Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
This lawsuit looks like a really elegant argument that actually may have legs. At least it would have legs if we had a SCOTUS that actually cared about the Constitution.
The first hurdle will be whether they can establish standing as citizen's to challenge the rules of the Senate.
Then, for folks who don't know, there are general and specific rules of statutory construction and interpretation of legislation, from constitutions of nations to bylaws of corporations, that have a long tradition in our law. For example, one rule of construction provides that a phrase may not be construed to have an effect that would render another provision meaningless because the legislation can not be thought to have been written in a manner that would nullify itself. In other words, where two interpretations are possible, the one that would give effect to two provisions must be adopted over one that would deny effect to one of the two provisions.
Some of the important rules of construction are:
1. 'The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the court should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.
2. Every statute should be construed with reference to the whole system of law of which it is a part so that all may be harmonized and have effect.
4. If possible, significance should be given to every word, phrase, sentence and part of an act in pursuance of the legislative purpose.
5. Such purpose will not be sacrificed to a literal construction of any part of the act.
6. For purposes of statutory construction, the various pertinent sections of all the codes must be read together and harmonized if possible.
7. When the seeming inconsistencies appear in separate codes, the rule declares that the codes blend into each other and constitute a single statute for purposes of statutory construction.
It makes perfect legal sense that the Senate's rules can not conflict with the Constitution because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but the case will be decided on the question of how the Constitution is to be interpreted or construed. Of course the phony “strict constructionists” on the Supreme Court will claim that the Senate must be allowed to have the filibuster rule because they have had it so long and the founding fathers certainly never said a filibuster rule was wrong.
However the rule that must be applied is the familiar rule of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, that is, where exceptions to a general rule are specified by statute, other exceptions are not to be implied or presumed. Thus, where the Constitution has established the general rule that bills are to be adopted by majority vote, and where the Constitution has specified exceptions to this rule, other exceptions to the general rule are not to be implied or presumed.
The question for the Courts will be whether the Senate’s rule of filibuster creates an unacceptable implied or presumed exception to the general rule of majority vote. It looks to me like it does, so it will take legal pretzels to get around it. But since we have seen such legal pretzels in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, we know that SCOTUS is very capable of cooking up the pretzels.
The question as framed is difficult to answer. I certainly agree that "A super-majority shouldn't be required to simply begin debate for routine legislation." But on the other hand the first alternative is true too: our judicial system is at least somewhat dysfunctional, rotting from the head as they say, and eliminating the filibuster *wouldn't* force the Senate to do the will of the people--not certainly, anyway. But I have to say "wouldn't" rather than "won't" because (as I commented elsewhere) this right-wing Supreme Court majority will never do anything to thwart Republican rule.
Not until the Republicans regain a majority in the Senate will the current rule by filibuster be overturned; but when that time comes, the change will be made so fast our heads will spin.
I am not finding an explicit declaration in Article I that ordinary votes should be decided by simple majority, though perhaps it can be understood by implication as applying to votes for which a two-thirds majority is not specified. So I don't know how strong a case Common Cause and their co-plaintiffs will have, especially (as beerad007 points out) before this partisan Supreme Court.
The current rules will be changed, though. When the Republicans retake the Senate, their first order of business will be to make routine votes determinable by a simple majority and to strip the Democratic minority of all rights and powers possible, including that of filibuster.
I am pleased to learn that Common Cause is taking this issue head on. I wonder if the Supreme Court members have enough understanding of the Constitution to see that the Senate has no right to tie its hands. The Senate was supposed to make decisions on majority rule unless they were ratifiying international agreements. This filibuster rule is crazy.
Today is the last day I listened to the Thom Hartmann Show. For what it's worth, I'll tell you why Thom. I can no longer stand listening to brainless conservatives who you insist on having come on your show and drone their stupid talking points ad nauseum. I want to listen to Progressive Talk Radio because I don't want to hear the psycho babble from the right. You let these jokers get away with spewing nonsense continually and I am tired of it. i will listen to Randi Rhodes at 3pm EST from now on because she is a Progressive who doesn't need to have conservative BS on her show. Get a clue Thom. I love your cerebral style and your level of knowledge but I can't stomach the GOP crap segment any longer. Good luck!
On one hand I am certainly glad that someone is trying to do something, but do I think they will win, I would say no. It's a GOP controlled Supreme Court and there is just not enough people that actually c are about what is going on around them. I am becoming more and more convinced that there will have to be a Great Depression type event to start the cycle all over again. We just don't seem to learn in our society.
I've often thought the filibuster to be unconstitutional, and have been anxiously waiting for some group to legally challenge it. There is certainly nothing explicity mentioned in the Constutution about it so one one would think it would require an amendment to change. It's difficult to know whether the Supreme Court would see it as a violation of Separation of powers to even rule on it.
Lobbyists Wall ST Greed Ignorance are ruining our gov't / country We must rise up in mass and fight back . Corp Money - bought and paid for judges - Wall St banks run our economy. Wall St Banks are even bigger and more powerful than before 2008 Bush Paulosn depression / TARP scam on taxpayers : .
No way, the November elections are critical for black Americans. Imagine life under Republican rule, Obama is a much better choice than Romney. This country can't take Paul Ryan's budget plan, what a nightmare Romney as President, Boehner as House Speaker and McConnel as Senate leader! Oh, SCOTUS too !! Have Mercy!!
