tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post1714997821505080474..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: A Very Wonky Post About Senate RulesJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-83131618844230503752010-12-23T12:58:33.456-06:002010-12-23T12:58:33.456-06:00Matt Jarvis: The presumption is that until other r...Matt Jarvis: The presumption is that until other rules are adopted, the Senate operates under standard parliamentary rules, which include a previous question motion.Guanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17847495134858969290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-50540822206177240442010-12-16T09:39:10.911-06:002010-12-16T09:39:10.911-06:00Acrossthestreet - It is legal to change the rules ...Acrossthestreet - It is legal to change the rules midsession. It has been done several times in Congress's history, particularly in the early 1900s when the rules were more "finicky." Rules changes were adopted in January. At that time, when the first session of Congress began on March 4th, that was midsession. This didn't happen as much in the Senate. The House is a much more dynamic and constrained institution, prompting more rules changes. But it occurred nonetheless. <br /><br />The "constitutional option" is tricky. For one, it's an interesting reading of the Constitution. Members have to argue that "Each House" refers to each successive House of Congress and not the "each house" as in the House and the Senate. It's stated in in Rule V that the Senate rules continue from one Congress to the next. My guess is that the Founders, creating a new government, were probably referring to the two chambers and not successive Congresses. However, this really doesn't matter. Member will argue the former anyway.<br /><br />Second, you do need consent from the presiding officer to hear a point of order. However, it isn't necessarily the VP that rules. In the 1950s, several "constitutional option" appeals (offered at the beginning of every Congress from 1953 to 1961) were struck down by then majority leader Lyndon Johnson. However, Johnson's predicament was much different than the challenges Reid or VP Biden face today. Johnson was trying to hold together a diverse group of northern and southern Democrats. My hunch is that Reid and Biden would have no problem accepting the same "constitutional option" point of order in today's Senate.Josh Huderhttp://rule22.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-55434754237901191372010-12-16T08:41:17.065-06:002010-12-16T08:41:17.065-06:00The relevant senators were fully briefed on "...The relevant senators were fully briefed on "Greg's" strategy some time ago. It is a little more complicated in that one or two new precedents must be accepted by a Senate majority.<br /><br />The problem with the "constitutional option" approach is that the presiding officer (the VP) is asked to rule on a point of order based on constitutional arguments. The precedent is the constitutional questions are submitted to the Senate.<br /><br />Matt: The Senate is a continuing body so that rules carry over from one Congress to the next. No problem. One can argue that a Senate majority can revisit the Senate's rules at any time (as I do), and still argue that the Senate is a continuing body whose rules continue until changed.Steve Smithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-81371554747260478202010-12-15T17:24:06.108-06:002010-12-15T17:24:06.108-06:00Perhaps Greg is reading this thread and can commen...Perhaps Greg is reading this thread and can comment on this: I've never quite known what rules govern the Senate if it fails to adopt rules on the first day of the session. Or the House, for that matter. I don't even know if that's ever happened.<br /><br />What does happen in that case?Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-462621330652962162010-12-15T16:58:14.155-06:002010-12-15T16:58:14.155-06:00Is it legal to change Senate rules in the middle o...Is it legal to change Senate rules in the middle of the session? I'll defer to your authority on that.<br /><br />Is it wise to change Senate rules in the middle of the session? Remember Bloomberg's just-in-time overturning of term limits, or Mass Dems' just-in-time change to procedures for replacing Kennedy. They looked bad; they lost votes; and I don't trust Reid's ability to message better.<br /><br />Finally: if it is legal, and if someone (Schumer?) figures out the messaging -- should we tell Democrats now (this week) that they can fix these rules at any time? That encourages them to make the changes in the next Senate as needed, which would be gradually, which would be never.<br /><br />I prefer Udall's approach, which is backed from precedent as recent as 1975, and which it makes it clear that Democrats must reform Senate procedure now. Once Democrats see that they must change the rules, and have the political and procedural wherewithal for it, then we can show them how to make more changes later.<br /><br />We have to see some big change on Jan. 5th; otherwise there's no hope.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com