Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TeleStraightShooter

But the rule was you needed 67 votes to change the rules of the senate, not 2/3 of those who bother to vote as long as we have more than 50 vote in favor.


7 posted on 05/18/2005 9:54:01 PM PDT by TheEaglehasLanded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: Howlin

Thought you might want to read and share this.....


8 posted on 05/18/2005 10:05:41 PM PDT by hoosiermama (Cancel your NEWSWEEK subscriptions. If you don't have one write their advertisers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: TheEaglehasLanded
On 2nd thought, IIRC the Chair made a ruling similar to the "Byrd option" that indeed only 83 truly constituted "all senators were present and voting."
16 posted on 05/18/2005 10:28:52 PM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (When Frist exercises his belated Constitutional "Byrd option", Reid will have a "Nuclear Reaction".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

No, it was obviously a majority of the Whole Senate that was obviously necessary-----51 votes.. This needs to get out.


18 posted on 05/18/2005 10:34:27 PM PDT by cookcounty ("We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts" ---Abe Lincoln, 1858.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson