33 votes

Jeff Sessions: Senator Paul's Amendments Routinely Ignored by the Majority Leader

Most of them don't even see the light of day on the Senate floor!

In an exchange between Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) regarding potential Senate rule changes that could be enacted tomorrow, Sessions recounted how Senator Paul's proposed Amendments are routinely shot down by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid prior to even reaching the Senate floor.

Merkley replied that Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, has the same power over Democrat-proposed Amendments.

Sessions answered with a great argument: Minority and Majority leaders are NOT constitutionally recognized positions. No one Senator should have any power over any other Senator to destroy amendments before they see the light of day and are voted on by the Senate. Every proposed Amendment by a Senator elected by the American people has equal footing. (No offense to his good friend Mitch McConnell of course, because Senators are always so polite on the floor - sometimes I wish they weren't!).

Democrats are seeking to codify the power of the Majority Leader in a written rule tomorrow, among other changes including an end to the "secret" fillibuster. Sessions argued that the Senate "should not codify in the rules power to a super senator".


The relevant debate starts around 2PM Eastern (roughly 2:04 in the video, till about 2:30).

2:16 - 2:19 for Sessions comment on Rand Paul

2:20 for Udall on simple majority rule changes and Sessions response

2:25 - 2:36 for Sessions on "super senator" power

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Great post! Thank you! Would

Great post! Thank you! Would love to share it with all of your words but unfortunately, I can't. My account is screwed up and I can only post comments if I sign in through a proxy. The proxy doesn't allow me to share.

Blessings )o(

so does that mean there are

so does that mean there are only 2 members of the Senate instead of 100?


Yes Just as there is only 1

Just as there is only 1 House member instead of 435.

Southern Agrarian

He made such a good point

when he said they should just allow the amendment to come up and be voted on. It isn't like it will be offered every year or multiple times a session, it just gives us an official record of how each Senator votes on that particular issue.

line item should be slipped into a bill

If I was a congressman I would wait for my chance to slip in a line item piece of legislation to a financial bill.

It would be to eliminate all federal income taxes on the sale or trading of any US gold and silver coinage since it is all legal to spend at the face value.

Especially one of these bills that get passed at the last minute without reading them.

I thought


I am shocked

To see that Sessions knows anything about the Constitution. He normally keeps me pissed off. In fact, I was already ready to be pissed off when I clicked on this thread, lol. I'm pretty sure the main girl who answers his phone knows my voice... whenever I ask "can you tell me what Mr. Sessions position is on _______" she seems to cringe much more than when I first started calling. I think that's a good thing. :)

I'm glad he got one right this time. I too, would like to have a link.

Ron Paul convert from the Heart of Dixie

You should send him a compliment

people like to hear what they are doing right even though 99% of his actions might be screw ups.

I'm from Alabama

Why do we continually send Sessions back to Washington?

Because 99% of the states

Voters are still falling for the 2 party illusion. I am hoping there are more of us who don't buy it down here (but maybe they feel like there is not really any point in voting ?? ) however I think that's just wishful thinking because the majority of people I know are diehard foxbots/neocons and think I'm no better than a lib.

Ron Paul convert from the Heart of Dixie

Right On

Even at my state convention the hard core Republicans cheered the rhetoric but apparently never noticed the politicians they were electing did not abide by it.


egapele's picture

Hang in there

& keep it up, Angie. :)

Have to say...

I do agree with stripping the imaginary fillibuster. Think about how absurd it is. The idea of a fillibuster, originally, is that you talk until the session is over and therefore a vote cannot happen - basically. Now, all a Senator has to do is file a little piece of paper with the word "fillibuster" on it and they go in front of the cameras and say their hands were tied because of a fillibuster.

Not sure how I feel about the idea of a fillibuster, I don't find it moral and it removes rights from other members. But, if there is going to be one, at least they should put in the work.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

I Favor Anything That Makes It Harder To Pass A Law

I wish every law needed a two-thirds vote to pass and repeal took only a 50% vote. The system should make passing a law difficult.

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

interesting find!

got a link?


Yeah, sorry

Caught it on CSPAN. Here's the link - it was a 5 hour session, but this particular conversation occurred between 2:00 and 2:30 Eastern time (Roughly 1:56 in the video).


good find

will be interesting to see if Dems do this because they are coming up for re-election in huge numbers next year.

Yes, in fact Senator Udall

Yes, in fact Senator Udall (NM) is coming up for re-election in 2014 and Gary Johnson is the only person in New Mexico who could defeat him, IF we can convince the former Governor to run.