Understanding Constitutional Rules Of Proceedings

The rules of proceedings in the constitution refer to the rules that govern the conduct of business in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Constitution's Rulemaking Clause authorizes each house to determine the rules of its proceedings, within certain limitations. The Constitution explicitly empowers the Senate to 'determine the Rules of its Proceedings', with the Supreme Court observing that the power to make rules is continuous and not exhausted by a single exercise. This power is also extended to the House of Representatives, with the understanding that rules cannot ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights.

Explore related products

Federal rules of civil procedure (annotated): 2024 edition

$36

Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention, 1787

$32.55

Advancing Rule of Law in a Global Context: Proceedings of the International Conference on Law and Governance in a Global Context (icLave 2017), November 1-2, 2017, Depok, Indonesia

$270 $63.99

Constitutional and Administrative Law

$190

A general treatise on statutes: their rules of construction, and the proper boundaries of legislation and of judicial interpretation: including a ... method of proceeding in passing bills of

$64.95

Constitutional and Administrative Law

$64.79

The Senate's authority to determine its rules of proceedings

The United States Constitution explicitly empowers the Senate to determine the rules of its proceedings. This authority is derived from Article I, Section 5, also known as the Rulemaking Clause. This clause authorizes both the House of Representatives and the Senate to establish rules governing the conduct of their respective business.

The Senate's authority under the Rulemaking Clause is considered broad, allowing it to determine how and when to conduct its business. The Supreme Court, in United States v. Ballin (1892), affirmed the ongoing nature of this rule-making power, stating that it is a "continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the house, and within the limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal."

While the Senate has significant discretion in setting its rules, there are important constraints. Firstly, the Senate must ensure that its rules do not "ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights." This means that any rule established by the Senate must respect constitutional principles and protect the fundamental rights of individuals.

Additionally, there should be a "reasonable relation" between the method of proceeding established by a rule and the result sought to be achieved. This implies that the Senate's rules must be rationally related to the objectives they aim to accomplish. The Senate's rules remain in force from one Congress to the next and are only changed periodically, unlike those of the House, which are readopted at the start of each new Congress.

The Senate's rule-making authority has been the subject of legal debates, particularly regarding the filibuster. The filibuster is a practice where the absence of a cloture rule allows matters to remain before the Senate indefinitely. The constitutionality of the filibuster has been challenged, but these cases have not reached a definitive conclusion on the matter. Nonetheless, the Senate has interpreted its rules to require only a simple majority for invoking cloture on most nominations.

Congressional power to make rules is continuous

The US Constitution explicitly empowers the Senate to determine the rules of its proceedings. The Rulemaking Clause authorizes the House of Representatives and the Senate to establish rules by which each will conduct its own business. The Senate's authority under the Rulemaking Clause to determine how and when to conduct its business is broad.

Congress makes its own rules, and this power comes from Article I, Section 5 of the US Constitution. This portion of the Constitution gives Congress the right to make its own rules. The House and Senate's authority to establish rules is ongoing. As the Supreme Court observed in United States v. Ballin, "The power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the house, and within the limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal."

The Senate is a continuing body, and its rules remain in force from Congress to Congress, except when they are changed. On the other hand, the House readopts its rules at the outset of each new Congress. In exercising their constitutional power to determine their rules of proceedings, the Houses of Congress may not ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights. There should be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceeding established by the rule and the result sought to be attained.

The constitutionality of the filibuster has been a subject of debate and challenged in court several times. The filibuster is the practice of preventing closure on a matter by requiring a supermajority vote (60 votes) to end debate. The Senate has interpreted its rules to require only a simple majority to invoke cloture on most nominations.

Constitutional restraints and fundamental rights

The US Constitution explicitly empowers the Senate and the House of Representatives to determine the rules of its proceedings. This is known as the Rulemaking Clause. The Rulemaking Clause authorizes each House to establish rules by which each will conduct its own business.

However, the rules must not 'ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights'. For example, the Supreme Court has observed that the power to make rules is continuous and always subject to be exercised within limitations.

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the 'liberty' it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. It provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. For instance, in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), the deprivation of physical liberty through confinement is considered a fundamental right, triggering both procedural and substantive due process considerations.

