By the way, I am not talking about overridding vetoes--that has nothing to do with any stalemate. The stalemate is that the Senate de facto refuses to vote on anything at all because they refuse to allow a vote, causing decades of delay.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Answer to the Stalemate
- Thread starter HankD
- Start date
What is there to say - that amendment was passed - and is not the way it is done!
I would agree that is there is a filibuster - then there should be a real filibuster
No - I am NOT opposed to the Senate requirement for a super majority -
as was stated previously - the Senate is to take its time in passing a law.
At any rate, you have never addressed the story of the wolves and sheep .
In fact lets make it 8 wolves and 2 sheep -- So 80% vote to eat the sheep - you would be okay with that?
The Senate does not need to take its time. They have decided to take the voters' time because their vested interests are paying them to do so. The balance of powers answers your question about sheepherding. At any rate, everyone knows that the US Constitution is all sail and no anchor. The American republic was drawn up for a Christian people. Since we no longer have a Christian majority, we are at sea with no anchor so to speak. And that is the reason that the Senate will not deliver anything to the American people. We were promised immigration reform during the Reagan years. Thanks to the Senate, nothing has been done.
I was referring to a bipartisan spirit in Congress with respectful exchange of ideas and argument leading to a compromise position representing the will of the people. I was responding to your post:
"Ok, this is NEVER going to happen. That is the past, the past is not coming back. So what needs to happen is one party or the other, whoever is in power at the time, must end the filibuster rule permanently. It has to be majority rule and that will lay it back at the feet of the public to vote what policies they want to rule at the time, for good or bad, however one sees it. At least things will get done."
Basically, what you're saying is a Democratic Republic no longer works in America. Sadly, you might be right.
At least you married well.
I don't imagine you had to choose between two girls to make one your wife though, or you would still be single.
Last edited:
Hmm, I think you are right. After the military I was working my way through engineering school at San Jose and worked for my uncle at the Woolworth's in SJ.At least you married well.
I don't imagine you had to choose between two girls to make one your wife though, or you would still be single.
She was a counter girl there, one look at her and I was hooked - that was it - 52 years and 11 children later - still tolerating each other
HankD
Hmm, I think you are right. After the military I was working my way through engineering school at San Jose and worked for my uncle at the Woolworth's in SJ.
She was a counter girl there, one look at her and I was hooked - that was it - 52 years and 11 children later - still tolerating each other
HankD
Nice!
Next, Salty, you will be telling me that your brave ad hominem attack is warranted somehow.
Byrd put in the 60% rule but the fillibuster rule dates back to Aaron Burr during the time of Jefferson--the Senate rules used to be called the Jefferson Manuel.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy has called for majority rule in the Senate.
The Democrats have used this rule to protect the minority to manipulate the tyranny of the minority. They support the continuation of the fillibuster.
President Trump has said that the Senate should go to majority rule to pass a budget.