DOCSLIB.ORG

Senate Cloture Rule

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

112th Congress S. Prt. " COMMITTEE PRINT ! 1st Session 112–31 SENATE CLOTURE RULE LIMITATION OF DEBATE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES and LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF RULE XXII OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE (CLOTURE RULE) Congressional Research Service Library of Congress Printed for the Use of the COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION UNITED STATES SENATE U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 66–046 WASHINGTON : 2011 senate cloture.indb i 1/24/2012 7:24:19 AM COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, Chairman DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas PATTY MURRAY, Washington SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas PAT ROBERTS, Kansas TOM UDALL, New Mexico RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama MARK WARNER, Virginia ROY BLUNT, Missouri PATRICK LEAHY, Vermont JEAN PARVIN BORDEWICH, Staff Director MARY SUIT JONES, Republican Staff Director ADAM D. AMBROGI, Chief Counsel MICHAEL MERRELL, Republican Elections Counsel Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-112SPRT66046/pdf/CPRT-112SPRT66046.pdf (II) senate cloture.indb ii 1/24/2012 7:24:19 AM LETTER OF SUBMITTAL CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, Washington, DC, December 5, 2011. Hon. CHARLES SCHUMER, Chairman, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am pleased to submit to you the update requested by the Rules Committee of its print on the cloture rule of the United States Senate. This edition extends, through the fi nal adjournment of the 110th Congress in 2008, the information on the development and use of the cloture rule that was contained in the 1985 edition of this print, the most recent previous version of the document. New to this edition is extensive information on changes in the clo- ture rule, and proposals to change the rule, since 1985, as well as a revised and more complete treatment of the important 1975 amend- ment to the rule. The bibliography has also been comprehensively revised and extended. In addition, this edition also offers several substantial improvements in the format of information presented. In particular, the items added for this edition to the brief descrip- tions of selected outstanding fi libusters are presented in a more sys- tematic format that, for the fi rst time, uniformly includes measure numbers, length of consideration, and identifi cation of the policy questions at issue, major procedural events, and outcomes. Finally, the table of cloture votes from earlier editions has been replaced by full information on the disposition of each cloture motion since the adoption of the cloture rule in 1917, whether or not voted on, includ- ing specifi c identifi cation of the items of business to which they were addressed. This new and more comprehensive table was drawn from the database now maintained by the Senate Library, which worked as a partner on this project. The preparation of this revision, as of its recent predecessors, was undertaken by the Government and Finance Division of the Con- gressional Research Service. Richard S. Beth coordinated the entire project with assistance from Betsy Palmer. Descriptions of proposals to change the cloture rule, proceedings when the rule was amended, and instances of extended debate in the Senate were prepared by analytical staff of CRS including Dr. Beth, Ms. Palmer, Christopher M. Davis, Valerie Heitshusen, Elizabeth Rybicki, James V. Saturno, Matthew Eric Glassman, Momoko Soltis, and Jessica Tollestrup. The project also drew on descriptions of extended debates prepared in earlier years by CRS staff, under the direction of Dr. Beth and (III) senate cloture.indb iii 1/24/2012 7:24:19 AM IV with the assistance of Stanley I. Bach, including Mr. Saturno, Kevin Coleman, Paul Dwyer, Matthew Ginsburg, Leslie Gladstone, Steve Rutkus, James Sayler, Barbara Schwemle, Stephanie Smith, Sandy Streeter, Lorraine Tong, Suzanne Cavanagh, and Richard Sachs. Ad- ditional data in support of the project were compiled by Faye Bull- ock, Joe Dalaker, Robert Elam, Lori Beth Hutchison, Jackie Jones, and Carole McGeehan. Jennifer E. Manning of the Knowledge Services Group of CRS prepared the completely revised bibliography, with the aid of Jamie Navarette, Meghan Krueger, and earlier work by George Walser. Technical assistance to the overall project was provided by Nicole Palmer and Jennifer Scrafford, and the project was reviewed by Clay Wellborn and Cortney Dell. The historical table of data on cloture motions and their dispositions was generated from the database on these motions developed and maintained by Zoe Davis, head of the Senate Library’s Reference & Information Services, with assistance from Brian