There's LOTS of continuous talk online and elsewhere about the US Senate filibuster and how current desired legislation is being snagged on it by Mitch and rogue Dems, etc.
I know what the filibuster is, but it does seem that, as a Senate rule, it is more a convention than a law. I understand that, prior to its implementation sometime after the Civil War, it was a simple majority in the Senate that carried measures. And that is what was implemented by "Founding Fathers". No other bicameral parliamentary system I know of has such a thing - simple majority rules.
So what is the actual legal enforceability for the filibuster in the US Senate? Can the Senate speaker simply ignore it and proclaim measures passed or failed on the simple majority of the votes? Can a dissenting group of Senators (you know who I mean ;)) "take it to court"?
Legal eagles! Educate me on this.
I know what the filibuster is, but it does seem that, as a Senate rule, it is more a convention than a law. I understand that, prior to its implementation sometime after the Civil War, it was a simple majority in the Senate that carried measures. And that is what was implemented by "Founding Fathers". No other bicameral parliamentary system I know of has such a thing - simple majority rules.
So what is the actual legal enforceability for the filibuster in the US Senate? Can the Senate speaker simply ignore it and proclaim measures passed or failed on the simple majority of the votes? Can a dissenting group of Senators (you know who I mean ;)) "take it to court"?
Legal eagles! Educate me on this.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3qRSZoI
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire