decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Senate filibuster unconstitutional? | 402 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Senate filibuster unconstitutional?
Authored by: webster on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 09:05 PM EDT
.

So do you believe in a tyranny of a monority?

.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Senate filibuster unconstitutional?
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 10:34 AM EDT
It's a court issue as every American citizen should have a right to bring a writ
of mandamus before the US Courts, to have the filibuster rules removed and the
Constitutional right of the current Congress to adopt it's own rules by a simple
majority restored.

The fact that one can filibuster the attempt to change the rules is prima facie
evidence that filibuster are unconstitutional.

I am not a lawyer, but I can read what the Constitution says and do basic math:
"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members
for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a
Member.".

That says explicitly (by it's omission of the two-thirds majority qualifier on
that phrase) that by a simple majority, each Congress may establish it's own
rules. Therefore the current rule that requires a 2/3rds majority to change the
rules is, on it's face, unconstitutional, without a Constitutional amendment.

Congress certainly has the power to change whether the next Congress can change
it's rules and how it may do so, but it must do so by changing the wording of
the binding law of the Constitution. It cannot legally be done any other way.

IANAL, IANAMoC, IAAAC

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )