Changes

In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in ''United States v. Ballin'' that the House of Representatives is a parliamentary body and as such may established rules by majority vote. These rules may not violate fundamental rights or constitutional restraints, according to this opinion. ''Mason's Manual'' applies the principle to U.S. legislative bodies generally: "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."<ref>''Mason's Manual'', p, 353, 2000.</ref>

In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in ''United States v. Ballin'' that the House of Representatives is a parliamentary body and as such may established rules by majority vote. These rules may not violate fundamental rights or constitutional restraints, according to this opinion. ''Mason's Manual'' applies the principle to U.S. legislative bodies generally: "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."<ref>''Mason's Manual'', p, 353, 2000.</ref>

It has been argued that ''Ballin'' does not apply to the Senate because the Senate is in continuous session. As president of the Senate, Vice President Richard Nixon responded to a parliamentary inquiry on this matter in 1957. Nixon's opinion states that the constitution grants the presiding officer the authority to disregard Senate rules, provided that his ruling is later upheld by majority vote. The procedure Nixon outlined was used for the first time by Vice President Hubert Humphrey in 1967. On this occasion, the Senate upheld precedent and did not support the presiding officer. In 1975, the procedure was used three times. The Senate initially voted to support the presiding each time, although these votes were reversed as part of the final compromise agreement. A dramatic reform of the [[filibuster]] was also agreed to at this time.<ref>Martin Gold, Dimple Gupta, "[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf The constitutional option to change Senate rules and procedures: A majoritarian means to overcome the filibuster]", ''Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy'', 2004.</ref> Senator Trent Lott applied the name "nuclear option" to the procedure in 2003. It was used again in November 2013 to revise rules concerning judicial and administrative nominations. Except for supreme court justice, these may now be confirmed by majority vote.

It has been argued that ''Ballin'' does not apply to the Senate because the Senate is in continuous session. As president of the Senate, Vice President Richard Nixon responded to a parliamentary inquiry on this matter in 1957. Nixon's opinion states that the constitution grants the presiding officer the authority to disregard Senate rules, provided that his ruling is later upheld by majority vote. The procedure Nixon outlined was used for the first time by Vice President Hubert Humphrey in 1967. On this occasion, the Senate upheld precedent and did not support the presiding officer. In 1975, the procedure was used three times. The Senate initially voted to support the presiding officer each time, although these votes were reversed as part of the final compromise agreement. A dramatic reform of the [[filibuster]] was also agreed to at this time.<ref>Martin Gold, Dimple Gupta, "[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf The constitutional option to change Senate rules and procedures: A majoritarian means to overcome the filibuster]", ''Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy'', 2004.</ref> Senator Trent Lott applied the name "nuclear option" to the procedure in 2003. It was used again in November 2013 to revise rules concerning judicial and administrative nominations. Except for supreme court justice, these may now be confirmed by majority vote.

==References==

==References==

{{Reflist}}

{{Reflist}}