McLaughlin, also of that offi ce. Senate Webmaster Arin Shapiro, provided technical support, along with Betty Koo and Liz Horrell, also of the Senate’s Offi ce of Web Technology. Since the Committee last issued a revised edition of this docu- ment, numerous events have indicated continued interest in the role and regulation of debate in the Senate. Particularly in the 111th Congress, hearings held by your Committee on Examining the Fili- buster (S. Hrg. 111–706, 111th Congress, 2nd session), which focused on the use of the cloture rule and the issue of fi libusters on the Sen- ate fl oor, showed a high level of continuing interest in the subject from Senators, staff, political scientists, and the public. Previously, among the most prominent of these events have been the Senate’s amendment of paragraph 2 of Rule XXII in the 99th Congress, fl oor consideration of further amendments to Senate Rules regulating debate in the 104th, 108th, and 112th Congresses, discussions and recommendations by the Senate members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress in the 103rd Congress, and hearings on related questions by your Committee in the 100th, 103rd, and 111th Congresses, as well as by the Senate Committee on the Judi- ciary in the 108th Congress. Over the same period, as well, outside interest in these questions has been highlighted by the publication, after a lapse of several decades, of several new scholarly studies of extended debate and cloture in the Senate by political scientists. It is because of this continuing interest in debate and cloture that I am particularly pleased to transmit this latest revision of the print to the Committee, in the anticipation that it will serve as a useful resource to the Senate as it continues to address questions related to its cloture rule. Sincerely, MARY MAZANEC, Director. senate cloture.indb iv 1/24/2012 7:24:20 AM C O N T E N T S Page LETTER OF SUBMITTAL ................................................................................................. III PART 1 LIMITATION OF DEBATE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES .................................... 1 Standing Rules relating to debate................................................................... 3 Chronological history of efforts to limit debate in the Senate ...................... 11 Selected outstanding Senate fi libusters, 1841–2008 ..................................... 43 Disposition of cloture motions, 1917–2008 ..................................................... 113 Filibusters and cloture in the United States Senate: A select bibliography ..... 159 PART 2 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF RULE XXII OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE (CLOTURE RULE) ................................................................. 183 The Cloture Rule (The “Martin Resolution”) .................................................. 185 The 1949 amendment ....................................................................................... 189 The 1959 amendment ....................................................................................... 193 The 1975 amendment ....................................................................................... 199 The 1976 amendment ....................................................................................... 209 The 1979 amendment ....................................................................................... 211 The 1986 amendment ....................................................................................... 221 (V) senate cloture.indb v 1/24/2012 7:24:20 AM senate cloture.indb vi 1/24/2012 7:24:20 AM PART 1 LIMITATION OF DEBATE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES A COMPENDIUM, INCLUDING A SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY (September 30, 2011) senate cloture.indb 1 1/24/2012 7:24:20 AM senate cloture.indb 2 1/24/2012 7:24:20 AM STANDING RULES RELATING TO DEBATE RULE VI—QUORUM—ABSENT SENATORS MAY BE SENT FOR * * * * * * * 3. If, at any time during the daily sessions of the Senate, a ques- tion shall be raised by any Senator as to the presence of a quorum, the Presiding Offi cer shall forthwith direct the Secretary to call the roll and shall announce the result, and these proceedings shall be without debate. 4. Whenever upon such roll call it shall be ascertained that a quo- rum is not present, a majority of the Senators present may direct the Sergeant at Arms to request, and, when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators, which order shall be determined without debate; and pending its execution, and until a quorum shall be present, no debate nor motion, except to adjourn, or to recess pursuant to a previous order entered
Recommended publications
  • Appeal/Grievance Process – Member Appeals Committee Responsible Party: T

