Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sen. Mike Lee proposes super-majority to pass gun legislation in Senate

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by baz, Mar 23, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    I don't know if his amendment has any chance of passing.
    I am going to contact my Senator -- Pryor, one of the Democrats up for reelection in 2014 in a red state-- and encourage him to support it. If enough of the Democrats who don't want to vote for gun control were to support the amendment, maybe it would pass. Then, they could vote against the bill when it requires a super majority, so they can tell the voters back home they voted against it.

    I don't know how many are aware of it, but there is a game they play in the Senate that this scenario might fit well. On controversial bills like this, where the voters "back home" are on one side, and the Senator's party -- lately this has always been Democrats -- are on another side, a Senator will sometimes vote "for" something, and when it is clear that it has enough votes to pass, a Senator will change his vote to "against" so he can tell the folks back home he voted against it. Pryor has played this duplicitous game before. We'll maybe we can use the unscrupulousness of our Senators to work for us this time, as well.
     
  2. dbb1776

    dbb1776 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    231
    Location:
    tx
    How bout a super majority for Any change to the Bill of Rights
     
  3. AlbertH

    AlbertH member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    144
    Location:
    Michigan
    So the senator wants to filibuster the spending legislation

    This is a prime example of why America is in the mess it is in. Every politician needs to add their own little hidden agenda to legislation, knowing full well that it will block the entire legislation.

    Welcome to brinksmanship at its finest.
     
  4. berettaprofessor

    berettaprofessor Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,834
    Location:
    Kansas
    Yep, if I was changing legislative rules, I'd fix it so that no amendment could be added to a bill that didn't pertain to the legislation therein. And I'd put in a provision to dissolve the Congress and begin new elections if a budget couldn't be passed at least every other year.
     
  5. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,305
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    Now you're talking!
     
  6. OilyPablo

    OilyPablo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,055
    Location:
    WA State (NOT in Seattle)
    Done.
     
  7. CLP

    CLP Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,032
    Location:
    Alabama
    Second this
     
  8. r1derbike

    r1derbike Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    Messages:
    848
    Location:
    Northwest Arkansas
    Did it yesterday.
     
  9. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    I understand the sentiment, and that in a perfect world we would noi have this. However: (1) In this instance, the procedure is not intended to "block the entire legislation" but to get something passed by attaching it to legislation likely to pass for other reasons, and (2) In a flawed world, we might just as well use every tool at our disposal to advance our cause, so long as it is not patently immoral. And there is nothing patently immoral about what Lee proposes. Our enemies use these tactics against us all the time; we are fools if we do not use them to our own advantage when the opportunity arises.
     
  10. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    That already exists: the Constitutional Amendment Process, which already requires a supermajority. That is not what is happening here. You can argue the case if you want -- that an AWB or UBC would be a "change to the Bill of Rights" -- but you win that argument only after the bill is passed and, if you are lucky, somebody takes a case on it all the way to the Supreme Court, and then you win it there. But in effect, Mike Lee is proposing what you want! His bill will require, for gun control legislation, the same supermajority that currently exists for amending the Constitution. Why not get behind it?
     
  11. Claude Clay

    Claude Clay Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,700
    Location:
    CT
    kinda like my sig line says....

    i want it should be HARD to make or change laws;
    yet easy to repeal them.

    Totally wrong that an entire medical system should be turned on its head and financially destroyed by ONE vote
    or that the Constitution can have an end run seemingly succeed.
     
  12. jim243

    jim243 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,992
    It takes MORE than a super majority to change the Bill of Rights. That has been there in the Consitution since day one. You need 2/3s of the States approval as well as a super majority vote. What is being proposed is that no law on gun control could be passed without a 2/3rds vote by the whole Senate and not by a simple majority.

    Jim
     
  13. X-JaVeN-X

    X-JaVeN-X Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    261
    Location:
    North Carolina
    How would this affect getting current control measures changed/repealed?
     
  14. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    Its called "Vote-a-rama". A day where dozens of stupid amendments are allowed on to the floor to be voted on in a single day. Most fail.

    Most are little more than future, or past, campaign issues. "He/She voted for/against a bill that would have legalized/outlawed ...". Even though it never existed for more than 2 minutes and no one ever heard of it.

    http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_new...supply-ample-ammunition-for-2014-attacks?lite
     
  15. jimmyraythomason

    jimmyraythomason Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    7,384
    Location:
    Alabama
    All fine,well and good....except ANY law that violates the Constitution/Bill of Rights is unlawful even if passed with 100% of votes.
     
  16. jim243

    jim243 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,992
    Not really, any bill can be passed by the Senate (51%) and House of Representitives (51%), once it is signed by the President it becomes law of the land. The decission of if it violates the Consititution is up to the Sepreme Court. Their ruling is final.

    Sorry guys it's just the way it works.
    Jim

    Since there are an even number of Senators in the Senate, you could have a vote of 50 Yea and 50 Ney, in that case the President of the Senate (the Vice President of the USA) who can not normally vote on any bills has the vote to break any tie.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2013
  17. jimmyraythomason

    jimmyraythomason Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    7,384
    Location:
    Alabama
    It is STILL unlawful legislation. It just hasn't been challenged and overturned.....yet.
     
  18. jimmyraythomason

    jimmyraythomason Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    7,384
    Location:
    Alabama
    No it's not. The USSC can reverse themselves or it can be overturned by Congress.
     
  19. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    Yup, just like the prohibition on alcohol. Passed into law, upheld by the courts. Ignored by the people. Later reversed by the courts, then repealed by Congress. The people are the final check and we do have ultimate say.
     
  20. Zeke/PA

    Zeke/PA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,295
    Location:
    Southeastern Pa.
    They are AGAIN tampering with the U.N. form of Gun Control.which I thought was trashed last year.
     
  21. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    They can try it every year. They will fail. It means nothing unless Congress approves it as a law. Which still cannot violate the 2nd or the supreme court will throw it out, or we will throw out Congress.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page