‘It depends on what the meaning of the word “it” is.’

This (very loosely) reminds me of the idea of separate enrollment, which used to surface from time to time.

That’s better. 🙂

This is, of course, prohibited by the rules.

😁 (Sound up.)

When you want to find precedents of the US Senate, the best place to look is often the House of Representatives’ books of precedents. Apparently, when you want to find precedents of the Roman Senate, you should look in the House of Commons’ books of precedents:

I read this sentence a little too quickly and had quite a shock for a moment.

TIL ⬇️ thehill.com/capital-livi...

The House has now tabled: (1) the motion to reconsider on the most recently rejected rule, and (2) the previous week’s rule (which was never brought up because they didn’t have the votes for it).

I sure hope no one objects to filling those vacancies.

Now... is Trump going to sign this bill?

When a member of the House proposed allowing gas-light during a speaker election:

~Warm take: The definitions in the second sentence are exactly reversed. (In other words: why the concurrence in NLRB v. Noel Canning was correct.)

Also, there’s an act of Parliament preventing members from being appointed to these offices against their will; before that, apparently their consent was not needed. (In the case above, the member at least expressed a wish to ‘resign’.)

FWIW, in the House of Commons (where the operative word is also ‘holds’), it has been held that the member does not need to ‘accept’ the office.

I like the whip’s instinct to move to adjourn, though it was not actually necessary to do so.

😳

As best I can tell, this is the most recent instance of a waiver of germaneness points of order against an amendment not proposed by the leadership/the manager of the bill. 27 years ago!

This is the most recent waiver of germaneness points of order against an amendment to a bill (as opposed to an amendment to a Senate amendment, like above). Today, an amendment like this would be self-executed, so the violation would not need to be disclosed in the report.

Waiving germaneness points of order is very common with respect to motions to concur in Senate amendments with amendment. They take a random bill and turn it into something entirely different to save the Senate the trouble of dealing with a filibuster on the motion to proceed.

This is the most recent one waiving a serious (not just technical) point of order.

In response to a question asked in the other place re Luna’s assertion that nongermane amendments are often made in order: I believe this was the last time the Rules Committee made in order an amendment that would otherwise be subject to a point of order.

I feel like it really should not take the government 24 years to commence legislation passed by Parliament. www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/71...

In 1979, when the temperature in the Capitol was turned up to 78°F to save energy, the House tabled (killed) a resolution to allow men to take off their jackets and ties by a vote of 303–105.

It’s not like the news hadn’t reached America; it was right in front of their noses the whole time ⬇️. Apparently they were just too lazy to read the precedents.

The most bizarre part of this whole saga is that in Parliament, if the PQ was agreed to, the main question was supposed to be put without further debate. But the House and Senate seemed to be just... unaware of that. The House had to figure it out from first principles (and the Senate never did).

Curiously, this paragraph has been omitted from the House Rules and Manual. They even left a gap in the section numbering where it’s supposed to be; it skips from § 463 to § 465. 🤔

There’s a nice passage in Jefferson’s Manual where he talks about exactly this issue.