    Appeal/Grievance Process – Member Appeals Committee Responsible Party: T

    _________________________________________ APPROVAL as appropriate: Board _________ Exec Dir _________ Med Dir _________ Other Dir/Mgr _________ _________________________________________ REVIEWED BY LEGAL COUNSEL Yes ___ No ___ Date: x Name: x __________________________________________ POLICY STATUS: _x__ Approved ___Pending Policy and Procedure Title: Appeal/Grievance Process – Member Appeals Committee Responsible Party: T. Rumler/S. Sinnett Div/Dept/Serv Area: Member Services Volume: III Number: INS.MS.001 Date of Issue: 6/93 Page 1 of 8 Formerly A2a.015 (7/08)/MS.001 (4/12) NCQA UM 8 A PURPOSE: The purpose of this policy is: 1. To document the role of the Member Appeals Committee in the grievance process of Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin (GHC-SCW). 2. To document the policies and procedures for thorough, appropriate and timely registering and resolution of member appeals. DEFINITIONS: 1. Adverse Determination means an adverse benefit determination [as defined in 29 CFR 2560.503-1], as well as any rescission of coverage, as described in § 147.128 (whether or not, in connection with the rescission, there is an adverse effect on any particular benefit at that time). 2. Appeal/Grievance means a request for GHC-SCW to review an Adverse Determination. 3. Post-Service Appeal means a request to change an Adverse Determination for care or services that have already been received by the member. 4. Pre-Service Appeal is a request to change an Adverse Determination for care or service that GHC-SCW must approve, in whole or in part, in advance of the member obtaining care or services. POLICY: 1. The Member Appeals Committee is the adjudicating body for GHC-SCW’s grievance process.
  • Appendix File Anes 1988‐1992 Merged Senate File

    Appendix File Anes 1988‐1992 Merged Senate File

    Version 03 Codebook ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ CODEBOOK APPENDIX FILE ANES 1988‐1992 MERGED SENATE FILE USER NOTE: Much of his file has been converted to electronic format via OCR scanning. As a result, the user is advised that some errors in character recognition may have resulted within the text. MASTER CODES: The following master codes follow in this order: PARTY‐CANDIDATE MASTER CODE CAMPAIGN ISSUES MASTER CODES CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP CODE ELECTIVE OFFICE CODE RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE MASTER CODE SENATOR NAMES CODES CAMPAIGN MANAGERS AND POLLSTERS CAMPAIGN CONTENT CODES HOUSE CANDIDATES CANDIDATE CODES >> VII. MASTER CODES ‐ Survey Variables >> VII.A. Party/Candidate ('Likes/Dislikes') ? PARTY‐CANDIDATE MASTER CODE PARTY ONLY ‐‐ PEOPLE WITHIN PARTY 0001 Johnson 0002 Kennedy, John; JFK 0003 Kennedy, Robert; RFK 0004 Kennedy, Edward; "Ted" 0005 Kennedy, NA which 0006 Truman 0007 Roosevelt; "FDR" 0008 McGovern 0009 Carter 0010 Mondale 0011 McCarthy, Eugene 0012 Humphrey 0013 Muskie 0014 Dukakis, Michael 0015 Wallace 0016 Jackson, Jesse 0017 Clinton, Bill 0031 Eisenhower; Ike 0032 Nixon 0034 Rockefeller 0035 Reagan 0036 Ford 0037 Bush 0038 Connally 0039 Kissinger 0040 McCarthy, Joseph 0041 Buchanan, Pat 0051 Other national party figures (Senators, Congressman, etc.) 0052 Local party figures (city, state, etc.) 0053 Good/Young/Experienced leaders; like whole ticket 0054 Bad/Old/Inexperienced leaders; dislike whole ticket 0055 Reference to vice‐presidential candidate ? Make 0097 Other people within party reasons Card PARTY ONLY ‐‐ PARTY CHARACTERISTICS 0101 Traditional Democratic voter: always been a Democrat; just a Democrat; never been a Republican; just couldn't vote Republican 0102 Traditional Republican voter: always been a Republican; just a Republican; never been a Democrat; just couldn't vote Democratic 0111 Positive, personal, affective terms applied to party‐‐good/nice people; patriotic; etc.
  • Proxy Voting Guidelines Benchmark Policy Recommendations TITLE

