Listening to NPR this morning (I know, I know...), they had a story on the "economic stimulus package" and why it was probably not going to pass, and the only issue now was who would take the blame. I listened to Senator Daschle sadly (and smarmily, with crocodile tears) explain that it just didn't have the sixty votes it needed in the Senate. And then the NPR reporter dutifully repeated that it didn't have the "sixty votes needed" to pass the Senate in the story wrap up. Anyone listening to the story, who knew no better, would have (mistakenly) concluded that bills cannot pass the Senate without sixty votes.

When I last took a class in government (admittedly many years ago), I was taught that bills passed either house with a majority--not a supermajority. Now I understand that the Senate has established rules of debate that require three fifths to close the debate, and that if even a single Senator wants to continue debate, that the bill will not go to a full vote without the three-fifths cloture vote. But that's just a Senate rule--it's certainly not Constitutionally mandated. And in fact, I think that if someone really wants to filibuster a bill, they should actually have to maintain the debate--threatening to do so should not be sufficient, and allowing people to make such threats without requiring them to actually carry it out does mean that effectively a supermajority is required to pass a bill in the Senate.

(Not that I think this a bad thing, mind you--as a minimum-government type, I actually like the idea that it's hard to pass legislation, but given that legislation is required to undo much of the damage of the past two-plus centuries, it would be nice to be able to fast-track that process...)

So I was curious as to whether this was really something that the founders had intended. I dutifully went back and read Article I, and lo, I couldn't find any reference to the requirement for bill passage--the Constitution seems to be silent on it. It does stipulate that two thirds is required to overcome a presidential veto, but nothing explicit about what constitutes a bill "passing a house." I had always thought that simple majority was mandated, but I can't see it anywhere. Can someone enlighten me?

[Update at 5PM PST]

I finally got an answer to my question from reader John W. Lanius Jr.:

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, just a lawyer who had to take Con-Law in Law School and who has read the document several times. Starting with the text itself, under Article I, Section 5, Clause [2], "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..."

Seems pretty clear to me. The only real question is whether the cloture rule has to do with the "Proceedings" of the Senate. I think it does, and has the added benefit of being just the type of rule the framers would have loved: i.e., an obstacle to too much governance.

I guess so. That was my interpretation, too, based on my reading this morning, but I thought it was strange. I was aware that they could make up their rules, but I didn't know that the size of majority required was part of that. I had always thought that the Constitution explicitly stipulated a simple majority for bill passage. Learn something new every day...

Now I wonder if this implies that, if they so chose, they could decide to pass things only by unanimous vote?

I heard the same NPR report this morning, and despite being a card-carrying liberal (although the cards are credit cards!), I was struck by the same reporting bias. It definitely leads the average listener, i.e. one not conversant with the minutiae of Senate rules, with the impression that the putative bill cannot be passed without 60 votes. This is definitely Democrat propaganda. I think the reality is that the Minority can't introduce a bill unless it has "filibuster-proof" support, at least if the Majority leader doesn't want it. As a Dem myself, I find myself hoping Daschle has something up his sleeve, to pass something at the last minute, but I suspect he is trying the Clintonesque face-off approach that worked against Gingrich et al. Unfortunately, I think that Daschle is quite likely to lose this round. On the other hand, this "stimulus" bill seems like a pretty bad idea, so maybe it's better if the economy recovers without it, keeping all of them from taking credit for the business cycle.

I agree with you that I'd be happy to see the economy recover without any "stimulus" package, which, as Andragna and Vehrs point out, is really an economic relief package.

Though I do like the idea of making people more responsible for their own health care--this silliness of having employers pay for it is, in my opinion, at the root of most of our problems with the health-care system here, because it insulates the consumer from the provider.

BTW, it's nice to see liberals (I assume you mean of the modern, as opposed to classical, type?) card-carrying or otherwise, reading my little rants. But just in the interest of market research, I'm wondering why?

