Latest Breaking News

24601

(4,127 posts)

68. The Constitution does not require it. The Constitution does allow it because houses of Congress are empowered

Sun Nov 9, 2025, 08:26 AM

Sunday

to make their own rules. Specifically, ART I, Section Five states:

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

This is the relevant portion of Senate Rule XXII:

‘‘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."

When 100 Senators have been chosen and sworn, the number to invoke cloture is 60 [3/5] and that's without regard to whether they are present and voting.

Changing the rules, however, takes 2/3 of the Senators present and voting. That number is 67 when every Senator is present and votes.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

70 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Democratic leader offers deal to reopen government, but Republicans sneer [View all] BumRushDaShow Nov 7 OP

And there's no reason for maga not to Scrivener7 Nov 7 #1

Just remember, this. is all on them... COL Mustard Nov 7 #39

Exactly. They own this government. They own this shutdown. Scrivener7 Nov 7 #42

The 60 is actually not a requirement but rather an agreement I believe. cstanleytech Nov 7 #46

It's Senate Rule 22 that requires 60 votes to invoke cloture. It also takes 67 votes to change Senate Rules. 24601 Nov 8 #60

Ah but is the rule a Constitutional requirement or not? If not then they can just override it anytime they want. cstanleytech Nov 8 #66

The Constitution does not require it. The Constitution does allow it because houses of Congress are empowered 24601 Sunday #68

But can they just ignore it? cstanleytech Sunday #69

Can they ignore it? There isn't a court that would intervene. When Harry Reid ignored Senate Rule 22 and went nuclear, 24601 Sunday #70

That would make ACA prime topic for Election Day 2026 bucolic_frolic Nov 7 #2

Exactly! Bev54 Nov 7 #30

Permanent. LuvLoogie Nov 7 #3

"He's offering what the GOPs floated?!" BumRushDaShow Nov 7 #4

Why wouldn't he demand permanent? And get somebody else to write the strongly worded letter. LuvLoogie Nov 7 #6

Weak sauce from Chuck. Just reinforces the notion he's not the person meant to meet the moment. Efilroft Sul Nov 7 #7

I wonder if his proposal has a lot more conditions Bluetus Nov 7 #47

My Susan Collins concern is that Chuck doesn't see what you, me, and most everyone else on this thread does. Efilroft Sul Nov 8 #59

100% agree. So why didn't the Republicals take Schumer's softball deal Bluetus Nov 8 #62

Something does seem off. Efilroft Sul Nov 8 #64

Unless the goal is something completely different Bluetus Nov 8 #65

Or, as I suspect, the Republicans are all in on it, and Thune's just good at looking stupid. Efilroft Sul Nov 8 #67

They updated the article (I always try to update) and the GOP has already rejected it. BumRushDaShow Nov 7 #19

Because he is old and has no spine, he's got his NotHardly Nov 7 #22

I'm not liking this kicking the can down the street..after 34-35 days and we'll be at it again next year Deuxcents Nov 7 #5

Post removed Post removed Nov 7 #8

At this point yes..... Lovie777 Nov 7 #9

Now do people see why Schumer should have taken a stand back in March? gab13by13 Nov 7 #10

Okay, how is this going to work? Baitball Blogger Nov 7 #11

How would a supermajority in the house (but not the senate) benefit Dems? Nt Fiendish Thingy Nov 7 #13

By shutting down the House they Baitball Blogger Nov 7 #15

A simple majority would do the same thing. Nt Fiendish Thingy Nov 7 #20

Right. So if there is a kick-the-can solution ... Bluetus Nov 7 #48

thank you for pitching in. Baitball Blogger Nov 7 #49

"The absolute worst deal would be to kick it 12 months..." LudwigPastorius Nov 8 #54

The timing is tricky Bluetus Nov 8 #63

If the expiration date is after the midterms, NO DEAL Fiendish Thingy Nov 7 #12

THIS... what Fiendish Thingy said! NotHardly Nov 7 #23

Schumer probably knows best. In terms of BootinUp Nov 7 #14

NO TEMPORARY EXTENSIONS!!! Miguelito Loveless Nov 7 #16

Way to keep the momentum going orangecrush Nov 7 #17

Post removed Post removed Nov 7 #18

If there's agreement, the separate ACA deal needs to pass first. Buddyzbuddy Nov 7 #21

Confusing article thesquanderer Nov 7 #24

It sounds like the offer would be to add the short-term extension to one of the separate appropriations bills BumRushDaShow Nov 7 #31

He may have offered the plan knowing full well it would be rejected. This allows Dems to say they tried to reopen the Fil1957 Nov 7 #25

Exactly right. FalloutShelter Nov 7 #26

That's what it looks like (once the article got updated with some more details) BumRushDaShow Nov 7 #32

This is what I conjured from this proposal peggysue2 Nov 8 #55

And this would pass in the House? Fat chance Raven123 Nov 7 #27

MAGA rejected the clean bill they've been asking for. They don't want to open the government. aeromanKC Nov 7 #28

I hadn't thought of that. 70sEraVet Nov 7 #34

So you're telling me there's a chance!! aeromanKC Nov 7 #35

I've attended two No Kings protests in Carksville (about 30 miles from me) 70sEraVet Nov 7 #40

"If the GOP gets another member from Tennessee sworn in after Dec. 2nd to neutralize Grijalva's vote" BumRushDaShow Nov 7 #36

I like your math better than my math!! aeromanKC Nov 7 #37

That seat in Tennessee will NOT neutralize Grijalva's vote. Wiz Imp Nov 7 #41

Correct Deminpenn Nov 7 #50

Senator Graham Cracker says 20 billion for Argentina bronxiteforever Nov 7 #29

I think it's long past time for Lindsey to be exposed. Mr. Evil Nov 7 #33

I also find Schumer's proposal unacceptable. Absolutely NO on a one year deal. flashman13 Nov 7 #38

This was clearly done because he knew the Republicans would reject it. Wiz Imp Nov 7 #43

Yes Deminpenn Nov 7 #53

We are getting sold out AGAIN angrychair Nov 7 #44

I agree with Senator Schiff on this proposal LetMyPeopleVote Nov 7 #45

Schumer/Dems forced Rs to vote against taking "yes" for an answer Deminpenn Nov 7 #51

Lindsey knows there's a good chance Dems will take the House and Senate louis-t Nov 7 #52

A 'too reasonable offer', but the GQP WANTS your health insurance costs Jack Valentino Nov 8 #56

There goes that new word again 'affordability' Rigpa108 Nov 8 #57

Senate Democrats offer to end shutdown in exchange for 1-year extension of health care tax credits - CBS News Rhiannon12866 Nov 8 #58

kicking the can down the road is not a solution. travelingthrulife Nov 8 #61