General Discussion

onenote

(46,009 posts)

26. No question about that.

Tue Oct 15, 2013, 12:02 PM

Oct 2013

The machinations of the House and Senate can be hard to follow. The opportunities for gridlock are legion. In this instance, the House and Senate reached what is formally considered a "stage of disagreement" when the Senate tabled the last version of the CR and asked for a conference. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r113:4:./temp/~r113U67dE4::

Normally, when a stage of disagreement is reached, a member of the House can make a privileged (non amendable) motion to take up the Senate version of the bill. But in this instance, the House had voted that the rule allowing this would be suspended for purposes of H. Joint Res. 59, and onlyl the Majority Leader or his designee could make such a motion. While its not unheard of for the House to vote to suspend one or more of its rules as part of the "rule" governing the consideration of a particular bill, I'm unaware of this particular rule having been suspended in the past. Doesn't mean it hasn't been done, just that I can't recall it. It would only become controversial if the legislative fight reached a stage of disagreement, which itself is unusual (i.e., typically, where one house requests a conference, the other agrees to that request).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

79 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This is a constitutional crisis. [View all] kentuck Oct 2013 OP

seems to me house members could demand a vote. stand up and demand it until they get it. robinlynne Oct 2013 #1

They tried it. kentuck Oct 2013 #2

If the House sends over a new version of the CR with the same H. Joint Res. number onenote Oct 2013 #12

A little complicated for the average person... kentuck Oct 2013 #14

No question about that. onenote Oct 2013 #26

I thought the Democrats should have challenged the rule a little more kentuck Oct 2013 #33

It was debated for an hour on September 30 onenote Oct 2013 #41

They could have threatened to shut down the House. kentuck Oct 2013 #43

If only they could have. onenote Oct 2013 #47

is this wrong then? questionseverything Oct 2013 #65

That's why the ReThugs like stupid constituents. Auntie Bush Oct 2013 #56

The question is why Harry Reid hasn't introduced new Senate rules all now malaise Oct 2013 #32

Sure there is, the constitution specifically indicates that... PoliticAverse Oct 2013 #3

But "rules of its Proceedings"... kentuck Oct 2013 #5

Political gridlock on major issues is not an invention of the 20th century Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #6

I don't think this will destroy the government. It isn't a real 'constitutional crisis' PoliticAverse Oct 2013 #9

Do you think this is no different from other "shutdowns"? kentuck Oct 2013 #10

'Different'? Sure. Destroy the governemnt different, no. n/t PoliticAverse Oct 2013 #13

actually, the "rules of its proceedings" don't assume anything about whether the body will proceed onenote Oct 2013 #28

But, is it legal to "filibuster" the budget of the United States for the sole purpose.... kentuck Oct 2013 #34

Nothing in the constitution precludes one side from seeking the complete capitulation of the other onenote Oct 2013 #42

So you believe that.... kentuck Oct 2013 #48

Show me the provision of the constitution that is being violated. onenote Oct 2013 #49

And the 14th Amendment, Section 4, is the provision that will be violated... kentuck Oct 2013 #51

I think the "... shall not be questioned" gambit is being over-played ...... oldhippie Oct 2013 #60

"no one is questioning the validity of the US debt'... kentuck Oct 2013 #63

Validity is not the same thing as collectibilty .... oldhippie Oct 2013 #66

Validity is only "valid" so long as it is trusted and unquestioned. kentuck Oct 2013 #68

I don't think that is the legal definition ..... oldhippie Oct 2013 #69

That still doesn't answer the question of what version of a debt ceiling increase becomes law onenote Oct 2013 #70

WWSD? kentuck Oct 2013 #71

We're jumping back and forth between the CR and the debt ceiling onenote Oct 2013 #72

The debt and the debt limit are two different things, the debt limit De Facto violates the 14th Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #15

Good point. kentuck Oct 2013 #18

Precisely and only two Constitutional Nations have a debt limit, the U.S. and Denmark Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #22

I don't think it necessarily does, as the Government can raise money without borrowing more PoliticAverse Oct 2013 #19

Just by threatening to not raise the debt limit, the Republicans have violated the 14th Amendment. Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #25

That would mean that by actually vetoing a debt ceiling increase, President Clinton violated the 14h onenote Oct 2013 #29

Clinton didn't veto the debt ceiling increase, he vetoed the spending bill, Newt Gingrich threatened Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #35

Which means that this Congress... kentuck Oct 2013 #39

Hard to believe but it's true. Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #45

Wrong. He vetoed both a debt ceiling increase and a CR. onenote Oct 2013 #46

Clinton vetoed a bill to limit debt, not increase it. Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #59

Which is why I would expect the courts to rule that the government must pay the debt. PoliticAverse Oct 2013 #30

But it could only sell off public lands, etc... kentuck Oct 2013 #36

The constitution does give congress the power over federal property... PoliticAverse Oct 2013 #79

Paying late is "calling in to question" not to mention the fact that late payments increase interest Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #44

I believe they will use the Fourteenth Amendment to establish a case to override Baitball Blogger Oct 2013 #4

Political Parties? Bobcat Oct 2013 #7

These people are Traitors Period ruffburr Oct 2013 #8

Perhaps not. Make7 Oct 2013 #11

It is a Constitutional Crises that has cracked the Constitution to its core.... Agnosticsherbet Oct 2013 #16

The President's job is to "execute" the laws. kentuck Oct 2013 #20

Only the Supreme Court can adjudicate conflicts in the Constitution. Agnosticsherbet Oct 2013 #24

I hear you. kentuck Oct 2013 #37

I absolutely agree that this should be taken to the Supreme Court. Agnosticsherbet Oct 2013 #40

The 14th amendment and "emergency powers" gives Obama all the cover he needs. Renew Deal Oct 2013 #54

The Obama administation has consistantly stated that would not be Constitutional. Agnosticsherbet Oct 2013 #73

PATRIOT Act + RICO Act have provisions for terrorism. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #17

Yup, and nadinbrzezinski Oct 2013 #21

Yup. Welcome to the party. I said it two weeks ago. IdaBriggs Oct 2013 #23

The Exectutive Branch shouldn't accept a "dirty" CR, but it sure as heck "can" onenote Oct 2013 #38

The early congresses had rules about when duelling was and wasn't allowed between members Recursion Oct 2013 #27

Crises of constitutional issues or existence, both, other? HereSince1628 Oct 2013 #31

Isn't that treason? kentuck Oct 2013 #50

Are you saying that it is treason to abolish departments of government onenote Oct 2013 #52

A small minority of one Party in one House... kentuck Oct 2013 #55

President Clinton vetoed a debt ceiling bill against the wishes of a majority of the two houses onenote Oct 2013 #62

It certainly seems to run against the 14th Amendment HereSince1628 Oct 2013 #75

Apparently, we dare NOT call it treason HereSince1628 Oct 2013 #74

How about a compromise, we'll repeal Obamacare if we can replace it with Medicare for All? ErikJ Oct 2013 #53

Agreed. nt ecstatic Oct 2013 #57

I don't think it's a constitutional crisis LittleBlue Oct 2013 #58

Until it isn't.. kentuck Oct 2013 #61

When this first came up, I read that amendment LittleBlue Oct 2013 #64

Excellent point! kentuck Oct 2013 #67

I agree gopiscrap Oct 2013 #76

The only remedy is next year's elections many a good man Oct 2013 #77

Nothing in the Constitution enforces democracy. GeorgeGist Oct 2013 #78