From: "Gary Britt" 

Part of the problem is that any law opposed by the democrats (who support
the terrorists in these matters) requires 60 votes in order to get an up or
down vote for passage.  Republicans only have 55 votes, so if all the
democrats filibuster, then the republicans can't get a floor vote on
passage.

The filibuster rule is not a constitutional requirement.  Its just a rule
of organization traditionally adopted by the Senate.  The House used to
have the same rule but realized it prevented them from being able to pursue
the political and economic and defense ideologies of the majority party, so
they did away with the rule many decades ago.  The senate on the other hand
seems to prefer inaction and stalemate to allowing the results of elections
to count, so they have kept this antiquated and destructive to progress
rule.

Bottom line is that the republicans do not have the majority of votes
needed to pass any legislation they want.  They have a majority, but that
majority can't get a piece of legislation up for a vote unless 60 votes
approve.

Gary

"Dave Ings"  wrote in message
news:44e6062d{at}w3.nls.net...
> Can one of the natives please explain this to this foreigner?
>
> I simply do not understand what the fuss is about. If the courts (continue
> to) hold that the President does not currently enjoy the warantless
> wiretap authority he believes is necessary to do his job, why doesn't
> Congress settle the matter by passing a law granting him that specific
> authority? After all the President's party controls the legislature. And
> if the constitution doesn't permit it, then change the d*** constitution.
>
> (Note I'm not commenting on whether or not the President should indeed
> possess this authority - different debate - just trying to understand all
> the partisan whining and wailing.)
>
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/washington/18cnd-nsa.html?hp&ex=1155960000&
en=cc69b39520fe585b&ei=5094&partner=homepage
>
> WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 - President Bush said today that he is confident that
> a federal court ruling against his administration's electronic
> surveillance program will be overturned, and he described those who hailed
> the ruling as na‹ve.
> --
> Regards,
> Dave Ings,
> Toronto, Canada
>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5