from changing Senate rules anytime they wish. The Constitution, Article 1, Section 5, states:

The Senate and House each sets its own rules, disciplines its own members, and by a two-thirds vote can expel a member. Censure and lesser punishments require only a majority vote.

http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_...

If Reid sincerely wants to end the 60 vote rule, all he has to do is appeal the ruling of the parliamentarian. All he would need is a simple majority of 51 votes to do this. Once done, this changes Senate rules from that point on.

No more 60 vote "rule". A 51 vote majority becomes the rule.

Simple as that.

It is my opinion that the 60 vote rule is a rule designed to protect the 1% from the will of the 99%. It enables the legislators that serve the will of the 1% to prevent passage of legislation desired by the 99% that is against the needs and desires of the 1%.

It's an excuse. Dems could have ended the filibuster early in 2009 and could have passed almost any legislation favorable to the 1%. But the 60 vote rule gave them an excuse to say that they could not do it because of the filibuster.

As of 2009, the basic reason for the filibuster, to strengthen the ability of the minority to check the majority, became moot. The filibuster at that point became a weapon for the republican senate employees of the 1% for blocking legislation beneficial to the 99%. The question remains as to why Senate Dems did not end the filibuster at that point, when so many of us saw immediately that this would be an ongoing tactic used by senate republicans.

Here is an example of how Harry Reid recently changed Senate rules temporarily:

Reid triggers ‘nuclear option’ to change Senate rules, end repeat filibusters
By Alexander Bolton - 10/06/11 08:10 PM ET

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-...