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

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

baz

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
988
I don't know if his amendment has any chance of passing.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, will offer an amendment to the Democrats’ fiscal 2014 budget resolution that seeks to require a two-thirds majority for the passage of any gun control legislation in the Senate.

Source.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
berettaprofessor said:
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.
Click to expand...
Now you're talking!
 
berettaprofessor said:
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.
Click to expand...
Second this
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
How bout a super majority for Any change to the Bill of Rights
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
How bout a super majority for Any change to the Bill of Rights
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...
All fine,well and good....except ANY law that violates the Constitution/Bill of Rights is unlawful even if passed with 100% of votes.
 
All fine,well and good....except ANY law that violates the Constitution/Bill of Rights is unlawful even if passed with 100% of votes.
Click to expand...

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:
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Can an AWB pass the US Senate
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
5K
RangerHAAF
RangerHAAF
C
  • Locked
FireMission- Lee Amendment
Replies
4
Views
487
Queen_of_Thunder
Q
U
  • Locked
This isn't good - Opposite reaction we need for pro-gun senators
Replies
16
Views
847
Panzerschwein
Panzerschwein
G
  • Locked
AWB renewal now on Senate calendar.!!!!!
2 3
Replies
60
Views
5K
Nestor
N
primalmu
  • Locked
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark) strikes back against Bloomberg
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
TRX
TRX
Back
Top