United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892)

From dKosopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

U S v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892)

Template:SCOTUSCase


'United States v. Ballin 144 U.S. 1 (1892) was a landmark decision issued on February 29, 1982 by the United States Supreme Court. Justice David Josiah Brewer delivered the opinion of the Court discussing the "Power and Duties of the Houses" and specifically dealing with the constitutional definition of a "quorum" to do business along with how the presence of a majority is to be determined and defining the power of constitutional limitations for determining the "Rules of Proceedings" in the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives, also known as the legislative branch and / or United States Congress.

<ref>Insert footnote text here</ref>

Facts

TEMPORARY (page break) between Facts and Notes until Facts section is started

Holding

Relevance of United States v. Ballin in relation to "Cloture" Senate Rule XXII and Rule V

Since the Creation of Senate Rule XXII controlled by Rule V in the United States Senate, The legislative process has had disagreements in passage of important legislation. The cloture rule has changed since 1917 causing further delay and failed legislation that would otherwise have passed under the Constitutional method as outlined in Ballin, supra.

In 1957, Vice President Nixon issued and advisory Opinion on this very issue referring the Senate to resort Back to passing legislation by a simple majority of a Constitutional quorum present. Prior to 1957, The U.S. Senate changed the Cloture rule to require 67 Senate Votes to pass legislation (more than 2/3 of the body) with the entire Body of the Senate that currently must be Present for a quorum (at that time the senate varied between 96-98 members). During this time frame the Unconstitutionality of cloture came to exist as the Court Stated in it's opinion in Ballin, supra the following Key Notes of Case Law,

1)The constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights.

2)The Constitution provides that "a majority of each [house] shall constitute a quorum to do business." In other words, when a majority are present the house in a position to do business. Its capacity to transact business is then established, created by the mere presence of a majority, and does not depend upon the disposition or assent or action of any single member or fraction of the majority present. "All that the Constitution requires is the presence of a majority, and when that majority are present, the power of the house arises."

3) The constitutions of this state and the United States declare that a majority shall be a quorum to do business, but a majority of that quorum are sufficient to decide the most important question."

Therefore, When the Senate created the Cloture Rule in 1917, later redefining the rule to stipulate that the Cloture rule to require 67 Senate Votes to pass legislation (more than 2/3 of the body) and with the entire Body of the Senate that must be Present for a quorum (at that time the senate varied between 96-98 members), It then Violated the United State Constitution ignoring the constitutional restraints or violating fundamental rights of the Supreme Law of the Land, It's Constitution. In return the Citizens of the United State have been directly impacted by this unconstitutional act clearly outlined in the decision of the United States Supreme Court rendered in United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1., supra as stated above being that,

1. The United States Senate Can Not create Rules that go above and beyond the restraints of the Constitution in the Power and Duties of the rule making process where the court held "The constitutions of this state and the United States declare that a majority shall be a quorum to do business, but a majority of that quorum are sufficient to decide the most important question.", however, The Senate created a rule "Cloture" also known as Rule XXII stating that a "supermajority" of 67 votes must be required to end debate of a Filibuster, in order for legislation to carry forward and be passed when cloture (rule XXII) was invoked.

In Addition, rule XXII stated that all members of the Senate must be present for a quorum and 67 of them must vote in the affirmative (yea) to pass the bill, however the Supreme Court stated as Follows defining the constitutional definition of a quorum that the Senate ignored in the construction of rule XXII thereby violating the fundamentals of the constitutional restraints as defined in Ballin, supra. being a simple majority of the following definition of a constitutional quorum being present, not 67 votes with the entire body present,

2. As stated by the United States Supreme Court in "Ballin, supra" The court defined that a Constitutional quorum is 2/3 of the Senate body present, Not 100% constitutes a quorum and "All that the Constitution requires is the presence of a majority, and when that majority are present, the power of the house arises."

In other words, The Senate Body contains 100 members in Present Day, therefore 67 Senators must be Present to constitute a quorum, and When those 67 member out of the 100 Senators in the Unites States Senate are Present, the Senate is able to proceed in conducting business and pass legislation.

Herealso, with those 67 senators present, only a "Simple Majority" need to vote in the affirmative (yeas) in order to pass legislation as clearly defined in the Ballin decision of 1892. In other words, only 67 Senators need to be Present out of 100 members to conduct Business and of those 67, only 34 Senators (yeas) over 33 (yeas)need to be cast in order for a legislative bill to pass the United States Senate. therefore the Senate Rule XXII of "Cloture" goes above and beyond the constitutional Authority per Ballin as stipulated by the courts opinion.

3. In addition, the current construction of "Cloture" also gives additional "Power" to the United States Senate as a "Silent Veto" process giving a minority the "power" to Veto Legislation before the President of the United States of America has the Opportunity to either sign and pass the legislation or Veto the Legislation, as it has historically been proceeded in Our government since the outset, thereby creating a "silent fourth branch" of government that acts in the minority with the Power of "Veto" acting as legislative and Executive Branch in one House of Congress, The United States Senate.

Thus removing and limiting the Power of the President of the United States, voiding the Executive Branch that has the right to pass the bill or send it back by" Veto" so that the legislative Branch then would have the opportunity to "over-ride" the veto by a full Senate body present required with 2/3 of the body needed to over-ride a Presidential" Veto".

