Senate rules change

[mamabearCali]

I need 18 months to get me and mine set up. So I am hoping we have at least two years.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[kelu]

My prediction: within 10 years, more likely 3, and I really like the number 2, so two years.
When the realization comes that we arent going to get better, foreign purchases of our bonds will cease. All it takes is one major buyer to stop, and everyone will stop. I think Americans are also smart, and realizing that they shouldnt buy anymore, so the only thing propping them up will be the SS system, but that is faulty anyway.
Crash crash crash away.

Man, you're optimistic.
Many countries already started to get out of the dollar (look at what countries)
http://www.examiner.com/article/harbing ... ass-dollar
and
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-2 ... e-crude-oi
and
http://wallstreetsectorselector.com/201 ... s-dollars/
It's already happening.
My tinfoil hat says that most of you can kiss goodbye the pensions and 401K. You own what yo have in hand, not in some bank account.

[ratherfish]

I need 18 months to get me and mine set up. So I am hoping we have at least two years.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Same here...

2 year,3Year and 5 year plan.

[Remek]

My prediction: within 10 years, more likely 3, and I really like the number 2, so two years.
When the realization comes that we arent going to get better, foreign purchases of our bonds will cease. All it takes is one major buyer to stop, and everyone will stop. I think Americans are also smart, and realizing that they shouldnt buy anymore, so the only thing propping them up will be the SS system, but that is faulty anyway.
Crash crash crash away.

Man, you're optimistic.
Many countries already started to get out of the dollar (look at what countries)
http://www.examiner.com/article/harbing ... ass-dollar
and
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-2 ... e-crude-oi
and
http://wallstreetsectorselector.com/201 ... s-dollars/
It's already happening.
My tinfoil hat says that most of you can kiss goodbye the pensions and 401K. You own what yo have in hand, not in some bank account.

I agree on the 401K and pensions.

The reason I say two years is that is all Mao has left to transform us, and after that we are looking at a change to republican senate, or at least the fears by Mao that such will be the case.

[Swampman]

Firemanbob - it sounds like you think I was being sarcastic. Not by any stretch. I do appreciate your analysis, as well as everyone elses. If I am incorrect, I'll admit it. Too bad I missed Levin on this subject.

Madison in Federalist 58:

It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale. In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.

Sounds to me like Madison is arguing against a super-majority, which, if it weren't present, would make the filibuster unnecessary.

It does appear that the filibuster may have come about quite innocently. The Senate and House drew up rules in 1789, and both chambers had something in the rules called the "previous question motion." This was a procedure that would allow a majority vote in either chamber to move on to the main question in the debate, thereby cutting off debate over the previous question. In other words, when a majority of them tired of listening to the drivel of the current question, they could use this procedure to move to the main question, or just to move on.

Aaron Burr, in 1805, suggested that the "previous question motion" be dropped and it was. The leaders eventually figured out that it was no longer possible to cut off debate. Near as I can find out, what we have come to know as the filibuster came to be in the 1850's. This procedure was strengthened in 1917 by requiring a 2/3rds super-majority (67 votes), and was then reduced to 60 votes in 1975.

I won't dispute that the Dems are using this tactic for at least two reasons: First, to get all Obama's progressive judges on the court, and Second, to distract from the healthcare debacle. I don't share the pessimism, however, that this is the end of life as we knew it. I do believe that this is the end (maybe temporarily) of the ability of the minority to overrule the majority in Senate deliberations over the appointment of judges. The Constitution lists 1) a veto override; 2) expulsion of a member; and 3) impeachment, as situations that require more than a majority of votes. The Founders did not include anything else to require more than a majority of votes.

What FDR tried to do would have required an amendment to the Constitution. It never would have passed.

[MarcSpaz]

Obama had mentioned in his first term that he wanted to suspend general elections until the economy was stable, blaming the constant shift in powers as the root cause of free market issues. That idea was quickly hushed and crushed. However, there are Constitutional attorneys, historians, and political forecasters that seem to believe this is coming before the end of Barry's term.

Maybe, this little stunt is just another action of testing the waters to see how the people react to radical change.

[Swampman]

Maybe, but I still think Obama and his cronies are given too much credit for being that smart.

[Remek]

I'll tell you this: if he attempts to remain in office and we do not respond with real protest and if need retaliation, our govt is done for.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

If he tries to stay in office past his term, we need to demand our representatives toss him out. If they don't, we need to have the Governors of the free states rally the militia (National Guard) and force him out. And if the Governors wont do it, then it will be up to the will of the free people to remain free.

