Should the "nuclear option" be used re the budget?

[radcen]

Should the "nuclear option" be used re the budget?

Read the linked article to get the gist.



To end government shutdown, Trump suggests Senate use 'nuclear option'

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...uggests-senate-use-nuclear-option/1051818001/

 

[apdst]

No...let the Democrats keep shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[reinoe]

Yeah. The Dems engaged in partisan nonsense by trying to inject DACA nonsense into a bill that doesn't have to do with DACA. DACA expires in March so they only did it for purely partisan reasons. It's time to use the nuclear option.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No. The vote totals indicated that it would not have worked anyway. It is bad enough that SCOTUS precedents are established by a single vote margin but when we are talking about trillion$ and often for multiple years it is not unreasonable to require a supermajority.

 

[molten_dragon]

No. I'm not in favor of anything that makes it easier for one party to cram their agenda down the throat of the other party without any attempt to compromise whatsoever.

 

[washunut]

Should the "nuclear option" be used re the budget?

Read the linked article to get the gist.



To end government shutdown, Trump suggests Senate use 'nuclear option'

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...uggests-senate-use-nuclear-option/1051818001/

The reality is that the filibuster rule is either going to be tossed by one side or the other pretty soon. Reid started the ball rolling and McConnell moved it forward.

The article was weak. Of course democrats want the rule in place. Whichever side is in the minority wants the rule. This gives them tacit control of the senate without the responsibility.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Should the "nuclear option" be used re the budget?

Read the linked article to get the gist.



To end government shutdown, Trump suggests Senate use 'nuclear option'

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...uggests-senate-use-nuclear-option/1051818001/

I checked the "I'm open to it" option with strongly mixed emotions. History informs us that the Democrats may again be in power in all three branches of government, and I am so opposed to most leftist policy that I would hate to so weaken the ability of the opposition to stop truly harmful legislation or truly dangerous appointments.

On the other hand, I am of the opinion that this is the last generation who will likely have the power and education to restore the federal government to something approximating its constitutional authority and I believe we have the man in office with the vision and instincts to do that. President Trump is 100% right that the Congress is not fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities by passing CR after CR and not passing a budget so we can get going to fixing what's broken and moving forward to a better, stronger, more prosperous America. I believe once the people see that happening, they will demand that it continue. But with the current Democratic leadership in the Senate, I don't know that it can happen. The House has been doing its job. The Democrats and a handful of Republicans in the Senate not so much.

So maybe if the nuclear option is going to ever be the right choice, now is the time? I don't know. But I wouldn't be terribly upset if that happened.

 

[radcen]

Yeah. The Dems engaged in partisan nonsense by trying to inject DACA nonsense into a bill that doesn't have to do with DACA. DACA expires in March so they only did it for purely partisan reasons. It's time to use the nuclear option.

You mean like how Trump wants to insert "the wall" into anything and everything that comes down the line? You mean like that?

 

[rocket88]

I checked the "I'm open to it" option with strongly mixed emotions. History informs us that the Democrats may again be in power in all three branches of government, and I am so opposed to most leftist policy that I would hate to so weaken the ability of the opposition to stop truly harmful legislation or truly dangerous appointments.

On the other hand, I am of the opinion that this is the last generation who will likely have the power and education to restore the federal government to something approximating its constitutional authority and I believe we have the man in office with the vision and instincts to do that. President Trump is 100% right that the Congress is not fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities by passing CR after CR and not passing a budget so we can get going to fixing what's broken and moving forward to a better, stronger, more prosperous America. I believe once the people see that happening, they will demand that it continue. But with the current Democratic leadership in the Senate, I don't know that it can happen. The House has been doing its job. The Democrats and a handful of Republicans in the Senate not so much.

So maybe if the nuclear option is going to ever be the right choice, now is the time? I don't know. But I wouldn't be terribly upset if that happened.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about budgets.

 

[radcen]

The reality is that the filibuster rule is either going to be tossed by one side or the other pretty soon. Reid started the ball rolling and McConnell moved it forward.

The article was weak. Of course democrats want the rule in place. Whichever side is in the minority wants the rule. This gives them tacit control of the senate without the responsibility.

Which is precisely why we should have the rule. Everybody only marginally in power doesn't want the rule, and is too shortsighted to look beyond right here right now. Be careful what you wish for. Ok, sure, you get what you want right now. How about 5 years from now after the balance of power has shifted... and it WILL shift. Are you going to be so excited about it then?

We saw this play our re judge confirmations just in the last decade. One side eliminated it for convenience, then the precedent came back to bite them in the butt just a few years later. This would be no different.

 

[reinoe]

You mean like how Trump wants to insert "the wall" into anything and everything that comes down the line? You mean like that?

Trump has passed several pieces of legislation including the most recent tax bill. During the campaign to get that passed there was nary a peep about the wall during that process. Is that the Trump you're referring to?

 

[washunut]

Which is precisely why we should have the rule. Everybody only marginally in power doesn't want the rule, and is too shortsighted to look beyond right here right now. Be careful what you wish for. Ok, sure, you get what you want right now. How about 5 years from now after the balance of power has shifted... and it WILL shift. Are you going to be so excited about it then?

We saw this play our re judge confirmations just in the last decade. One side eliminated it for convenience, then the precedent came back to bite them in the butt just a few years later. This would be no different.

Don't get me wrong. I want the rule kept in place. I did not like it when Reid started down this road nor when McConnell continued down it. I do worry about the tyranny of the majority.

Just saying that I don't think we can be sure that the current crop of elected officials won't give in to the people who really count on both sides. That is the extremes that vote in primaries.

 

[radcen]

Don't get me wrong. I want the rule kept in place. I did not like it when Reid started down this road nor when McConnell continued down it. I do worry about the tyranny of the majority.