The Germans pretty much dominate the E.U., but saying they would have the world's economy in their hands is ridiculous. If they now challenge Greece, this has to do with a contract all E.U. members signed years ago, which contains a certain debt limit. Germany is the main payer in the E.U. and they're protesting countries like Greece which are a drag on the E.U. budged. Their pressuring Greece is nothing but an inner-E.U. issue and doesn't mean they have the world in their hands. The E.U. isn't the world!
This being jealous of Germany is a very silly attitude.
History has shown that every depression in this country has fueled mass protest, and since we don't seem to learn from history and continue to allow the same mistakes from Wall Street and the financial sector to repeat themselves, no doubt the protests will increase until there are major changes.
I was watching a feature on PBS about the great depression and it's causes. The next hour, Frontline did a focus on the problems of the 08 crash. It was obvious the newest generation of financiers and banksters had no clue about the history of crashes, since they seem to have fallen into the same traps, blindly believing there was no ceiling and stocks would only go up. It would be helpful if anyone associated with banking, and Wall St. were required to study and understand not only economics, but the history and causes of crashes and take exams or something, require some sort of license, almost like a bar exam, and in some way pass on the mistakes of history to new generations....lest they forget.
It's time to start the Socialist revolution!!!
Vote straight Socialist in November!!
I thought we were already protesting austerity, or at least the cuts that would create even more austerity. Unemployment is taxable income, so I don't understand why they'd need to cut that back. Except for the fact that they don't want the economy to succeed while Obama is in office.
Three words:
Elizabeth Warren NOW!
Two words: Elizabeth Warren.
If you die to know more about politics in Germany, just listen to the German public radio DLF (Deutschlandfunk -- via Internet radio). There I heard, Merkel actually would profit, after her last competitor within her own party was beaten at the Rhine. This would make her even stronger, since there isn't anybody to seriously challenge her.
Interestingly they also said, Merkel was politically very adaptive and that is what I meant before: She has actually learned a lot from Social Democrats, Greens and other progressives. I don't know what she's claiming in the E.U. parliament in things Greece, but her policy within Germany cannot be considered austerity.
In Germany they very much call for kicking Greece out of the Euro zone. On DLF radio you hear that again and again. Politically Greece seems to be pretty unstable -- too many Greeks tend to radical parties on the left and right. So I don't wonder they're unable to make consistent policy in order to build their economy.
Instead of complaining about Germany, America should just learn and adapt from there!
Subtugalaneously ugly? I'm too tired to try to figure it out. (And apparently too tired to spell.)
By this caller's argument, a trade agreement is much easier to repeal than a trade treaty. If NAFTA was never ratified as a treaty, then it's just a law, which can be changed by Congress and the President, and the other countries in the agreement have no (legal) right to complain, because it's not a treaty.
In the past several years, the invidious take-over of media by plutocratic powers has been revealed. By the flukes of their own negligence, media monopolies claiming to report "news" have shown themselves to be devoted to distracting entertainment and outright deception. Rupert Murdock is a criminal. However, the media empire is not in trouble. Apparently the exposure of criminality came too late -- Fox News/ WSJ had already neutralized the ability of any government agency to prosecute its crimes.
So what can we do to recover the integrity of the 4th Estate?
Paul Krugman asks, "Will Germany do the right thing?" It is interesting to note that "Trickle down economics" really meant "Trickle down austerity". I will forever talk about economics of the Right this way, and I hope the news media picks up on this as well. Why do people have such a difficult time with abstract problems? What works at a micro-level may not work at all at the macro-level. Is it that we are obtuse by nature?
How about this for an abstraction, "The world economy is in Germany's hands." Here is another, "We've lost thirty years of real economic growth!" Even Clinton should have been knowlegable of the results that repealing Glass-Stegall would cause. If you leave the door to the hen house open, don't be surprised when the fox shows up.
US is NOT Europe We have too many die hard loyal followers who do not - will not think for themselves, check facts or use logic or reason. Corp Media is run for max profit Getting out all the facts seems not to matter much . I am totally disillusioned with US media except PBS and C Span
I hope we do Nothing gets sone without People Power Nothing
This story begs the question: given global corporate dominance, is it possible to create change that favors The People without a catastrophic economic meltdown?
I'm beginning to think that you can't have one without the other. Economic catastrophe is the trump card the corporations can play to keep us in line.
Popular movement threatens corporate power? The stock market tumbles.
But perhaps that isn't such a bad thing. Is the stock market a reliable indicator of our collective prosperity? It certainly hasn't been in line with mine during the past 5 years.
Colonized by Corporations
By Chris Hedges
In Robert E. Gamer’s book “The Developing Nations” is a chapter called “Why Men Do Not Revolt.” In it Gamer notes that although the oppressed often do revolt, the object of their hostility is misplaced. They vent their fury on a political puppet, someone who masks colonial power, a despised racial or ethnic group or an apostate within their own political class. The useless battles serve as an effective mask for what Gamer calls the “patron-client” networks that are responsible for the continuity of colonial oppression. The squabbles among the oppressed, the political campaigns between candidates who each are servants of colonial power, Gamer writes, absolve the actual centers of power from addressing the conditions that cause the frustrations of the people. Inequities, political disenfranchisement and injustices are never seriously addressed. “The government merely does the minimum necessary to prevent those few who are prone toward political action from organizing into politically effective groups,” he writes...
http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/83-83/11425-focus-colonized-by-corporations
well, this is really a nice post.I really like the way you start and conclude your thoughts. Thank you so much for this information. keep posting such good stuff.help writing a cv