Open borders, one and all

[Proletariat]

Me too! I'm going back to a dinosaur hatchling soon...

[Del Arroyo]

The reason Mexico is the way it is today is that when the US was passing a constitutional amendment here and forming a new political party there, some podunk Mexican colonel with a few troops under him was drafting a brand new constitution about every other year and overthrowing the government, only to be overthrown by the next wiseguy a couple of months or years after that.

Mexico's biggest weakness was a large standing army with no sense of national identity. Several attempts were made to reduce the size of the army and establish local militias, but these only provoked further military revolts, and then conflicts between the militias and the regulars.

This is the real meaning of the US's 2nd Amendment-- the founders clearly felt that local control of security organizations was the best option, and the demise of Mexico just a few decades later is a perfect illustration of their concerns.

You could also refer many of Mexico's problems to the conflict between the reactionary conservative ideas that were trying to hold things together in the later days of the Spanish Monarchy, and empassioned liberals who wanted to remake the whole societal structure from scratch.

Or you could refer to issues with the social structure and the structure of the labor system that take their origins in the aims and methods of the Spanish conquest and colonization.

..

Also, do remember than when we speak of illegal immigration we only speak of the lower end of Mexican society. Most Mexicans, while not wealthy, live stable lives and have little real motive to ever leave their homes. We get the desperate and the restless.

If someone from another country were to visit an Appalachian trailer park, and formed their entire concept of the USA on that one experience, would this be a fair or an accurate picture of our nation?

[Aenlic]

On judicial nominations only.

No. It wasn't a case of cherry-picking only judicial nominations for removal of the fillibuster. It was a case of eliminating the fillibuster option from the executive calendar entirely in order to stop fillibusters for judicial nominations. This method would have been a major change to Senate Rule XXII - the "cloture rule" - far greater than when Republicans ranted and raved back in 1975 when the Dems lowered the number needed for a cloture vote from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60).

It wasn't called the "nuclear option" because it was a
smart weapon targetted with precision.

[Xiahou]

No- you're wrong.

My resolution, by contrast, is more narrowly tailored to respond to the problem at hand. It applies to nominations alone, and leaves the rest of Rule XXII unamended. It addresses only a defect that needs repair.

[Aenlic]

No- you're wrong.

Frist was lying through his teeth. I'm not terribly surprised that you believed him. What Frist said and what he actually put on paper were two different things. His resolution was not specifically tailored to nominations but to all of the executive calendar. That means all business sent from the White House to the Senate, not just judicial nominations. Frist, of course, counted on the ignorance of the general populous as to what the executive calendar really is.

Let's examine the facts, instead of Frist's lies.

"Under the most likely scenario now under discussion, they would secure a ruling from the chair that Senate Rule XXII does not apply to executive submissions to the Senate — and that includes judicial nominees. Rule XXII provides for unlimited debate on all legislative issues that reach the floor unless three-fifths of the Senate calls a halt."

(From the May, 7 2003 issue of The Hill - a notoriously non-partisan paper covering Congress).

There are many other places on the internet to look into the matter. I recommend using keywords "nuclear option" and "executive calendar" to locate them. They'll explain it all in exquisite detail for you.

The whole problem with the so-called "nuclear option" was that it involved a decision from the chair that Rule XXII doesn't apply to the executive calendar. Such a ruling would call into question all Senate debate rules which aren't a simple majority, excepting those specific votes detailed in the Constitution which are required to be a two-thirds instead. That was why it was called the "nuclear option" in the first place. It wouldn't just affect judicial nominees, but nearly all Senate procedures.

Do a little research about these things. Stop believing the drivel that gets spouted for public consumption by the spinmeisters.

[Xiahou]

Do a little research about these things. Stop believing the drivel that gets spouted for public consumption by the spinmeisters.

And why don't you read your own links?

"Under the most likely scenario now under discussion, they would secure a ruling from the chair that Senate Rule XXII does not apply to executive submissions to the Senate — and that includes judicial nominees. Rule XXII provides for unlimited debate on all legislative issues that reach the floor unless three-fifths of the Senate calls a halt."

Executive submissions- you know submissions from the executive aka: presidential nominations. Maybe you need to do some more research- virtually every news story on the matter makes note of the fact that it's about nominations and not the filibuster in general, including the Hill.

My resolution, by contrast, is more narrowly tailored to respond to the problem at hand. It applies to nominations alone, and leaves the rest of Rule XXII unamended. It addresses only a defect that needs repair.

That's from his speech on the Senate floor where he proposed the rule change- not some news interview. Done derailing the thread yet?

[Aenlic]

And why don't you read your own links?

I do indeed. Do you read my links? Or perhaps just read them and fail to understand them?

Executive submissions- you know submissions from the executive aka: presidential nominations. Maybe you need to do some more research- virtually every news story on the matter makes note of the fact that it's about nominations and not the filibuster in general, including the Hill.

Not going to waste much more time trying to explain this to you. But here's one more try.

Executive submissions is the same thing as the executive calendar. The executive calendar is the official Senate term for those items which the Executive BRanch must submit to the Senate under the advise and consent portion of the Constitution. It isn't just judicial nominations, now is it? In fact, you just admitted that it isn't just judicial nominations, didn't you? You, in your post above, stated presidential nominations. Can we possibly think of some other types of nominations besides judicial nominations? Of course we can. You do remember stating that it was just judicial nominations, don't you?

Just for clarity, let's see your entire post again, shall we?

On judicial nominations only.

That was, in fact, the post to which I responded and which began this argument. I suppose you could go back and delete that post and pretend that you didn't say it. Oops, too late.

Where were we? Oh, yes. "Presidential nominations" as you now claim as opposed to "judicial nominations" as you first stated. We have hmmm...

Cabinet positions. All other executive branch appointments. IN fact, one is in the news right now. Bush is wanting to have the Senate confirm Bolton as U.N. ambassador. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he isn't "Judge" Bolton as a result of being in that post, is he? Didn't think so.

That's from his speech on the Senate floor where he proposed the rule change- not some news interview. Done derailing the thread yet?

Yes. A speech on the floor. Aside from the fact that his speech which you've quoted twice now doesn't say "judicial" like you think it did, it also is quite completely wrong. As I said before, what Frist says and what gets put on paper aren't the same thing. You're welcome to believe Frist, if you so desire. As I also said, I'm not terribly surprised that you do. The article in The Hill goes into great detail on exactly how the "nuclear option" would have been handled. And, as I said, many other articles are there for you to read on the internet. Please do so.

Frist stated one thing. But all of the available information on how his resolution would have been achieved differ. They all state that the option would be to claim that Rule XXII doesn't apply to executive submissions (or, in the more exact and as-used language in the Senate, the executive calendar). And that procedure, the issues sent by the Executive to the Senate for a vote, doesn't just include judicial nominations, in spite of what you said. Even Frist didn't try that lie out. But even more, those issues included in the executive calendar (or submissions, if you insist) aren't confined even to nominations. Have you read a copy of the Constitution lately? Have a clue perhaps what issues might be included in the Senate term "executive calendar" besides nominations?

Can you say treaties? I knew you could. If you are confused, I recommend a thorough reading of the Constitution. Pay particular attention to Article II, Section 2.

As for derailing the thread, I was correcting your error. I replied to your post. So, how is my pointing out that you're wrong derailing the thread; but you making the post which needed correcting not derailing it? Pot meet kettle.

[Xiahou]

I'll readily admit that it would've applied to all nominations- it's a small distinction, but a significant one. I was responding to the suggestion that the GOP tried to end all filibusters- they didn't.

Can you say treaties? I knew you could. If you are confused, I recommend a thorough reading of the Constitution. Pay particular attention to Article II, Section 2.

Im only confused as to why you bring up treaties. They require a 2/3 vote regardless- the filibuster and rule XXII have no effect on that.

I suppose you could go back and delete that post and pretend that you didn't say it. Oops, too late.

Wow, what a classy guy you are.

[Aenlic]

I'll readily admit that it would've applied to all nominations- it's a small distinction, but a significant one. I was responding to the suggestion that the GOP tried to end all filibusters- they didn't.

The end result of the nuclear option wouldn't have been the end of all fillibusters. Drone was indeed incorrect. But no less incorrect than you were when you stated that it ended judicial nominations fillibusters only. So, I corrected you.

Im only confused as to why you bring up treaties. They require a 2/3 vote regardless- the filibuster and rule XXII have no effect on that.