In the context of religion, the Establishment Clause is applied to keep a proper relationship between two centers of authority: government and religion. This is often referred to as the "separation of church and state." The Establishment Clause can be invoked to redress personal harms, but only when the injury is not religious in nature, such as economic harm or damage to property.

In summary, while the Senate and the House of Representatives have the authority to determine their rules of proceedings, they must do so within the boundaries of constitutional restraints and without violating fundamental rights, including those protected by the Due Process Clause and the Establishment Clause.

Explore related products

Proceedings and Debates of the Virginia State Convention of 1829-1830: To which are Subjoined, the New Constitution of Virginia, and the Votes of the People, Pages 94-830

$8.95 $54.72

Constitutional & Administrative Law

$62.95

Ordoliberalism, Law and the Rule of Economics

$54.85 $60.95

A War Like No Other: The Constitution in a Time of Terror

$19.96 $27.95

Journal Of The Proceedings Of The Constitutional Convention Of The State Of Florida: Which Convened At The Capitol, At Tallahassee, On Tuesday, June 9, 1885

$23.99

Secret proceedings and debates of the convention assembled at Philadelphia, in the year 1787: for the purpose of forming the Constitution of the United States of America

$8.95 $20.95

Quorum rules and their legitimacy

Quorum rules are essential for ensuring legitimacy in decision-making processes. A quorum refers to the minimum number of members who must be present at a meeting for its proceedings to be considered valid. These rules are particularly important in preventing unilateral decision-making and ensuring representation and accountability within organizations.

The concept of a quorum is deeply rooted in the idea of collective authority. By requiring a specific number of members, a quorum reflects the need for a critical mass of participants to legitimize decisions. This safeguard helps to ensure that decisions are made for the collective good, rather than serving the interests of a select few.

In the United States, the Constitution grants the House of Representatives and the Senate the authority to establish their own rules of proceeding, including quorum requirements. For instance, in the House of Representatives, a quorum is typically a simple majority of its members, which currently stands at 218. Similarly, in the Senate, a quorum is generally a simple majority, or 51 members. However, in certain cases, such as deciding a presidential election when no candidate receives a majority in the Electoral College, the quorum requirement in the House of Representatives can be as low as 34, representing a majority of states.

While quorum rules are crucial for legitimacy, they are not without criticism. Social choice theorists have pointed out pathological behaviors associated with quorums, such as the "no-show paradox", where a proposal may pass due to the absence of opposing members. To address this, some jurisdictions have replaced traditional quorums with quorums of votes in favor, requiring a certain percentage of support from the entire membership for a proposal to pass.

The interpretation and application of quorum rules can also be complex. For example, in the case of Schock v. United States, Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighted the unresolved question of whether the separation of powers doctrine is violated when a federal court interprets internal rules governing the House of Representatives. This underscores the delicate balance between different branches of government and the need for consistent handling of sensitive separation-of-powers questions.

The constitutionality of the filibuster

The Constitution of the United States empowers the Senate to determine the rules of its proceedings. Article I, Section 5, Clause 2, also known as the Rulemaking Clause, authorizes the House of Representatives and the Senate to establish rules by which each will conduct its own business. The Constitution states that "a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business".

The filibuster is a procedure that allows senators to delay or block a vote on legislation or confirmations. Traditionally, the Senate filibuster was reserved for only the most controversial issues, but its use has escalated in recent years, often bringing business in the chamber to a halt. The filibuster has effectively set a 60-vote supermajority requirement for passing legislation in the Senate, making it difficult to pass meaningful reforms on issues such as healthcare, climate change, and gun control.

The increased use of the filibuster has contributed to the stagnancy of Congress, leading to calls for its elimination or reform. Some legal scholars argue that the filibuster may not be constitutional, citing Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution. They argue that the filibuster undermines the principle that a majority should be able to conduct business and make decisions.

Changing the Senate rules, particularly Rule XXII, would be the most straightforward way to eliminate the filibuster, but it would require a two-thirds supermajority. Another way to eliminate the filibuster is through the "nuclear option," a procedure that has not been frequently used.

The filibuster has a troubling legacy, as it has been used to block civil rights legislation and thwart voting reforms. As such, its elimination or reform is necessary to ensure that it does not impede the expansion of American democracy or the rights of voters.

Frequently asked questions