OATHS AND FILIBUSTERS

The Senate's very first act was THE OATH ACT - passed May 5th 1789. That first oath, for members and civil servants, was very simple: "I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

This Oath was amended during the U.S. Civil War to include loyalty to the United States of America. The Oath now stands as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

No Senator swears an oath to uphold Senate rules.

Repeat: NO SENATOR SWEARS TO UPHOLD SENATE RULES.

NOT ONLY does the US Constitution trump Senate rules, BUT EVERY U.S. Senator has a compulsory duty and PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY to see to it that the U.S. Constitution is upheld.

I assert that - IN THE CASE OF JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS - the Senate's filibuster rule - now set at 60 to end debate, (but not too long ago set at 67) - is UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATES THE SENATE'S OATH OF OFFICE.

Here's why the Senate cloture rule - as it relates to judicial appointments - violates the US Constitution: The Constitution specifically states that the Senate shall confirm judges; CONFIRMATION HAS ALWAYS BEEN BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY: 50% + 1. WHY? Here's why:

According to Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President of the United States "shall appoint" federal judges, who are confirmed "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." For more than 200 years, this has meant that the Senate debates and votes by simple majority to confirm the President’s appointments to the federal bench.

The Constitution never discusses filibusters in the U.S. Senate or in any other body of the federal government. In fact, even the Senate’s own rules do not speak explicitly of a "filibuster." Instead, the Senate’s Standing Rules allow for unlimited debate and set forth a special procedure for ending debate upon a "cloture" motion approved by a 60-vote supermajority of the Senate. While the Constitution does not refer to a "filibuster,"

It does say that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings," in Article I, Section 5. The Senate has used this power to create Standing Rule XXII, which is often known as the "Cloture Rule" or "Filibuster Rule," because it allows a minority of the Senate to prevent a final up-or-down vote by mustering 41 votes against ending debate.

The filibuster of legislation dates back to 1841 when Senator John C. Calhoun, a notorious defender of slavery and an extreme proponent of minority rights, originated the filibuster as part of his effort to defend the hideous institution of slavery. Calhoun’s creation of the filibuster was opposed by the great Senator Henry Clay and the very name filibuster itself was originally a synonym for pro-Slavery mercenary pirates who would attack Latin American governments to try to spread the Slave system.

Since its inception in 1841, the filibuster of legislation has been used to block legislation protecting black voters in the South, in 1870 and 1890-91; to block anti-lynching legislation in 1922, 1935, and 1938; to block anti-poll tax legislation in 1942, 1944, and 1946; and to block anti-race discrimination statutes on 11 occasions between 1946 and 1975.

The most famous filibuster of all time was the pro-segregation filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which went on for 74 days. In recent years, the number of filibusters has escalated dramatically due to the emergence of the so-called stealth filibuster or two track system of considering legislation.

We have gone from 16 filibusters in the 19th Century to 66 in the first half of the 20th Century to 195 filibusters between 1970 and 1994.

Filibusters of legislation may be constitutionally dubious as an original and textual matter, but they have been permitted now in the Senate for a century and one-half and indeed seem to be mushrooming.

Now for the first time in 214 years of American history an angry minority of Senators is seeking to extend the tradition of filibustering from legislation to judicial nominees who enjoy the support of a majority of the Senate. This unprecedented extension of the filibuster to judicial nominees threatens to raise the vote required for senatorial confirmation of judges from 51 to 60 votes.

This is a direct violation of the Advice and Consent Clause, which clearly contemplates only a majority vote to confirm a judge.

THEREFORE, Frist MUST see to it that the Senate nullifies the Senate cloture rule as it relates to judical nominees; (he can do this with a simple majority vote). Frist violates his OATH OF OFFICE if he does NOT do this.