I think I see now why you don't get it. You appear to be confused about what Rule XXII is and what a fillibuster is as opposed to actually voting on an issue. Of course they don't have any effect on the 2/3 vote required to approve a treaty. That isn't at all near to the point. A fillibuster can be made to stop that vote from even taking place. Rule XXII, the cloture rule, would then come into play to stop the fillibuster. Under current rules, as of 1975, that cloture vote would require 3/5 or 60 to end debate, i.e. to end the fillibuster. None of that touches on the 2/3 needed to approve a treaty after debate.

What Hatch and Frist and others intended, in order to stop any fillibuster of judicial nominees, was to have the chair (which would be Vice President Cheney, or the Pro Tem in Cheney's absence) rule that Rule XXII doesn't apply to the executive calendar items, and thus wouldn't apply to judicial nominations, and thus could cut off debate with a simple majority vote rather than the 3/5 required by XXII.

Once made, that ruling stands. They can't then come back and say "oh, but now Rule XXII applies to executive calendar items again!" So, that means future executive calendar items would also not have Rule XXII applicable to them. Thus all, let me repeat that... all, future issues in that category would be immune from fillibuster. And, as I think we've established, executive calendar items are all issues sent to the Senate by the Executive branch - all nominations requiring Senate confirmation and treaties.

This entire argument started because you took exception to me pointing out the error in your own statement:

On judicial nominations only.

That was, quite clearly, wrong. As wrong as Drone's statement that the GOP almost ended fillibusters. They almost ended all fillibusters of executive calendar items, yes. And that was the entirety of my response to you, at first:

No. It wasn't a case of cherry-picking only judicial nominations for removal of the fillibuster. It was a case of eliminating the fillibuster option from the executive calendar entirely in order to stop fillibusters for judicial nominations. This method would have been a major change to Senate Rule XXII - the "cloture rule" - far greater than when Republicans ranted and raved back in 1975 when the Dems lowered the number needed for a cloture vote from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60).

It wasn't called the "nuclear option" because it was a
smart weapon targetted with precision.

Your response was that I was wrong. Clearly, you were wrong. You chose to use a statement of Frist's that obscured the real effects of the nuclear option to try and prove me wrong. That statement not only didn't prove me wrong, it proved what you said was wrong by specifying nominations in total, not just judicial nominations. I then gave evidence that Frist wasn't speaking the truth - intentional or not; but I'll always assume intentional lying when it comes to Dr. Cat Killer.

Then I had to argue with you about the meaning of executive calendar, which you also misinterpreted. Once past that, now I'm having to explain that cloture has nothing to do with the 2/3 requirement for approving treaties. It's getting rather old.

Are we clear now? Anything else I can explain to you?

Wow, what a classy guy you are.

Why thanks!

[Xiahou]

Then I had to argue with you about the meaning of executive calendar, which you also misinterpreted. Once past that, now I'm having to explain that cloture has nothing to do with the 2/3 requirement for approving treaties. It's getting rather old.

I thought this was obvious, but I'll lay it out for you. If a proposed treaty wouldn't have enough votes to end debate under rule XXII, it certainly wouldn't have enough votes to pass under the Constitution. What's the effective difference? Nominations could be passed with a simple majority and treaties would still require a super-majority to be passed which is greater than the cloture threshold.

I've already admitted that the word "judicial" the preceded "nominations" was inaccurate- yet you feel the need to keep ramming it home... Let's see if I can come up with a statement that would make Aenlic happy- mind you I didn't have my lawyer go over it...

The GOP Senate almost killed the filibuster in 2005. That would have been quite ironic....

On judicial nominations only and treaties. And the effect on treaties would be minimal since they already require a 67 vote majority to pass which is well above the 60 votes needed for cloture.

Do you approve?

[Aenlic]

Do you approve?

I'll approve when you state, clearly and openly, that you were wrong when you corrected Drone's error. And you were again wrong when you said my correction was wrong. And you were wrong a third time when you misinterpreted the term "executive calendar" as not being the same thing as "executive submissions" and tried to claim I was wrong about that, too.

Three admissions of error and I'll let you slide.

Deal?

