![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
West Wing
Last night I joined Bill to have dinner and hang out (with folks from the Bullwhip workshop he's taking this weekend) at Zingerman's, hearing stories from when Greg has taught his bullwhip
course at different venues, and what it was like to go on TV with his act.
Afterwards we went over to Tammy and Eric's and visited with them for
a bit. Krysta came over with her girlfriend Catherine,
and we watched two weeks of west wing episodes. In between the
episodes the recap bit started, and Bill suggested we skip it, asking
if it wasn't merely what we had just watched, and people started to
explain that no, there might be more... Catherine turned to him and
said something like "You don't watch television. Leave this to those
of us who do.." and it was really funny. It's hard to describe it so
that you can tell why it was funny, but it was.
It was interesting to watch the shows, and yet afterward it left me
feeling sad. It's encouraging to watch someone be swayed on screen by
the logical arguments for opening up funding for stem cell research
but sad at the same time to think that the same bill cannot be passed
in our current congress.
I was discussing with Krysta afterwards why the voting procedure
continues to require everyone voting to be present on the floor. she
pointed out quite rightly that there are procedural actions, like a
filibuster, that only work if you're present, and yet I have to
question how this requirement is related to the point of
representational democratic government. Does giving the Speaker this
kind of power forward the goals of democracy or does it primarily
divert and undercut the process?
Different Speakers have, of course, used it toward different ends.
Anyway, it was on the whole an enjoyable evening.
course at different venues, and what it was like to go on TV with his act.
Afterwards we went over to Tammy and Eric's and visited with them for
a bit. Krysta came over with her girlfriend Catherine,
and we watched two weeks of west wing episodes. In between the
episodes the recap bit started, and Bill suggested we skip it, asking
if it wasn't merely what we had just watched, and people started to
explain that no, there might be more... Catherine turned to him and
said something like "You don't watch television. Leave this to those
of us who do.." and it was really funny. It's hard to describe it so
that you can tell why it was funny, but it was.
It was interesting to watch the shows, and yet afterward it left me
feeling sad. It's encouraging to watch someone be swayed on screen by
the logical arguments for opening up funding for stem cell research
but sad at the same time to think that the same bill cannot be passed
in our current congress.
I was discussing with Krysta afterwards why the voting procedure
continues to require everyone voting to be present on the floor. she
pointed out quite rightly that there are procedural actions, like a
filibuster, that only work if you're present, and yet I have to
question how this requirement is related to the point of
representational democratic government. Does giving the Speaker this
kind of power forward the goals of democracy or does it primarily
divert and undercut the process?
Different Speakers have, of course, used it toward different ends.
Anyway, it was on the whole an enjoyable evening.
Legislative Abuse of Procedure
Having said that, situations such as the one described are what I might call "procedural abuse." In an ordinary deliberative assembly (like the WSFS BM, or most clubs or similar groups), the Chair wouldn't be able to do such a thing, because (a) it's not within his authority to do so and (b) even if it was, if enough members were aggravated by the actions, they could pull the measure out from under the Chair and force a vote. But Congressional rules (and they're apparently substantially different between the House of Representatives and Senate -- American common parliamentary law derives from House rules) give vast procedural powers to the Chair. As long as there's a majority party, the Chair is pretty much going to be able to get away with this. As it happens, both parties support this sort of system, even when they aren't the ones in charge, because they know that when they are in charge, they get to have their way.
I've presided over WSFS Business Meetings a couple of times now, and the Chair there has much less authority. Common parliamentary law vests a lot more authority with the rank and file members than do most legislatures' procedural rules. And procedural rules are for the most part not constitutional law, so procedural abuses such as described here are legal but are not written in constitutional granite.
If you've watched C-SPAN, you will have from time to time seen the Chair dispose of business quickly with the magic phrase, "Without objection, the motion is read a third time, passed, and the motion to Reconsider is laid on the table." That last bit is critical here. Under Congressional rules, it's practically impossible to rescue a motion that is laid on the table on account of the super-majority vote required to do so. They lay the Reconsider on the table because otherwise, a soon as the aggrieved legislators returned, one of them would move a Reconsideration of the motion, which would start the whole thing over again. (Reconsider, incidentally, is apparently an entirely American motion, which within limits allows you to restart legislation even after it has been finally disposed of. More details upon request.)
Kevin, lapsed member of the National Association of Parliamentarians