|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Dems, GOP fight brewing over curbing filibusters
« Back to club forum| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
anomalocaris 11-Nov-12, 05:53 |
 Dems, GOP fight brewing over curbing filibusters.. ....WASHINGTON (AP) — A brewing and potentially bitter fight over Democratic efforts to curb filibusters is threatening to inflame partisan tensions in the Senate, even as President Barack Obama and Republicans explore whether they can compromise on top tier issues such as debt reduction and taxes. A potential showdown vote to limit Senate filibusters would not come until January. Democrats are threatening to resort to a seldom-used procedure that could let them change the rules without GOP support, all but inviting Republican retaliation. That fight is looming as the newly re-elected Obama and GOP leaders prepare to use the lame-duck session of Congress that starts Tuesday to hunt for compromise on the "fiscal cliff" — the nearly $700 billion worth of tax increases and spending cuts next year that automatically begin in January unless lawmakers head them off. That effort will be contentious enough without added animosity over efforts to weaken the filibuster. Unless a filibuster compromise is reached, the dispute could produce sour partisan feelings that might hinder cooperation on legislation when the new Congress begins work in January. Filibusters are a procedural tactic that lets the minority party block bills that lack the support of at least 60 senators. Democrats seem likely to command a 55-45 majority in the new Senate, making 60 a difficult hurdle. Frustrated by the GOP's growing use of filibusters, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering a Senate vote in the new year to limit their use. "I think that the rules have been abused and that we're going to work to change them," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters this past week. "We're not going to do away with the filibuster, but we're going to make the Senate a more meaningful place, we're going to make it so that we can get things done." Democrats say that vote to change the rules would require a simple majority of senators, and they argue that the Constitution lets Senate majorities write new rules for the chamber. That, in effect, would mean Democrats could change the rules over GOP opposition, assuming 51 Democrats go along. Republicans say they filibuster legislation because Reid blocks them from offering amendments. They also note that Senate rules require that the body's procedures can be changed only by a two-thirds majority. Changing Senate rules by simple majority, rather than a two-thirds vote, is rarely done and referred to as "the nuclear option" because it is considered an extreme move that can trigger all-out partisan battling. The Senate's arcane procedures require the consent of all senators to do almost anything. An embittered minority party can use the chamber's rules to force repeated votes and delays that can grind work to a virtual halt. Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would not say what Republicans would do should Democrats try changing the rules by simple majority vote. "We hope Democrats will work toward allowing members of both sides to be involved in the legislative process — rather than poisoning the well on the very first day of the next Congress," Stewart said. Republicans also note that in public remarks Reid made on the Senate floor in January 2011 during a discussion with McConnell, Reid agreed to oppose "any effort in this Congress or the next to change the Senate's rules other than through the regular order." That was a reference to Senate rules requiring two-thirds majorities for rules changes. Democrats say it is Republicans who broke the January 2011 informal deal the two leaders discussed because McConnell said he would use procedural delays "with discretion." Instead, Democrats say, Republicans frequently have used stalling tactics to prevent the Senate from even beginning to debate bills. They then bog down debate by insisting on votes on piles of amendments, including many on unrelated issues that are designed to score points in future election campaigns, Democrats say. Reid wants to prevent filibusters on "motions to proceed," which let the Senate begin debating a bill, and aides say he might consider other restrictions as well. Reid plans to discuss it with fellow Democrats in the postelection session. Discussions with McConnell could occur as well, Democratic aides said. Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon has proposed filibuster limits that include requiring senators delaying legislation to talk continually about it on the Senate floor, much like the senator portrayed by the actor James Stewart did in the 1939 movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." That type of filibuster has been extremely rare for decades. The use of filibusters by senators, usually those in the minority, is one of the key ways the chamber differs from the House, where the rules usually let the majority prevail unimpeded. Senators in the majority often complain about the minority's excessive use of filibusters, but are usually cautious about limiting the procedure because they know their own party can fall back into the minority after any election. According to the Senate Historian's Office, the number of "cloture petitions" — a procedural step that sets up a vote to end a filibuster — was 68 in the two-year session of Congress running from 2005 to 2006, the last time Democrats were in the minority. But that number has exceeded 100 for each of the past three two-year sessions, all of which have seen Republicans in the minority, peaking at 139 in the 2007-2008 session. There have been 109 in the current 2011-2012 session, with several more weeks of lame duck meetings expected. Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson said that while Democrats are open to compromise, McConnell "has got to know that the American people on Tuesday completely rejected his entire approach to governing, obstruction and gridlock at every turn." McConnell spokesman Stewart said Republicans already compromised in the informal 2011 agreement that Democrats broke. "Doing hyperpartisan actions doesn't lead to partisan compromise," he said. Looks like Obama wants to be a dictator |
||
|
We get nothing done because of them, when they are employed. There are important things that need to be accomplished and the majority is supposed to have the control. There should be an UP or DOWN vote on all legislation that gets to the floor and let it pass or fail on the outcome. I don't remember filibuster being mentioned in the Constitution. This is a rule made up by Congress and it could certainly be changed or eliminated by Congress. Let's get things moving, for better or for worse. |
||
|
Softy ... |
||
|
dmaestro 11-Nov-12, 09:27 |
|
||
|
|
||
|
