Wayne Allard: “Had the Founders intended a 60-vote supermajority, they would have included the requirement in the Constitution the way…”

“Had the Founders intended a 60-vote supermajority, they would have included the requirement in the Constitution the way they did on the treaty power clause. The clause on the treaty power, after mentioning ``advice and consent,'' requires concurrence by two-thirds of the Senators present. The clause on the appointment of ambassadors and others, including Supreme Court Justices, by contrast, does not. The author then pointed out several other provisions in the Constitution where a supermajority vote is required. In article I, section 3, two-thirds of Members present are required for Senate conviction for impeachment. In article I, section 5, two-thirds are required to expel a member of either House. Article I, section 7 requires two-thirds for overriding a Presidential veto. The fact that the Constitution explicitly requires two-thirds in some contexts indicates that the Senate's consent in article II, section 2 is by majority vote when no supermajority vote is required. The general rule is that majorities govern in a legislative body unless another rule is expressly provided. The article also cited a Supreme Court case noting that more than a century ago, in United States v. Ballin, that ``the general rule of parliamentary bodies is that, when a quorum is present, the act of a majority of the quorum is the act of the body.…”