowledged he put a LOT of bias into it though.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

History establishes precedence. History is 100% valid when comparing apples to apples. One apple is the republicans submitting non-binding resolutions regarding kosovo, while making comments that it will be the next vietnam and how we will never get out of there. The other apple is democrats submitting non-binding resolutions regarding Iraq. The apples in this case is non-binding resolutions regarding a conflict, not the conflicts themselves.

In the case today pundits will bring up that the democrats are bringing up toothless legislation that accomplishes nothing. They say it distracts from the war effort, damages the moral of the soldiers, emboldens the enemy, and overall counter productive to the country's goals and ambitions for Iraq. The legislation gets labeled "slow bleed" "cut and run" "appeasement" and the drafter of the legislation gets called "defeatocrat" or other political buzzwords. Some pundits even call former senators "faggot" for being against the war thus, per the pundit, implying the former senator is a wuss (not gay).

I bring up history because these same pundits 10 years ago were bringing up non-binding resolutions because they had reservations about using our military for removing an murderous dictator. They were all about using non-binding resolutions to make their point. It was perfectly acceptable when they try to m