Laws are made to be broken In a Dec. 27, 2011, press release, the National Conference of State Legislatures said U.S. states and territories passed more than 40,000 bills and resolutions into law in 2011. And that's just State laws, Federal laws still need to be considered. Now beside State and Federal law, we then must delve into the numerous and various departments' and each of their staggering volumes of rules, regulations, codes and requirements. Hot damn these people need to get busy and make some laws!!!!! Slackers!!! America Mired in Morass of Laws and Regulations Published March 11, 2004, FoxNews.com Last week, Martha Stewart was convicted of lying to federal investigators about a crime with which she was never charged. Most analysts agree that prosecutors never charged Stewart with the crime of insider trading because it’s a law too complicated for most jurors to understand. Putting your personal opinion of Stewart aside for a moment, the case prompts larger questions about the laws and regulations that govern our land: If jurors can’t understand a law well enough to determine if someone broke it, just how do lawmakers expect citizens to understand it enough to obey it? Do we really want to live in a country where good-intentioned people are required to pay high-priced attorneys to tell them whether or not they’re breaking the law? America has too many laws, and the laws we do have are tedious, overly complex and sometimes not only impossible to understand, but impossible to comply with. Our elected officials pass laws in fits of whimsy, responding to the latest scare headlines, demands from interest groups or data from polling firms. Reason, freedom or constitutional authority rarely enter into the debate. The federal tax code today covers 17,000 pages and requires over 700 different forms. The IRS estimates Americans spend 5.1 billion hours annually merely preparing their taxes. The Tax Foundation estimates that those wasted hours drain some $194 billion annually from the U.S. economy. All of that comes before Joe Taxpayer forks over his first dime. The federal criminal code is just as bad. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress the power to criminally punish “treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever.” Yet the federal criminal code today spans some 1,400 pages, and that’s just the “pocket edition.” The Federal Registry, which records all of the regulations the federal government imposes on businesses (all of which carry the force of law), now exceeds 75,000 pages. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that merely complying with these regulations — that is, paying lawyers to keep educated on them, interpret them and implement them — costs U.S. business another $500 to $600 billion per year. When someone, such as Martha Stewart, is accused of a federal crime, businesses then are forced to comply with subpoenas and demands from lawyers for information — all on their own dime. When the IRS goes on a fishing expedition for tax evasion, for example, it can require banks and businesses to file through millions, even billions of checks, forms, documents and e-mail to comply with an information request. The same is true for the EPA, the Department of Labor or the Department of Energy. The federal criminal code, the tax code and the Federal Registry grow thicker every year, thrusting those costs ever skyward. More disturbing than the cost of compliance, however, is the way federal officials can manipulate the confusing maze of federal laws, codes and regulations to score political points, make examples of certain people, settle scores, extort favors, or, in the case of regulation, punish disfavored corporations and industries. There are far too many federal laws — and people who break them — for our U.S. attorneys to enforce them with any sort of consistency. That means our federal laws are very selectively enforced, which makes the federal court system ripe for abuse. It’s even worse with regulation. With the EPA, for example, it’s often impossible for corporations in some industries to abide by one environmental regulation without violating another. That’s fertile ground for corruption, particularly when the same body is charged with making, enforcing and adjudicating the law. Since President Bush and Congress seem to be in a Constitution-amending mood these days, they might consider two amendments that could remedy the situation. The first would “sunset” every law passed by Congress in five years, therefore requiring Congress to specifically reauthorize those laws every five years. The amendment would contain language explicitly compelling Congress to reauthorize one law at a time — no “omnibus” bill where laws were reauthorized in batches. Such an amendment would not only force Congress to re-evaluate anachronistic laws and outdated legislation, it would also occupy more of Congress’ time — leaving it less time to pass new laws. My second amendment would end the so-called “delegation doctrine,” the process by which Congress grants its constitutionally mandated lawmaking ability to federal agencies like the EPA. The amendment would require Congress to debate and vote on every single regulation listed on those 75,000 pages in the Federal Registry. Again, such an amendment would not only subject the federal regulatory scheme to some much-needed public debate, but the sheer amount of time it would take Congress to pass all of those regulations would result in fewer regulations. Of course, neither of these amendments has much chance of ever passing. Both would not only strip Congress of a good deal of power, they’d make it a heck of a lot more difficult to be a congressman. Consider, for example, the position Congress found itself in last year after passing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, that Rube Goldberg-ian hunk of legislation that was supposed to flush the corruption out of politics: Although Congress generally exempts itself from most of the laws it passes, this law applies specifically to Congress. The same congressmen who voted for the bill were now required to abide by it. Faced themselves with the burden of complying with the complex, inches-thick laws they pass for others, both parties were forced to hold education sessions with specialty lawyers explaining to them what they could and couldn’t do under the new law. A lawyer who taught the Democrats told The New York Times that his seminars elicited “a sort of slack-jawed amazement at how far this thing reached.” A lawyer who taught the Republicans said: “There's an initial stage where the reaction is, 'This can't be true.' And then there's the actual anger stage." Democratic Rep. Henry Matsui, who championed the bill, told the Times, “I didn’t realize all that was in it.” That’s how much careful consideration Congress gave a bill it passed that applied to itself. Now imagine how little thought and care goes into bills it passes that apply to everyone else. The answer, of course, is none. If we merely required every congressman to actually understand a new law before voting for it, that would be a pretty good start. www.foxnews.com |
||
|
dmaestro 11-Nov-12, 10:16 |
The legislation passed has to be interpreted to be implemented. That is because legislators are politicians. Anyone who doesn't believe it spend some time attending hearings. You may be shocked but you will understand the problem. You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear. |
