5351

This seems correct.

5352

I mean, we anyone can quote a tiny bit of text and claim that their narrow interpretation of it is factual but the reality is that there’s literally hundreds of years of precidents and interpretations and cases and decisions that are involved.

5353

Aha! So you agree I’m right!

5354

Stepping back from the minutia the basic idea is this: the House has exercised it’s power under the Constitution to impeach Trump and the next step is for the Senate to try that impeachment. However, the Constitution also says both the House and the Senate have the power to make their own internal rules and right now the Senate has a set of rules that say the Senate won’t commence the impeachment proceedings in the Senate until the House transmits the articles of impeachment and also appoints impeachment managers to present the case to the Senate. The Senate, can, by simple majority vote, change that rule and does have the power to immediately commence a trial.

In the big picture, the idea floated on the intarwebs of never transmitting the articles and holding the Impeachment in a weird limbo forever is IMO BS. And, in the long run, the articles will get transmitted and the House will appoint managers, and then things will proceed. There might be a few weeks of delay while the administrative crap is sorted and that’s not really that big a deal.

So legally I think this is much ado about nothing but I do think Pelosi is being smart in terms of politcal theater / news cycle. Pelosi is taking advantage of this administrative kerfuffle to point out that McConnell and many Senate GOPers have been taking overly partisan positions, violating their role as impartial jurors, attempting to dismiss the case without a real trial, or keep a trial to a minimal presentation with little evidence, etc. I think this helps put the message out about GOP disregard for the rule of law and also has some chance of facilitating a vote for the Senate to hold a real trial with appropriate evidence. So as an act of politics I feel Pelosi is being astute and playing hardball. However, I also think there’s no chance she will hold the articles for a long time and try to create some weird legal limbo scenario.

5355

I actually already answered this. It is up to the Speaker unless a member raises a point of order to dispute it. If they do, then there should be a vote on that point of order. So the Speaker only controls it if she reflects the will of the House.

The only alternative to this is that the Senate makes rules about what stage of the House proceedings they consider final. So they get to determine what constitutes a bill that has passed an official vote in the House and can therefore become a law. How would the House stop them from making rules about specific bills they don’t like, for example to accept something passed out of committee but not by the full house (say, by declaring that a particular bill or type of bill will be considered valid if a House committee has sent it to the floor unless the House rejects it within 1 day)?

Or taking exactly this specific proceeding, what if the House wanted to insert a requirement that first articles be voted on, then managers be voted on, and only then is the impeachment resolution valid? If the Senate can just declare the impeachment valid at whatever point it chooses, then the House no longer controls its own proceedings.

5356

I think you are making stuff up.

A point of order is raised when a House rule has been violated. Are you suggesting that the Speaker can validate a bill whenever she wants, unless a member successfully accuses her of breaking the rules? That only works if not validating a bill is against the rules. Which means she can’t validate a bill whenever she wants.

Also, a point of order can only be raised when a bill, amendment, or motion is first read. It is meant to prevent any consideration or debate of that specific bill, amendment, or motion. You cannot raise a point of order after a vote has occurred, it’s too late. You certainly can’t use it for some random complaint, like “Why has Madame Speaker still not validated the vote from yesterday?”

Eventually, the House has to vote on a final resolution that says: “Resolved, Trump is impeached”. They can vote on whatever they want before that. They can select managers beforehand, change the language of the articles that will be in the final vote, or whatever. They can try to use procedural moves to engineer a specific outcome, for example the resolution may not be allowed to reach the floor unless certain managers are approved beforehand.

But once the resolution reaches the floor and passes, Trump is impeached. And that’s what already happened. It’s obviously too late to set new conditions.

“The Senate makes the rules” is not the only alternative to “The Speaker makes the rules”.

For instance, there could be a House committee that makes rules. They could delve into tedious detail about all the things that must happen to a bill, amendment, motion, or resolution. From beginning to end. They could call themselves the House Rules Committee.

And the HRC already made rules regarding the impeachment resolution, which specify all the steps that must occur for the House to pass articles of impeachment. They don’t mention anything about the Speaker getting involved after the vote.