Why, you ask? Well, the short answer is the uberblogger, Glenn Reynolds. The longer answer includes a fascination with all things scientific, especially hearkening back to space exploration. Finally, I like to hear alternative viewpoints, and I keep coming back because you are clearly an intelligent person with the ability to back up (and not back down from) your arguments. Interestingly, I had a similar thought about health care this morning. If we had to pay for our own, market forces would keep prices down. As it is, employers can use health care costs as a reason to keep wages low, thus passing on the cost as a hidden charge to wages. Would this send the economy into a tailspin, tho? I envision a massive spike in wages when the new cost of health insurance is added in, leading to rampant inflation fear as real inflation is suddenly reflected in the bogus stats we are continually fed. I think health care costs rise ~20%/yr, as opposed to ~3% for everything else in CPI. Anyway, I just like to argue, so you are feeding my disease (enabler!!)

You're quite right, Rand, the problem does arise out of parliamentary rules. The fact of the matter is that the bill doesn't need 60 votes to pass, but it won't even get voted on without the 60 votes to invoke cloture.

The device used to block passage in this instance would not be a "fillibuster", but a "point of order" under Senate rules pertinent to the Budget Act. The Budget Act DOES REQUIRE a supermajority in order to go beyond levels set in the budget resolution, and the requirement can only be waived by unanimous consent.

There is no unanimous consent, therefore Daschle is 100% correct in stating that the bill needs 60 votes to pass.

Here's another liberal who's been reading you, Rand. (You may recall occasionally encountering me -- Dan Hartung -- in the space newsgroups.) There's quite a few of us liberals in the "warblog" community. We're pro-war, anti loony-left. For myself I'm sort of a liberal-libertarian mix.

By the way, picking up on Paul's comments, you may want to visit Steven Den Beste's USS Clueless at http://denbeste.nu/ -- I'm sure you'll find you have a lot in common.

From the news articles I've read the issue is that even though this bill was passed by the House, it would die in the Senate Finance Committee unless a member brought it to the committee of the whole. To do that -- overrule the standing committee -- would require 60 votes.

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/menu.htm

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101183.html

(how a bill becomes a law)

In truth the Senate especially has always had a lot of tricks up its sleeve to derail (or railroad) legislation. Of course, the president also has pocket vetoes and recess appointments! And the Republicans were not shy about using those rules when they had a thin majority, nor to filibuster when they did not. Certainly these tricks are not something that can be used on all legislation, otherwise the work of the house would grind to a halt. So it's saved for issues where there's a reasonable chance of success, whether permanent or symbolic.

If the system were to be reflective at all times of a simple majority, there'd be little reason for representative government; simply submit everything to referenda.

Note also that the Democrats had a bill last month that went nowhere, because they didn't have 60 votes either.

Here's another liberal who's been reading you, Rand. (You may recall occasionally encountering me -- Dan Hartung -- in the space newsgroups.) There's quite a few of us liberals in the "warblog" community. We're pro-war, anti loony-left. For myself I'm sort of a liberal-libertarian mix.

By the way, picking up on Paul's comments, you may want to visit Steven Den Beste's USS Clueless at http://denbeste.nu/ -- I'm sure you'll find you have a lot in common.

From the news articles I've read the issue is that even though this bill was passed by the House, it would die in the Senate Finance Committee unless a member brought it to the committee of the whole. To do that -- overrule the standing committee -- would require 60 votes.

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/menu.htm

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101183.html

(how a bill becomes a law)

In truth the Senate especially has always had a lot of tricks up its sleeve to derail (or railroad) legislation. Of course, the president also has pocket vetoes and recess appointments! And the Republicans were not shy about using those rules when they had a thin majority, nor to filibuster when they did not. Certainly these tricks are not something that can be used on all legislation, otherwise the work of the house would grind to a halt. So it's saved for issues where there's a reasonable chance of success, whether permanent or symbolic.

If the system were to be reflective at all times of a simple majority, there'd be little reason for representative government; simply submit everything to referenda.

Note also that the Democrats had a bill last month that went nowhere, because they didn't have 60 votes either.