David Skaggs: “Let me just say, I believe the gentleman's recitation proves my point, because none of the examples that the gentleman…”

“Let me just say, I believe the gentleman's recitation proves my point, because none of the examples that the gentleman cites for requiring supermajorities has anything to do with the presentment clause. None of those examples involves the presentment of legislation to the President for his approval or disapproval or veto. In fact, they all have to do with extraordinary matters in the course of conducting the business of the country. None of them has to do with the core legislative responsibilities of the Congress. And in fact, it is very clear from the fact that the framers, during the course of the Constitutional Convention, considered and rejected several times proposals to attach supermajority requirements to particular legislative matters, that it was not contemplated by them that the presentment clause could be some kind of excuse, covering the advisability of any supermajority requirement for regular legislative business. So the gentleman's points are accurate as far as they go. They simply are irrelevant to the validity or not of the argument about the importance of majority rule as a central tenet of free government.”