Skip to main content

View Diary: Stupid headline tricks (148 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What does "Judge" McConnel think of "majority"? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    axel000

    Former Judge McConnell's "concern" over "Article I, section 7's requirement of bicameralism and presentment" seems to gloss over Article I, Section 3's requirement of majority rule.

    "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business;"

    Surely if Congress can ignore the requirement of majority rule in favor of 60% rule, it can use much less un-Constitutional rules such as "self executing rules". And where was former Judge McConnell when GOP used self-executing rules 30 or so times over previous eight years?

    •  ah, but it doesn't say that (0+ / 0-)

      It was a majority is needed to constitute a "Quorum to do Business" not to pass something.  That puts a minimum floor of a majority to pass something.  It doesn't mean that a House can't move that bar higher if it wants to, however.

      •  What do you think a Quorom to do Business is? (0+ / 0-)

        "Business" is passing legislation which requires a quorom which is a majority per US Constitution as quoted and linked above.

        Constitution is clear that majority vote in Senate is all that is required.

        Can the Senate rules override the Constitution? Not in any rational analysis otherwise Senate's ability to write its own procedural rules (what the Constitution grants) would constitute ability to override anything in Constitution.

        It takes a Constitutional Amendment to change the Constitution and the Constitution clearly says majority is all that is needed to pass legislation in Senate.

        •  it means exactly that: to do "business" (0+ / 0-)

          By the way, "business" basically means anything and everything the Senate does, including voting, debating, and whatever else.  Ever see Quorom calls on CSPAN2?

          All it means is that a majority of Senators must be present for the Senate to do anything.

          •  Definition of Quorum is clear in law. (0+ / 0-)

            Constitution is clear that a majority is all that is required for Senate to do business. Business of Senate, in case you were wondering, is to legislate, to pass laws.

            "In law, a quorum  is the minimum number of members of a deliberative body, such as a legislature, necessary to conduct the business of that group."

            •  again (0+ / 0-)

              who must be present not who must vote in favor of

              and business, of course, has to do with passing laws. There is more to passing laws than just voting on them, however.

              •  Again Majority = Quorom = pass laws. (0+ / 0-)

                That's what US Constitution says. If you want to argue with definition of "majority", "quorum" and "business" of a legislative body you are out of luck.

                These are hard definitions which is why the Founders used them to describe the process.

                •  they also ratify treaties, impeach judges, etc (0+ / 0-)

                  no Court would touch this one because the Constitution also says that each House can write its own Rules of its Proceeding, silly rabbit. How many years has the House passed bills both under suspension by 2/3 and under a rule by simple majority.

                  You think you are the first one to question this? If the Speaker and President Pro Tem sign the enrolled bill it's passed by Article I and on it's way for Article II consideration has already been accepted by Article III.

                  Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices -- François-Marie Arouet

                  by CA Berkeley WV on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 01:22:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Procedural Rules do not trump Constitution (0+ / 0-)

                    Procedural rules in House and Senate is what Constitution allows. This is always trumped by Constitution. House can't write a procedural a rule that it doesn't need Senate or vice versa. Senate can't right a procedural rule that big states votes count more than small, etc. etc.

                    Majority = Quorum is in Constitution and requires a Constitutional amendment to change it.

                    •  The Senate has been passing laws for a hundred yr (0+ / 0-)

                      under a filibuster rules and no one from the has tried to strike everything down? Doing business is more than passing laws, and doing business is also writing other rules to govern your procedures.

                      The Senate has operated on unanimous consent all along, and the motion to proceed. Just Rules that they wrote. Well, except no motion to proceed is necessary in morning hour. Just Rules they wrote to conduct that business.

                      Thomas Jefferson wrote some Rules for the Senate as I believe he was its President for a while. That was a while ago.

                      Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices -- François-Marie Arouet

                      by CA Berkeley WV on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 04:34:04 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  1998 SCOTUS ruling (0+ / 0-)

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/...

      Section VI:

      The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became "Public Law 105—33" after three procedural steps were taken: (1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may "become a law." Art. I, §7. If one paragraph of that text had been omitted at any one of those three stages, Public Law 105—33 would not have been validly enacted.

      They must have a recorded vote on the HCR and it be signed into law before they can amend it.

      "No man deserves to be praised for his goodness unless he has strength of character to be wicked." La Rochefoucald

      by Void Indigo on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:03:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  huh? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WillR

        Where in the quote does it say either of the things that you claim it says

      •  adn you definiton of approved is not what is held (0+ / 0-)

        They must have a recorded vote on the HCR and it be signed into law before they can amend it.

        What the heck do you think conference reports do every time? Amend bills before the President signs them. You are not smarter than my seventh grader. Don't know about many other seventh graders, so don't take it personally.

        Examination of journals in Art I Sect 5 has been rejected by the Courts. To be presented to the President as in Art I Sect 7 has been interpreted by the courts to mean enrolled by the Speaker and President Pro Temp of the Senate. So Nancy's, or in another case Coach Hastert's, and Bobby Byrd's signatures, as opposed to Ted Stevens, are what they look for on a bill, whether it comes out of a conference report, or is accepted whole.

        Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices -- François-Marie Arouet

        by CA Berkeley WV on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 01:40:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (124)
  • Community (62)
  • Bernie Sanders (42)
  • Elections (39)
  • 2016 (36)
  • Climate Change (32)
  • Environment (31)
  • Culture (29)
  • Hillary Clinton (28)
  • Republicans (25)
  • Science (25)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Media (24)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Education (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Congress (16)
  • Labor (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site