    Proxy Voting Guidelines Benchmark Policy Recommendations TITLE

    UNITED STATES Proxy Voting Guidelines Benchmark Policy Recommendations TITLE Effective for Meetings on or after February 1, 2021 Published November 19, 2020 ISS GOVERNANCE .COM © 2020 | Institutional Shareholder Services and/or its affiliates UNITED STATES PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES TABLE OF CONTENTS Coverage ................................................................................................................................................................ 7 1. Board of Directors ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections ........................................................................................... 8 Independence ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 ISS Classification of Directors – U.S. ................................................................................................................. 9 Composition ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 Responsiveness ................................................................................................................................................... 12 Accountability ....................................................................................................................................................
  • College Historical Society

    College Historical Society

    COLLEGE HISTORICAL SOCIETY LAWS OF THE SOCIETY Chapter I Fundamental Regulations The following shall be considered the fundamental regulations of the College Historical Society and no Law or resolution in anywise contradicting, suspending or repealing them, or any part of them, shall be valid without the consent of the Board. 1. All persons paying the capital levy shall be eligible for the ordinary Membership of the Society. 2. Topics of religious controversy and present party politics shall be prohibited at the meetings of the Society. 3. Every meeting of the Society shall terminate not later than twelve o’clock by College time. 4. No person can be elected an Officer of the Historical Society without the sanction of the Board unless he be either officially connected with the University or be a member of the Society. This law shall not apply to the election of Vice-Presidents. Chapter II Annual Members 1. The amount of the annual subscription shall be determined by the General Committee in advance of the first of October of each session. 2. All persons who are eligible shall become Annual Members immediately upon paying their annual subscription. 3. The membership of every Annual Member shall lapse at the end of the sixth week of Michaelmas Term in the session following that in which his annual subscription was last paid. Every person whose membership shall have so lapsed shall be re-admissible on payment of the annual subscription. 4. Any member who is neither indebted to the Society in any amount, nor has in his possession any book from the Society’s Library, nor has any key belonging to the Society may resign from membership of the Society on notifying in writing the Record Secretary of his wish to do so.
  • Debate Academy Guide

    Debate Academy Guide

    Debate Academy Guide 29 July to 3 August 2019, Uppingham School Introduction from the Course Director Debate Academy is an annual, week-long summer school in the United Kingdom dedicated to improving young people’s debating skills. It is held each year in late July to early August at Uppingham School in Rutland. Students aged 14-18 receive tuition from expert debating mentors in a variety of competitive debating formats. Whether you have little or no experience, or are getting ready for trials for your national debating team, Debate Academy will offer a tailored experience to suit you. This document is designed to provide additional information and hopefully to answer any questions you may have about Debate Academy. For the most up to date information on this year’s Debate Academy or to sign up for a place, please visit our website: http://www.esu.org/programmes/debate-academy If you have any further questions or queries about Debate Academy feel free to get in touch with me at [email protected]. I look forward to seeing you there! Bob Saull Debating Programmes Officer English-Speaking Union 1 Contents Learning at Debate Academy 3 Which ‘Track’ is for Me? 4 Which ‘Stream’ is for Me? 5 Living at Debate Academy 6 Applying to Debate Academy 9 2 Learning at Debate Academy At Debate Academy you will receive expert tuition on debating from some of the best debaters in the country. You will get the chance to discuss world issues, sharpen your analytical, reasoning and public speaking skills, and spar with other students from all over the world in competitive debates.
  • Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History

    Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History

    Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Updated February 1, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45087 Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Summary Censure is a reprimand adopted by one or both chambers of Congress against a Member of Congress, President, federal judge, or other government official. While Member censure is a disciplinary measure that is sanctioned by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 5), non-Member censure is not. Rather, it is a formal expression or “sense of” one or both houses of Congress. Censure resolutions targeting non-Members have utilized a range of statements to highlight conduct deemed by the resolutions’ sponsors to be inappropriate or unauthorized. Before the Nixon Administration, such resolutions included variations of the words or phrases unconstitutional, usurpation, reproof, and abuse of power. Beginning in 1972, the most clearly “censorious” resolutions have contained the word censure in the text. Resolutions attempting to censure the President are usually simple resolutions. These resolutions are not privileged for consideration in the House or Senate. They are, instead, considered under the regular parliamentary mechanisms used to process “sense of” legislation. Since 1800, Members of the House and Senate have introduced resolutions of censure against at least 12 sitting Presidents. Two additional Presidents received criticism via alternative means (a House committee report and an amendment to a resolution). The clearest instance of a successful presidential censure is Andrew Jackson. The Senate approved a resolution of censure in 1834. On three other occasions, critical resolutions were adopted, but their final language, as amended, obscured the original intention to censure the President.
  • Senate Republican Conference John Thune

