ringwiss

Deschler's Precedents - Section 38.4 The Government Printing Office having erroneously printed on a roll call the name of a deceased Member of the House, the permanent Record was corrected, by unanimous consent, to delete the name. On June 26, 1969,(1) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, initiated the following exchange with the Speaker: MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 91 there is a printing error. The Government Printing Office has unfortunately listed the name of our late colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Bates, among those Members responding on the rollcall. I therefore ask unanimous consent that the permanent Record be corrected to delete his name. Agreement to this request would in no way change the result of the vote as announced. THE SPEAKER: (2) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa? There was no objection. The roll call vote to which Mr. Gross referred (roll call No. 91), was on the passage of a resolution

I say, so what if the Record says Rep Byron Donalds (R-FL) voted in the House when he was actually in California to do Bill Maher's show. After all, the Record once said Rep William Henry Bates (R-MA) voted in the House when he was actually dead.🪦

#HRules

Some more data:

In the 115th Congress, there were (by my count) 17 appeals in the House.
In my entire time observing House proceedings, there have been 0.

And on the practical side, the House is perfectly capable of dealing with a recalcitrant clerk:

Source that the clerk may not do things like that:

The decision is made by the House, not by the chair.

For one thing, members are sworn in by the newly elected speaker, not by the clerk.

Nope.

The third one seems to suggest that a tie vote would not sustain the decision of the chair, because the chair put the question on (essentially) overruling the chair.

And as for the Senate, Democrats will have a majority before the new senators are sworn in.

Great phrase: dissolution by the efflux of their time.

The practice of the House is that members are only sworn in after the election of a speaker.
www.congress.gov/crs-product/...

But, as always, the (new) House can do anything it wants:
‘The Clerk presiding during organization declined to put a question, whereupon a Member-elect put the question from the floor.’

Yes, and not even necessarily ‘they’; the speaker could do it unilaterally (before this Congress ends).

The House’s diligence in compiling the precedents never ceases to amaze me.

Amendments to the preamble should work the same way (adopted after passage/adoption), but sometimes they forget and deal with them as if they were amendments to the body of the measure:

👍

But that was a pro-forma session, during which ‘no business [could] be[] conducted’, and receiving messages = business.

I have doubts as to whether the Senate can receive that kind of message during an adjournment.

Certainly.

It’ll all work out in the end when he votes to overturn his own ruling.

(For anyone just tuning in, S. 1383 is now the SAVE America Act, but they neglected to amend the title.)

Nothing beats this ⬇️, though.

Titles of bills about the conduct of elections, in Parliament vs Congress:

That’s counting from the time she was nominated to when she was confirmed; only a small part of that was floor time.
The committee reported her nomination on 22 October; the Senate took up the nomination on the 23rd; cloture was invoked on the 25th; she was confirmed on the 26th.

It wouldn’t take that long.

Simpler times.

A very long read, but 100% worth it ⬇️

TL;DR:
1. A determined minority can make life hell for the majority.
2. A determined majority can do anything it wants.

(It’s tragic that this happened a few months before C-SPAN started routinely archiving its broadcasts!)

www.congress.gov/100/crecb/19...

2. Congress has the power to overturn DC laws even after the review period has expired, and ⬇️. The review period just gives them a chance to do it before the law goes into effect.

1. The message transmitting the act was laid before the Senate on 7 January, so (in Congress’ view) the review period ends on 20 February.