Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[A18]

On Gabu's amendment proposal--

I think it would be better to just take Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, scratch out the word 'Congress,' and add the word 'Senate' in its place.

That would make the game more realistic, anyway.

[A18]

It's amendment. No double 'm'.

[A18]

So the Senate is not allowed to set its own rules? What a sh**tty constitution.

[A18]

Can someone give me a link to the Constitution?

[A18]

The Senate may establish rules for its own proceedings, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of its number, expel a Senator.

I don't see anything about binding future Senates. Heck, that's right out of the U.S. Constitution, and the Congress certainly has many bills requiring a supermajority to raise taxes, consider certain bills, etc.

[A18]

Several bills before Congress would create rules for the entire legislature, and yes, by statute.

When it comes to the Senate floor, he's saying we'll see what happens. Not after it is passed.

[A18]

Several bills before Congress would create rules for the entire legislature, and yes, by statute.

These (real life) bills are, in my opinion, unconstitutional, as they clearly violate the provision whereby each house is empowered to determine the rules of its own proceedings. The alleged power of Congress to determine such rules is not enumerated, and does not fall under the necessary and proper clause, except where both houses are involved simultaneously (for instance, counting electoral votes).

Both houses obviously have to pass the bill, and I believe there are already plenty of congressional rules determined by statute, such as how every bill has to begin "Be it enacted by..."

[A18]

I'm not seeing the difference. In both cases, a house's ability to pass a certain law is restricted.