    Senate Republican Conference John Thune

    HISTORY, RULES & PRECEDENTS of the SENATE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE JOHN THUNE 115th Congress Revised January 2017 HISTORY, RULES & PRECEDENTS of the SENATE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE Table of Contents Preface ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 1 Rules of the Senate Republican Conference ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....2 A Service as Chairman or Ranking Minority Member ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 4 B Standing Committee Chair/Ranking Member Term Limits ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 4 C Limitations on Number of Chairmanships/ Ranking Memberships ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 4 D Indictment or Conviction of Committee Chair/Ranking Member ....... ....... ....... .......5 ....... E Seniority ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 5....... ....... ....... ...... F Bumping Rights ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 5 G Limitation on Committee Service ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...5 H Assignments of Newly Elected Senators ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 5 Supplement to the Republican Conference Rules ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 6 Waiver of seniority rights .....
  • Expulsion and Censure Actions Taken by the Full Senate Against Members

    Expulsion and Censure Actions Taken by the Full Senate Against Members

    Order Code 93-875 Expulsion and Censure Actions Taken by the Full Senate Against Members Updated November 12, 2008 Jack Maskell Legislative Attorney American Law Division Expulsion and Censure Actions Taken by the Full Senate Against Members Summary The authority of the United States Senate (as well as of the House) to establish the rules for its own proceedings, to “punish” its Members for misconduct, and to expel a Member by a vote of two-thirds of Members present and voting, is provided in the Constitution at Article I, Section 5, clause 2. This express grant of authority for the Senate to expel a Senator is, on its face, unlimited — save for the requirement of a two-thirds majority. In the context of what the Supreme Court has characterized as, in effect, an “unbridled discretion” of the body, expulsions in the Senate, as well as the House, have historically been reserved for cases of the most serious misconduct: disloyalty to the government or abuses of one’s official position. The Senate has actually expelled only 15 Members — 14 of those during the Civil War period for disloyalty to the Union (one of these expulsions was subsequently revoked by the Senate), and the other Senator during the late 1700s for disloyal conduct. The House of Representatives has expelled only five Members in its history, three during the Civil War period, one in 1980, and another in 2002, after convictions for bribery and corruption offenses related to official congressional duties. In the Senate, as well as in the House, however, other Members for whom expulsion was recommended have resigned from office prior to official, formal action by the institution.
  • 1 Certified for Publication in the Court Of

    1 Certified for Publication in the Court Of

    Filed 8/17/21 (unmodified opinion attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN A160659 FRANCISCO, Plaintiff and Respondent, (City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. CGC-18-569987) v. ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN ORDER MODIFYING OPINION; THE MATTER OF PROPOSITION AND ORDER DENYING G (NOWAK), PETITION FOR REHEARING Defendants and Appellants. [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on July 26, 2021, be modified in the following particulars: 1. On page 4, line 17, the sentence beginning “By mid-November 2017” is deleted and replaced with the following sentence: By Autumn 2017, the District and Union were considering whether the parcel tax could be proposed as a citizens’ initiative. 2. On page 24, lines 3 and 4, the clause “Without disputing that Proposition G met the criteria set forth in the Charter” is deleted and replaced with the following clause: Without disputing that Proposition G met the criteria set forth in Section 14.101 of the Charter . Pollak, P.J., Tucher, J. and Brown, J. participated in the decision. 1 These modifications do not effect a change in the judgment. Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied. Dated:___________________ _______________________ P.J. 2 Trial Court: City & County of San Francisco Superior Court Trial Judge: Hon. Ethan P. Schulman Counsel for Appellants: Greenberg Traurig: Bradley R. Marsh and Colin W. Fraser Counsel for Amicus Curiae Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation; on behalf of Appellants: Jonathan M. Coupal, Timothy A.
  • Simplified Parliamentary Procedure

