I saw a crime committed in
full public view. On November 21, 2013, news
reported that the Senate voted to change its rules to
prevent filibusters against Presidential
nominations. However, the simple majority passage
seems to be illegal. How could a such a law pass
through a legal filibuster to produce this end.
The following excerpt of the most recent copy of the
Senate rules say that a two-thirds majority is required
to change Senate rules. Because the citation is
positioned in the context of stopping a filibuster, at
minimum it raises the standard for stopping the
filibuster of a Senate rule change to two-thirds from
three-fifths. However this is the only citation of
any rule governing the vote for such a rule
change. Therefore one could argue that a
two-thirds majority would be a requirement for the
change itself, the rule being parenthetical to the
passage and not a part of it.
22.2 2.
5
Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV
or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion
signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the
debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending
before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is
presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or
clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall
at once state the motion to the Senate,and one hour
after the Senate meets on the following calendar day
but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and
direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the
ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding
Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by
a yea-and- nay vote the question: ‘‘Is it the sense of
the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a
close?’’ And if that question shall be decided in the
affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly
chosen and sworn—except on a measure or motion to
amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary
affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators
present and voting— then said measure, motion, or
other matter pending before the Senate, or the
unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business
to the exclusion of all other business until disposed
of.
1
At any rate Senate Republicans would not vote either to
close the filibuster nor to pass the resisted rule
change. How could such a controversial change to
the law and the balance of power occur on on a simple
majority passage of 52-48. It looks like a
political machine maneuver. Then the beneficiary
of the law, Barack Hussein Obama, gives a speech to
explain his approval of it. Did he give the entire
pirate ship a pardon? Inquiring minds want to
know.
It is odd too that the liberal media passed over this
transgression. Given that liberals claim to be
smarter than conservatives, they too must have drawn the
same conclusions as I. Yet they represented the
Senate vote as if it were entirely proper, leaving the
inevitable debate over the morality of the issue to pass
because it was unavoidable. Shameless
complicitors! And they enabled this thing every
way they could along the way. Things like this
seem to move forward on the presumption that propaganda
can hide what is in plain sight from the masses, masses
presumed by the elite to be willing dupes. Did
everyone involved think the public would see the deed
and not know what it was?
They say that the Republicans threatened the same when
they had power. However, bringing the vote or
attempting to do so is not itself illegal if the rules
are followed. Since they never followed through,
you cannot legitimately accuse them of the same sort of
demonstrated malfeasance.
Perhaps no one should be surprised that the current
Democratic political machine operates
out-of-bounds. Harry was threatening today's
travesty even when Obamacare was pushed though.
Simultaneously Alcee Hastings declared the supporting
political philosophy.
“I wish that I had been
there when Thomas Edison made the remark that I think
applies here: ‘There ain’t no rules around here —
we’re trying to accomplish something.’ And therefore,
when the deal goes down, all this talk about rules, we
make ‘em up as we go along, and I’m here now 18 years,
and a significant amount of that time here on this
committee under the leadership of the Republicans…”
2
High stakes must be involved however to chose this time
to make this maneuver. I don't think they would
spend this crime just for a trifle. If you
consider that serious Democratic crimes are beginning to
emerge
3 and that the
power opened up to the President pertains primarily to
appointing Federal judges you can begin to see a
pattern. Judges favorable to Democratic tampering
have to be placed in position and soon. Then
matters harmful to the party can be diverted to those
who will cover for their interests. If you say all
is Pollyanna and that this is not done, consider how
Proposition 8, a California amendment affirming
heterosexual marriage, was routed to be put down by a
homosexual appellate judge. So too, Prosecutor
Fiske appointed to investigate Whitewater is alleged
only to have been tasked with destroying evidence and
tampering witnesses.
I hope they don't make us walk the plank!
1Senate Manual,
112th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Document 112–1, p.
21.
2George Bennett, Post On
Politics, March 20, 2010, "Rep. Alcee Hastings invokes
Thomas Edison: ‘No rules around here — we’re trying to
accomplish something’", www.postonpolitics.com
3See article Clinton's
Obsession.
Document History
November 21, 2013 Created.
November 26, 2013 Made some minor additions and
adjustments in grammer.
