3 ms·
More easily, the House and Senate are able to promulgate their own rules. Since the rules of things like consideration limits and cloture are not enshrined in t
by mikecb 11y ago
More easily, the House and Senate are able to promulgate their own rules. Since the rules of things like consideration limits and cloture are not enshrined in the Constitution, but rather in House and Senate rules, they are free to pass a law like TPA that sets special procedures.[1][2] I may have strayed from your point though.
[1] http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/05/29/fast-track-for-the-trans-pacific-partnership-accords-with-democracy/ http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/05/29/fast-track-for-the-...
[2]Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892)
- DannyBee 11y ago" they are free to pass a law like TPA that sets special procedures." Agreed. However my point was: they can only do that to the degree that these procedures do not violate explicitly promulgated constitutional requirements. Ie they cannot decide to give a senator two votes, or declare that votes are decided by something other than yeas and nays, etc. This is because the constitution says that is what is supposed to happen, and you can't override those requirements. The no amendments appears to possibly run afoul of that, if what i quoted from the constitution is read the way i read it :)
- tptacek 11y agoIt looks like this actually came up during NAFTA. A lower federal court found the NAFTA ratification process constitutional, and the appeals court found the question was political and thus not justiciable.