    Simplified Parliamentary Procedure

    Extension to Communities Simplifi ed Parliamentary Procedure 2 • Iowa State University Extension Introduction Effective Meetings — Simplifi ed Parliamentary Procedure “We must learn to run a meeting without victimizing the audience; but more impor- tantly, without being victimized by individuals who are armed with parliamentary procedure and a personal agenda.” — www.calweb.com/~laredo/parlproc.htm Parliamentary procedure. Sound complicated? Controlling? Boring? Intimidating? Why do we need to know all those rules for conducting a meeting? Why can’t we just run the meetings however we want to? Who cares if we follow parliamentary procedure? How many times have you attended a meeting that ran on and on and didn’t accomplish anything? The meeting jumps from one topic to another without deciding on anything. Group members disrupt the meeting with their own personal agendas. Arguments erupt. A few people make all the decisions and ignore everyone else’s opinions. Everyone leaves the meeting feeling frustrated. Sound familiar? Then a little parliamentary procedure may just be the thing to turn your unproductive, frustrating meetings into a thing of beauty — or at least make them more enjoyable and productive. What is Parliamentary Procedure? Parliamentary procedure is a set of well proven rules designed to move business along in a meeting while maintaining order and controlling the communications process. Its purpose is to help groups accomplish their tasks through an orderly, democratic process. Parliamentary procedure is not intended to inhibit a meeting with unnecessary rules or to prevent people from expressing their opinions. It is intended to facilitate the smooth func- tioning of the meeting and promote cooperation and harmony among members.
  • New Congress on Line to Be Next Big Brother

    New Congress on Line to Be Next Big Brother

    New Congress on Line to be Next Big Brother By Bill Hobby Hooray for the new Congress. They promised to take government off our back, and they've put it in our living room. They promised to free us from regulation, and they've concocted one that can deprive some unwitting computer nerds of their liberty. The amendment attached to an overhaul of federal communications law by the Senate Commerce Committee sets fines up to $100,000 and jail terms of up to two years for anyone who transmits material that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy or indecent" over the Internet. Welcome, thought police. As one columnist, Charles Levendosky of the Casper (Wyoming) Star-Tribune, put it, "It would melt the promise of this electronic Gutenberg." Many of us are just now discovering the wonders of cyberspace as presented through the Internet. We're just learning to pull up reproductions of paintings in the Louvre, reference material from the Library of Congress, bills up for consideration in the Texas Legislature. We are travelers in a fantastic new world of knowledge and information. This wonderful worldwide network of computers can answer our questions in seconds, whether we want to know about ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics or what happened today in the O.J. Simpson trial So naturally our Big Brothers in Congress couldn't leave us alone. Under the guise of protecting children from smut, the Senate has adopted one of the most draconian invasions of privacy ever. It has never been clear to me why the government considers that it owns the airwaves.
  • Senate Proceedings Establishing Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: in Brief Name Redacted Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process

    Senate Proceedings Establishing Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: in Brief Name Redacted Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process

    Senate Proceedings Establishing Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: In Brief name redacted Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process April 14, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R44819 Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: In Brief Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Senate Proceedings Establishing Majority Cloture on Nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Related CRS Products ..................................................................................................................... 3 Contacts Author Contact Information ............................................................................................................ 4 Congressional Research Service Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: In Brief Introduction On April 6, 2017, the Senate reinterpreted Rule XXII to allow a majority of Senators voting, a quorum being present, to invoke cloture on nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court. Before the Senate reinterpreted the rule, ending consideration of nominations to the Supreme Court required a vote of three-fifths of Senators duly chosen and sworn (60 Senators unless there was more than one vacancy). The practical effect of the Senate action on April 6 was to reduce the level of Senate support necessary