Moreover, The Vice President of the United States is also crippled by the construction of the Cloture definition, being that the Vice President is also the President of the U.S. Senate, his authority to cast a vote in the event if the Senate be equally divided in the voting process, thereby giving the Vice President the power to cast the tie breaking vote under the constitution. This power would never come into order being that the current definition of the Cloture rule (2010) restricts the votes to a minimum of 60 to be cast in the affirmative in order to end debate and pass legislation, being unconstitutional as explained above.

Therefore, Senate Rule XXII violates the fundamental rights of the constitutional Separation of Powers limitation as well, creating a Senate that has both legislative and executive powers.

4. Senate Rule V in it's current definition fails to comport with the constitutional definitions and limitation in relation to Cloture and S.Ct. Opinion in Ballin, supra, as it also requires a 100% of members present for a quorum and 60 votes in order to change the rules, also created in the same act as cloture.

5. Although, the Byrd Rule of 1981 also know as the "Nuclear Option" or the Constitutional option by statutory authority say that a simple majority is all that is needed to pass legislation in the Senate, Reconciliation also is restricted on the type of bill it may pass, stripping legislative powers from the Senate by not allowing full and impartial bill to decide the most important question to be voted on in order to pass legislation as also stated in Ballin, supra as the court also stated the following,


"For, according to the principle of all the cases referred to, a quorum possesses all the powers of the whole body; a majority of which quorum must, of course, govern. . . . The constitutions of this state and the United States declare that a majority shall be a quorum to do business, but a majority of that quorum are sufficient to decide the most important question."

Therefore, the relevance of Cloture and the case of United States v. Ballin, infra closely ties the construction of the rules and proceedings being that "cloture" should either be removed or changed to be consistent with the Courts Opinion, or Judicial review would have to be taken to have it corrected consistent with the constitution and Ballin.

These statements are Facts that are Clear by the record of the published rules and controversies in the Senate since the Cloture rule was constructed and Facts can Not be disputed.

Legal Notes

The Smith case gives Citizens a opening for jurisdiction Judicial Review of Senate Rule XXII and V and Rule of Congress.

" As the construction to be given to the rules affects persons other than members of the Senate, the question presented is of necessity a judicial one." 'United States v. Smith, 286 U.S. 6 (1932)

We have an Aristocracy, Not a Democracy being that the Senate has a silent control that allows a Veto of legislation whether is Democratic or Republican.

Senate Rule XXII states that cloture restrained by Rule V is unconstitutional in its current definition.

THIS PAGE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION



The US Mason's Manual notes, "A deliberative body cannot by its own act or rule require a two-thirds vote to take any action where the constitution or controlling authority requires only a majority vote. To require a two-thirds vote, for example, to take any action would be to give to any number more than one-third of the members the power to defeat the action and amount to a delegation of the powers of the body to a minority.

Argument

United States v. BALLIN, 144 U.S. 1 (1892) was necessary in order to prevent abuses of the U.S. SENATE, which historically operates lawfully, however it is currently operating as an unbalanced abuse of power that is in violation of the Constitutional Separation of Powers where the Minority can thereby Veto legislation that would otherwise be passed by a simple majority present of the quorum call needing at least 2/3 of it's members present under the Constitution as stated by U.S. Supreme Ct. U S v. BALLIN, 144 U.S. 1 (1892) .

Therefore, The Court stipulates that the Constitution states that only 2/3 of it's members have to be present in order for the Senate to pass legislation. In other words. the power of the Senate arises when 2/3 are present and then a simple majority will pass a bill of legislation.

'Currently out of 100 members

67 Senators Present / 34 votes yeas vs. 33 nays then legislative passes (vise versa)'

No matter what and which party is in power, The Senate Rules are the problem.

The U.S. Senate seems to think (Rather Know) that Americans are ignorant to what thier actual constitutional powers are thus violating our Constitutional Rights in use of Senate Rule XXII and V.

The Senate Rules "Obstruct" passage of legislation, any legislation. Moreover, Even the Federal Statute of Reconciliation is unlawful as is is controlled in limitation of what can be passed by the Senate Rules overstepping the Constitution.

We have an Aristocracy, Not a Democracy being that the Senate has a silent control that allows a Veto of legislation whether is Democratic or Republican.

The US Supreme Court has already stated in U S v. BALLIN, 144 U.S. 1 (1892) that The constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights,

It only takes a simple majority with 2/3 (67) Senators present to pass legislation in the US Senate, NOT 60 votes, NOR when 41 votes cast can it block legislation since it creates a VETO POWER that takes powers aways from the President and away from the VP by removing VP the authority to Vote if the votes cast are equally divided. All that the constitution requires is the presence of a majority, and when that majority are present the power of the house arises. U S v. BALLIN, 144 U.S. 1 (1892) 144 U.S. 1

Thus a Separation of Powers exist creating a 4th branch "silent" that has VETO power playing an executive role in the U.S. Senate Violating, again, your constitutional rights.

Senate Rule XXII controlled by Rule V in the U.S. SENATE takes executive powers away from the office of the President of the United States and Vice President and creates a "silent fourth branch" of government that is answerable to no one. The broad powers of the U.S. Senate under rule XXII is currently easily abused, and corrupted by partisanship creating an Aristocracy over a Democracy.

See also

Further reading

References

External links

External links

Personal tools