Just saying that I don't think we can be sure that the current crop of elected officials won't give in to the people who really count on both sides. That is the extremes that vote in primaries.

What baffles me is that those in power don't seem to truly see how it can and will bite them in butt later on (like it did with the judge thing). Or, if they do, they don't care because by then it will be somebody else's problem... which I find thoroughly repugnant, but that's another issue for another thread.

And the extreme supporters SHOULD care because they will still be around, and it will bite them in the butt.

Side note: I don't give much credence to "tyranny of the majority", as I see it equally offset by tyranny of the minority. Six of one, half a dozen of the other, basically, and depends on which side one is on at a given moment.

 

[washunut]

What baffles me is that those in power don't seem to truly see how it can and will bite them in butt later on (like it did with the judge thing). Or, if they do, they don't care because by then it will be somebody else's problem... which I find thoroughly repugnant, but that's another issue for another thread.

And the extreme supporters SHOULD care because they will still be around, and it will bite them in the butt.

Side note: I don't give much credence to "tyranny of the majority", as I see it equally offset by tyranny of the minority. Six of one, half a dozen of the other, basically, and depends on which side one is on at a given moment.

These are short term thinkers, just worrying about the next election. I am becoming more of a realist in that we don't live in utopia. A key reason why these people run for office is the lust for power (along with the money).

We disagree on the reason why I want to keep the filibuster however. I do fear the tyranny of the majority. The minority can only block things. I don't want a simple majority to change the way I fundamentally live.

 

[SirGareth]

Don't you just love the rhetoric: "nuclear option?"

The 60% concept is a Senate "rule" it's not in the Constitution or even in law. Let's have a rule change requiring 51% instead of 60% and give it a go.

The only other good idea would be to repeal the 17th and return to Senate to its rightful role in government .

 

[SirGareth]

These are short term thinkers, just worrying about the next election. I am becoming more of a realist in that we don't live in utopia. A key reason why these people run for office is the lust for power (along with the money).

We disagree on the reason why I want to keep the filibuster however. I do fear the tyranny of the majority. The minority can only block things. I don't want a simple majority to change the way I fundamentally live.

The source of tyranny today is in the un-elected national security state's apparatchiks. No one can contain them. The Congress is an emaciated 97 pound weakling getting sand kicked in its face by bureaucrats.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The Constitution doesn't say anything about budgets.

There is strong inference in the Constitution and the House or the people's elected representatives--initially Senators were not elected but were appointed by state legislatures and I emphatically wish that was the case today--was to control the national purse strings. Legislation in 1921 established the current budget process.
A pretty good explanation and history on that here:
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-constitution-and-the-federal-budget-process/

 

[antiquity]

No. I'm not in favor of anything that makes it easier for one party to cram their agenda down the throat of the other party without any attempt to compromise whatsoever.

Where is the compromise on the DACA issue by the democrats....??? Seems to me democrats are more beholding to illegal aliens then they are to US citizens.

 

[Mycroft]

Should the "nuclear option" be used re the budget?

Read the linked article to get the gist.



To end government shutdown, Trump suggests Senate use 'nuclear option'

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...uggests-senate-use-nuclear-option/1051818001/

I don't think any such thing as a "nuclear option" should exist for there to be a question about.

I see no reason to require 60 votes on funding...or any...issues. The House doesn't have that rule...why should the Senate?

 

[antiquity]

I don't think any such thing as a "nuclear option" should exist for there to be a question about.

I see no reason to require 60 votes on funding...or any...issues. The House doesn't have that rule...why should the Senate?

Its gives the minority party an excuse.

 

[rocket88]

There is strong inference in the Constitution and the House or the people's elected representatives--initially Senators were not elected but were appointed by state legislatures and I emphatically wish that was the case today--was to control the national purse strings. Legislation in 1921 established the current budget process.
A pretty good explanation and history on that here:
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-constitution-and-the-federal-budget-process/

There's also "strong inference" of a right to privacy, but I can't tell you how many. RWers here have said it isn't there.

I think there should be a budget, but it is not the "Constitutional duty" of Congress to pass one.

 

[rocket88]

I don't think any such thing as a "nuclear option" should exist for there to be a question about.

I see no reason to require 60 votes on funding...or any...issues. The House doesn't have that rule...why should the Senate?

At least until the Democrats control the Senate again (which they will at some point).

 

[Mycroft]

At least until the Democrats control the Senate again (which they will at some point).

It doesn't matter who controls the House. They don't have that stupid rule. It shouldn't matter who controls the Senate. They shouldn't have that stupid rule either.

 

[AlbqOwl]

There's also "strong inference" of a right to privacy, but I can't tell you how many. RWers here have said it isn't there.

I think there should be a budget, but it is not the "Constitutional duty" of Congress to pass one.

There is a right to not be subject to illegal search and seizure by the federal government in the Constitution but no right to privacy as in nobody has any right to know what you are secretly doing that is potentially harmful or dangerous to others. Anything that does not involve the general welfare, i.e. the welfare of ALL the people and not special interest groups, was left to the states who were intended to be free to organize their societies as they wished short of interfering with the right of other states to do the same.

There is very clear constitutional authority given only to the House of Representatives--the people in government elected to represent the specific people who elected them--to manage the people's purse. The President and Senate participate in that process only by recommending what will go into the budget/appropriations bills but they may not originate the legislation.

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7

 

[radcen]

These are short term thinkers, just worrying about the next election. I am becoming more of a realist in that we don't live in utopia. A key reason why these people run for office is the lust for power (along with the money).

We disagree on the reason why I want to keep the filibuster however. I do fear the tyranny of the majority. The minority can only block things. I don't want a simple majority to change the way I fundamentally live.

That's a fair point. I'll have to ponder that aspect.