Nope.
The Constitution only requires that a quorum be present in order to pass legislation.
There is no requirement for all voting members to be physically present in the Capitol.
Both houses of Congress are empowered to make their own rules, and not even this SCOTUS is going to say otherwise.
Be unserious
always pander
bloviate
and gerrymander
You and Laurence Tribe are soooo cute.
The constitution also defines quorum as 50%+1. Not by proxy. But the supreme court don’t care. The supreme court don’t give a fuck. The supreme court goes where the supreme court wants, and backfills the rationale. Or not, when the circumstances permit (shadow docket).
I believe you know what to do with your Gloom and Doom—and how many times to turn it sideways.
Yes…
I admire your optimism that they can’t spin another IOKIYAR ruling… I hope you are correct sir…
Hey you guys! Stop using the Constitution to show that Qevin is wrong about the constitution. He’s the professional and you all are not. He does not have to read it to know what the original intention of the framers was, because he just knows. He’s like Joan Quigley that way…
They’re rigid ideologues—but they’re not stupid.
Another study in “I can say the Constitution says whatever I want, because my base will just go with it no matter what.”
Like that article I linked earlier about the Archives Task Force saying documents like the Constitution are racist…the Faux News KKKomment boards were chock full of “how dare they?” and even declarations that “the Constitution was written so that slavery would gradually go away”…despite the Constitution literally being written not just to allow slavery of black people but also explicitly state that they only count as 3/5 of a human being.
McCarthy has cemented his personal entry in the Anals of History.
Agreed. But these two things are in tension…
Surely Robert’s will advise that the dog catching the car is bad for Republican business.
But also with 5 ideologues who consider themselves clever, I’m less optimistic
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
None of them is going to write an opinion that is violative of the words in black and white in the Constitution.
The Court has always rejected cases involving this sort of separation of powers issue.
Like it or not, Republican automatic contradiction to everything Democrats do has proven to be good politics. That is every time a Democrat wins the presidency, Republicans oppose everything the Democrats try to get done and are rewarded in the midterms. If they are again rewarded for this political tactic in the midterms, the tactic will continue.
As a result, if Democrats or a Democrat administration developed a cure for cancer, Republicans would try to enjoin it for being an attack on the constitutional rights of malignant tumors, which I suppose could be another way to describe Republicans in regard to democracy and the constitution.
But this is not knew and has been true since 1993 when in the first two years of the Clinton administration there were more senate filibusters then in the entire first 200 years of the republic. So the only way to stop this strategy by a party that only cares about POWER and has no care for actual policy or good governance is to make them pay a political (POWER) price for their political tactics.
So much of what they do is so typical of bullies. They’ve now packed the court with hand-picked partisan KKKlowns, so they will now pretty much behave like the playground bullies who got their nose bloodied and run crying to SCOTUS on EVERYTHING just like running home crying to mommy.
Ok, but what about the part that says the Constitution states this:
“Although the Constitution allows Congress to write it’s own rules, those rules cannot violate the Constitution itself, including the requirement to actually assemble in person.”
I’ll put good money he’s hooting up his hooting hole again on this one, but is there such a legitimate requirement in the Constitution?
Ok - thanks @thunderclapnewman and @txlawyer
Por que’ no los dos??
So Putin’s proxy voter is now against proxy voting?
The Constitution only requires that a quorum be present in person.
Article I expressly requires a majority of members to form a quorum to conduct business, but it doesn’t say that quorum has to gather in any particular place (which was smart, as we had neither a capital nor the Capitol in 1787). It also says each House makes its own rules for voting, so there’s nothing to stop them from adopting proxy voting via those rules.
Qevin MqQarthy is, as always, a moron.