As for treaties, which illustrates your continued error in insisting that the nuclear option would only affect nominations, you still aren't getting it. It doesn't matter whether or not treaties require a 2/3 vote to be approved. We're not talking about final floor votes here. We're talking about fillibusters and invoking the cloture rule. Both of which come before the final floor vote on an issue. The point of a fillibuster is to prevent a vote from taking place. It doesn't matter if the final vote would pass with a simple majority or 60/100 or 67/100 or 99/100. If one, just one, senator wants to fillibuster, then he or she can do so. It takes 60 votes to stop him or her. What if 59 other senators support the right of fillibuster even if they would vote for the measure itself? Is it possible they might be thinking ahead to when they might want to fillibuster themselves? Of course. So, even though you seem to think it wouldn't matter if Rule XXII were needed to invoke cloture for treaties which require a 67/100 vote anyway, it is entirely possible that 60 or more senators would support the right of fillibuster even though 67 or more of them might also support the measure being fillibustered. Is that just too complicated for you to grasp?

[Xiahou]

I'll approve when you state, clearly and openly, that you were wrong when you corrected Drone's error. And you were again wrong when you said my correction was wrong. And you were wrong a third time when you misinterpreted the term "executive calendar" as not being the same thing as "executive submissions" and tried to claim I was wrong about that, too.

Three admissions of error and I'll let you slide.

Deal?

I've already admitted error. If you want more than that you'll have to find someone else to pump your ego, Im not interested in the position.

As for treaties, which illustrates your continued error in insisting that the nuclear option would only affect nominations, you still aren't getting it.

I get it just fine, thanks. You think that removing, in theory, the ability of 1 senator to endlessly filibuster a treaty's ratification that otherwise has the support of 67 or more members would be a "far greater" change than lowering the filibuster threshold from 67 to 60 for all cases.

I maintain that isn't the case because 41 senators who'd be willing to sustain a filibuster there'd almost certainly be 32 who are willing to vote it down.

Now, if you're right and your concern is justified, you should have no problem finding any number of treaties that have been filibustered and not voted on since the cloture threshold was reduced to 60. Easy right? Otherwise, I'm going to maintain that there is no practical difference.

[Aenlic]

I get it just fine, thanks. You think that removing, in theory, the ability of 1 senator to endlessly filibuster a treaty's ratification that otherwise has the support of 67 or more members would be a "far greater" change than lowering the filibuster threshold from 67 to 60 for all cases.

Don't put words in my mouth. When did I say 1 senator fillibustering was worse? That makes error #5. I said that the change to the cloture rule was far greater than the previous change from 67 to 60 done in 1975. Are you going to attempt to argue that a change from 67 to 60 is greater than a change from 60 to 59? Don't bother. Even just mathematically, the change of the proposed nuclear option would have been greater. And from a non-math standpoint, the nuclear option would have been a greater change in procedures and might also have sparked a Constitutional challenge, while the 1975 change was only in the numbers required. The nuclear option wouldn't just change the numbers, it would eliminate the cloture rule altogether for executive calendar items.

I maintain that isn't the case because 41 senators who'd be willing to sustain a filibuster there'd almost certainly be 32 who are willing to vote it down.

What? If there were 41 senators willing to sustain a fillibuster, then that's the end of the story. What possible connection does the number 32 have with anything we're discussing? That would be error #6.

Now, if you're right and your concern is justified, you should have no problem finding any number of treaties that have been filibustered and not voted on since the cloture threshold was reduced to 60. Easy right? Otherwise, I'm going to maintain that there is no practical difference.

That doesn't follow logically at all. You're still missing the point. I'm not concerned about it. I'm pointing out why your statement was in error. You stated, after being corrected on your initial error several times by me, that the nuclear option would only have an affect on nominations. That's not the case. You were wrong. Rather than just admitting that you were wrong, you've set up this whole straw man argument about how it wouldn't matter if treaties couldn't be fillibustered. That isn't and never has been germaine to the argument. Clearly, the nuclear option would have affected all executive calendar items. That means more than just nominations. Thus, you were wrong and Bill Frist was lying.

Even more, a case can be made that the executive calendar includes other items besides just nominations and treaties. It can include other issues presented to the Senate by the executive branch. We haven't even gotten that far in the argument yet; but we might as well. What other items are presented to the Senate by the executive? Remember the vote to authorize the president to invade Iraq? Executive calendar item. We can go on.

To steal a line from Bill Hicks, you're responding to my arguments like a dog who has just been shown a magic trick.

[Xiahou]

Edit: On second thought, I'm tired of this pissing contest. I'll just stand by my corrected statement in post 40.

[Aenlic]

Edit: On second thought, I'm tired of this pissing contest. I'll just stand by my corrected statement in post 40.

OK, you win. I was going to stand by my statement in post #432; but you ended the debate early.