Are we going to have a constitutional convention every time we want to change the rules of the legislative body?
Aside from the filibuster (which has, arguably become unconstitutional) the rules are pretty innocuous. Like "how many minutes you get to talk, how you can interrupt someone who is speaking, whether or not you can give up your time, etc etc, we have committees which bring reports before the bodies" in a effort to make a deliberative body of 100/435 to work. Sometimes you need to change these rules. Unless we're going to have a constitutional convention every time we want to we've got to let the legislature do it.
The filibuster used to be a rule kinda like that. It was the "how do we know when we have debated enough and should vote?" rule. This is pretty innocuous. After all a rule of 'we vote when the majority party says so' means that they could, theoretically have no/low debate time, which is bad.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2013-07-19 06:45 am (UTC)Aside from the filibuster (which has, arguably become unconstitutional) the rules are pretty innocuous. Like "how many minutes you get to talk, how you can interrupt someone who is speaking, whether or not you can give up your time, etc etc, we have committees which bring reports before the bodies" in a effort to make a deliberative body of 100/435 to work. Sometimes you need to change these rules. Unless we're going to have a constitutional convention every time we want to we've got to let the legislature do it.
The filibuster used to be a rule kinda like that. It was the "how do we know when we have debated enough and should vote?" rule. This is pretty innocuous. After all a rule of 'we vote when the majority party says so' means that they could, theoretically have no/low debate time, which is bad.