Graham & DeWine, members of Gang of 14, issue warning to Dems!!!

[Emsworth]

A rule that conflicts with the Constitution is void.

I do not feel that this particular rule is unconstitutional.

The Constitution states, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." Of course, this entails the power to determine the length of debate. If the Senate determines that debate on some topic shall continue until a two-thirds majority votes for cloture, then it is well within its powers.

That said, if the Republicans do pursue the "nuclear option," no court may reverse their actions. The Senate is the ultimate judge of its own rules; no judicial body may intervene.

[Emsworth]

If a rule required a four-fifths majority to amend the Constitution, would that be legal?

Certainly not, but a distinction needs to be made between the majority required for passage, and the majority required to end debate. In the earlier days of the Senate, debate was unlimited; the cloture rule is in fact a weakening of that provision.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is certainly true. The Senate (or, the majority) may determine for itself whether a rule is constitutional or not. If it does deem a rule unconstitutional, then there's nothing that the other side can do.