Senate rules

Calvinball (4.00 / 1)

Remember Calvinball?  Where you made up the rules as you went along and never played the same way twice? It seems pretty clear that we're heading for that kind of terra incognita.

The old rules seem mostly to get used as a point of reference, not as grounds for actually running a government.

I'd really like to see a neutral third party's legal take on all of this.  I suspect that it would come off as parody, no matter how serious it was, but that's just where we're at now.

---

by: simonstl @ Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 13:20:43 PM UTC

Nah, just one same old rule-- (4.00 / 1)

The Golden rule: he who has the gold, rules.  Golisano is calling the tune.

---

by: robinia @ Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 13:28:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

that only explains the theme (4.00 / 1)

not the diverse variations we're seeing inside of it.

Following the lead of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, I'm wishing our Senators would "hike the Appalachian Trail."  There's even a nice chunk of it in New York State, at a place whose name might be familiar.

---

by: simonstl @ Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 13:44:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Except for one fact... (4.00 / 1)

Calvinball looked like it would be fun to play.

This isn't.  

---

by: Adama @ Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 20:00:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

not fun for us, anyway (0.00 / 0)

I'm not sure Calvinball was ever really meant as a spectator sport...

---

by: simonstl @ Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 20:11:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

FYI (4.00 / 1)

The reason why Espada is President without being Majority Leader is that the Republicans (with Monserratte) voted on rules reform for the chamber that shifted positions and allowed a Majority Leader AND a President.  So even though those rules probably aren't binding, they're acting as though they are.  Which is basically the problem in all of this...we have two sides who are acting as if the other side didn't exist.

---

by: BingChester @ Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 13:40:02 PM UTC

FYI (0.00 / 0)

WJB:  The problem with the Republicans rationale is that the leadership vote they purport to have taken happened before the rules vote they purport to have taken; therefore they split the position while the Rules still did not allow it.  Therefore, either Pedro Espada or Dean Skelos was not legally elected to his position, even if someone decides that the vote actually occurred.

---

by: New_Yorker_For_Life @ Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 13:44:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

if there was a referee, that might matter (0.00 / 0)

maybe someday there will be.

---

by: simonstl @ Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 13:50:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's time for the judicial branch to reconsider its involvement in this (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Roatti @ Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 14:06:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Timing is everything (4.00 / 1)

Absolutely -- now is the time.

Before yesterday's insanity, the judiciary branch was right to stay out of it.  Since there were many "votes" from both sides of the aisle yesterday, someone must now step in and decide what, if any, of yesterday's actions were legitimate.

The basic concept is that it's not up to one branch of government to tell another branch of government how to function, nor is it generally proper for the judiciary to decide something before it happens.  Since the Senate hadn't acted prior to yesterday's dueling sessions, there was nothing for the judiciary to decide; now it can.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 14:36:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

not really (0.00 / 0)

I'm pretty sure New York courts follow the enrolled bill doctrine, which says once the legislative leadership has enrolled a bill, the court won't inquire into irregularities in how it was passed.  So we're back to fighting over who is the legislative leadership at the end of the day.

---

by: phil @ Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 15:45:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

disappearing quorum (0.00 / 0)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

ever since this incident, the us congress has held that if a member is physically in the chamber, they count towards quorum.  

---

by: bbill @ Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 17:44:26 PM UTC

I'm guessing that applies in the NYS Senate (0.00 / 0)

because they've gone further and allowed members to vote without being physically present. (Also because until yesterday members made a point of not being there.)

If that's true, that takes us about 10% of the way toward figuring out whether anything that happened in the Senate chamber yesterday actually... happened.

---

by: simonstl @ Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 17:50:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Quorum (0.00 / 0)

Rule IX, Sec. 2a:  "A majority of all the Senators elected shall constitute a quorum to do business. In case a less number than a quorum of the Senate shall convene, those present are authorized to send the Sergeant at Arms, or any other person, for the absent Senators."

What does that mean?  Let's look at Sec. 2g:

"Whenever upon a roll call any Senator who is upon the floor of the Senate Chamber refuses to make response when his or her name is  called, it  shall  be  the duty of the Presiding Officer, either upon his or her own motion or upon the suggestion of any Senator, to request the Senator so remaining silent to respond to his or her name, and if  such  Senator fails to do so, the fact of such request and refusal shall be entered in the  journal, and such Senator shall be counted as present for the purpose of constituting a quorum."

It appears, then, that the mere presence of 32 Senators in the chamber constitutes a quorum.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 18:22:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]