5357

You are claiming that the House rule is that once a final vote has been taken, the resolution is officially passed. I am saying that the Senate can’t set up its own rules to act on a bill that the House hasn’t formally conveyed to it, because any other scenario would be insane. The House has to “here is our bill” or else the Senate is just arbitrarily choosing a point to view it as final. The House does this by transmitting the bill to the Senate. Typically this is just done immediately, but it still has to actually happen. I don’t think there’s a formal procedure for not transmitting the bill. Therefore, I think Pelosi is violating the House rules when she delays. But the Senate cannot overrule her. Only a member of the House can raise a point of order about the rule violation and the majority can dismiss that objection.

I think you’re making stuff up.

They do mention setting up house managers immediately, though. They also don’t lay out every detail of the rules regarding the resolution, only the stuff that’s different from normal.

5358

No, they cannot. A point of order is raised at the moment a bill first comes to the floor. It can only be used to kill the bill immediately.

It cannot be used to force Pelosi to do whatever they want Pelosi to do.

The Senate can try anyone who has been impeached, if they want to.

Trump has been impeached, because a House majority voted for impeachment, everybody agrees that a House majority voted for impeachment, and a House majority vote is the only Constitutional requirement for impeachment. Therefore they could try him.

You are adding an extra requirement, conveyance or transmission or whatever, that does not exist in the Constitution. Or maybe you think there might be some uncertainty as to how the House voted. But there isn’t. The vote is officially recorded by the House itself.

It’s true that Senate rules specify waiting for House managers to announce the charges, which hasn’t happened yet. So they are still waiting. They can keep waiting, or change the rules.

5359

I agree with your comments entirely, and would add that Pelosi has the perfect excuse to play this game: that she can’t really know what sort of House Impeachment managers she needs until the Senate tells her what sort of trial they are going to have. She’s trying to apply pressure to get more of a trial using Trump’s desire to be exonerated, but I don’t think there is any way she holds the articles forever or even for very long.

5360

Hey, at least Congress is making the right argument here:

They’re arguing that there may be more articles of impeachment, that the investigation into the President’s misdeeds is still going on, so they must have McGahn’s testimony via an expedited court ruling.

5361

This Giuliani story is something else. He’s a basket case.

5362

The constitution says nothing about a majority vote. Only the House gets to decide what its rules are. The only way for their decisions to take effect is for them to send those decisions to the relevant body (the Senate or White House depending on the status of it). They haven’t sent this to anyone so no one can act on it. You are inventing additional means of transmittal such as publishing results of votes on the internet.

5363

The official announcement for all House activities is the House Journal, not “the internet”. Though there is a copy available online.

And the person who is officially responsible for certifying the passage of bills and resolutions is not the Speaker. It is the House Clerk, and she has already certified the impeachment vote.

Not according to the Constitution. Also not in the House Rules.

H Res 755, which impeached the president, is done. It does not require “transmission” or any other procedures. In fact, simple resolutions (all denoted by “H Res”) by definition are never sent to the Senate.

According to Senate rules, nothing will happen in the Senate until the House appoints managers. But managers are not part of H Res 755, in fact they will require a new house resolution with a new vote.

5364

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf

5365

I’m not sure what the point is of eliding the distinction between the rules of the two chambers and the actual language of the Constitution.

The Senate is not bound by the rules of the House, and has the sole Constitutional authority to try impeachments. If the Senate rules prevent taking up an impeachment trial when they have not been ‘notified’, they can change those rules whenever they want. Similarly, if the House rules require notification to the Senate, the House can change those rules anytime they want. And neither chamber need take any notice of the other chamber’s rules on the matter at all.

5366

This is not binding in any way. The CRS simply reports how impeachment was performed in the past.

5367

Wow, he’s deranged. I can’t believe Trump uses him.

He’s really bought into the Soros stuff too. So ridiculous.

5368

I feel like I need to remember to retire from caring about politics around 70. Seems like a lot of people lose their faculties to the point of being really, very stupid and believing damn near anything around then and on the off chance I become one of them it might be a good plan.

5369

Wow, he’s deranged. I can totally believe Trump uses him.

5370

All you need to know about old people is summed up in the “Alexa for Old People” sketch from SNL. In particular, old people responding to any information that is different that what they believe with, “I don’t know about that.”