My appearance in
                1996Wayne Stegall

Copyright © 2013 by Wayne Stegall
Updated November 26, 2013.  See Document History at end for details.

Above the Law

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 emerge3 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’",
3See article Clinton's Obsession.

Document History
November 21, 2013  Created.
November 26, 2013  Made some minor additions and adjustments in grammer.