A president creating a fake situation where he can cause chaos and BS his way into marshal law and secure his position at the thrown should not be tolerated. There is no excuse to justify forcing himself into a dictatorship. And this has nothing to do with Obama. I feel this way regardless of who is in office or what party they represent.

[2k05gt]

Technically, the Senate voted to ignore the current filibuster rule, rather than “change it,” since it was procedurally barred from changing the rule. It did so because a vote to actually change the rule would also have been in contradiction to Senate Rule V, which requires ‘one day’s notice in writing, specifying precisely the rule or part proposed to be suspended, modified, or amended, and the purpose thereof. May be relevant to the constitutionality of what the majority did, although it is “extremely unlikely” that the courts would accept jurisdiction over such a politically thorny constitutional challenge.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says the filibuster remains intact for legislation and Supreme Court nominations. But if the Senate can abolish certain filibusters by a simple majority vote, then it can abolish all of them and presumably will do so whenever it becomes ideologically expedient.

After all, when he extracted a deal from the GOP limiting the filibuster’s use for executive nominations earlier this year, Reid claimed he had no intent to go further to change the rules regarding judicial filibusters. He assured the public: “We’re not talking about changing the filibuster rules that relates to nominations for judges” (Press Briefing, 7/11/13) and “We’re not touching judges. That’s what they were talking about. This is not judges.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 7/14/13). Needless to say, these assurances proved to be about as accurate as the President Obama’s since-broken promise that “if you like your health plan, you can keep it.”

This rule change may have profound implications for the courts, resulting in future court packing. Abolishing the filibuster for legislation would eliminate any possible check on court packing through statutory expansion of the number of judges in a future Congress dominated by the same party. The Constitution does not define the number of judges or courts, and leaves that to Congress by statute.

Eventually, America could end up with twice as many appeals court judges or more, as each party increases the number and stacks the courts with its own people when it gains full control.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Remek]

^^^^ both of the previous posts are very well said.

They will continue to ignore the rule of law, and we will have a lawless senate until another takes charge.

I do believe this will go on and expand as it becomes "politically expedient".

The only solution will be for the states to stand up for themselves. I fear that the people will not do so of their own accord.

[Swampman]

In another thread I wondered aloud that if we all leave where we are to get away from the kooks, how long until they have us boxed in, rendering our federal votes essentially worthless. Well, if Remek is correct and the vast majority of the population won't stand up for their rights, then that might not be such a bad thing. At least we could protect the perimeter of a large area.

[Remek]

Depressing times.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[GeneFrenkle]

If he tries to stay in office past his term, we need to demand our representatives toss him out. If they don't, we need to have the Governors of the free states rally the militia (National Guard) and force him out.

Do you really think TMac would stand up for Virginia?

[Remek]

If he tries to stay in office past his term, we need to demand our representatives toss him out. If they don't, we need to have the Governors of the free states rally the militia (National Guard) and force him out.

Do you really think TMac would stand up for Virginia?

I'd go one step further: do you really think any legislator will stand up? Do you really think DHS will do anything but obey? Do you really think our military will be able adequately to respond since they are tied up with several other conflicts overseas with no money to piss in a bucket, and if they are able to respond, do you think they will with all the replacements of higher-ups?

[FiremanBob]

If he tries to stay in office past his term, we need to demand our representatives toss him out. If they don't, we need to have the Governors of the free states rally the militia (National Guard) and force him out.

Do you really think TMac would stand up for Virginia?

Of course not. The entire purpose of installing Terry the Con Man in VA was to have the party's agent in control.

[MarcSpaz]

yep... you guys are right. That is why I included the third option.

And I need to be very clear on one very important thing.

I have no interest in overthrowing the government. My goal and dedication is to defend the constitution and the free people of this great country.

I don't want "anyone" to say I implied the opposite. Although I have not taken any action, steps, made preparation or encouraged others to do so, any action I do take will be to preserve our government by ousting corrupt leaders who refuse to honor the constitution and believe they are above the law.

I am getting to old to fight and voting doesn't seem to work. Outside of venting here with you fine folks and pouring money into a bottomless flask to help like-minded groups to defend us in the capital building... there is not much left to do until that day comes.

[Remek]

I do not think anyone wants to overthrow the constitutional government. Except, well, our elected officials.

[MarcSpaz]

hahahaha nice!