On the recordDecember 11, 2012
The Senator from Nebraska has talked about the rules not being able to be changed because internally in the Senate rules there is a provision that says you need a supermajority, two- thirds of the Senate, to change the rules. This is the proposition we are hearing argued by many Senators, that we are breaking the rules to change the rules. We have heard that repeated several times over and over on the Senate floor. The other side of the argument, as the Senator I think well knows, as he worked up here and was around and saw Senator Byrd, is that the Constitution is superior to the Senate rules. And the Constitution specifically says, in article 1, section 5, that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. Statutory construction applied to that means a simple majority determines the rules of its proceedings. This is a standard interpretation construction. We know supermajorities are only indicated at several places in the Constitution, and every place else it is implied that it is by a majority. Here you have a supermajority in the Senate rules and you have the Constitution saying at the beginning of a Congress you can change the rules by majority vote. So the question to the Senator is: Does not he agree the Constitution is superior to the Senate rules? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
