The US Constitution's requirements for a super-majority are limited to:
- Convicting an Impeachment: 2/3 majority in the Senate
- Expulsion of a member of one house of Congress: 2/3 vote
- Override a Presidential Veto: 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate
- Ratify a treaty: 2/3 majority in the Senate
- Passing of a Constitutional Amendment by Congress: 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate
- Calling for a Constitutional Convention; 2/3 of the state legislatures
- Ratifying a Constitutional Amendment: 3/4 of the states
- Restore the ability of certain rebels to serve in the government: 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate
- Approval of removal of the President from his position after the Vice President and the Cabinet approve such removal and after the President contests the removal: 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate Also a super-majority for quorums:
- Choice of a President in the House when no majority of electoral votes is achieved: member or members from 2/3 of the states
- Choice of a Vice President in the Senate when no majority of electoral votes is achieved: 2/3 of all Senators
There's something missing here; the 3/5ths majority Senate requirement called the "filibuster".
The Constitutional Option--CATO: "The filibuster of judicial nominees upsets the balance the framers struck. The Constitution is run through with checks and balances, designed to limit power on one hand, but allow government to go forward on the other. The filibuster intrudes on that design by adding an extra check. But it’s not without costs. No doubt today’s Democrats think they know better how to strike the right balance than the framers did. Republicans are saying the framers got it right. I’d go with the framers. Let’s give these nominees the up-or-down vote they deserve, as plainly contemplated by the Constitution.".......
Yes, the Senate is in charge of its rules--but adding another supermajority requirement not found in the Constitution is an illegitimate amendment to that charter. If the Senate can demand 60 votes to vote, then why not 70? or 80? or even 100?
It's not about debate, either. The "Silent Filibuster" is routinely invoked, almost never the "Talking Filibuster".
Senate Curtain-Measurer Harry Reid already announced his plan to abolish the filibuster when Democrats won. We should take him at his word, quit playing games with the Constitution and kill this extra-legal abomination once and for all.
No more One-Man Treaties--or Forty-One Man Vetoes!