Poland’s government has issued a regulation allowing same-sex marriages conducted in other EU states to be entered into the civil registry. The decision comes in response to a European court ruling and marks a major change in a country that still does not allow same-sex unions under domestic law.

Re the Iran resolution: One option they have is to resume proceedings on the postponed vote, then immediately postpone consideration of the resolution.

That was close...

Where do I sign up?

I continue to be amazed by the House’s thoroughness in compiling its precedents.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to fire the person who is actually responsible for ruling on questions of order?

For those wondering why they put this into a resolution ↙️, it’s thought that making a member read out the motion ‘that the House suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment with the amendment at the desk’ would be much too complicated ↘️.

Oh, they can do it. 🙂

They could have at least requested division votes on these.

Good effort.

Very unusual: a motion to recommit offered by a member of the majority.

Clearly it would have been an impossible feat to break this filibuster without using cloture.

Whenever the House rejects a rule, my suggestion is always: why not take up the bill without using a rule? A member once had the same thought, and other members apparently found the idea as incredible as it seems today.

Update:

The House has this rule. They had to waive it to pass the reconciliation bill last year.

For a moment there I thought I was reading the rules from the 118th Congress.

On conference reports etc, the debate time can be divided three ways in a situation like this. It would be worth extending that rule to motions to suspend the rules.

The most extraordinary part of this is that for once the Senate actually amended its standing rules instead of nuking.

Not quite as spectacular as in Parliament, but still pretty cool by modern congressional standards.

“You be in order!” 😳 (9 seconds in)

Very apt that the 🐄 should be considering the farm bill.

Among the more intriguing special rules I’ve come across:

“In one instance” 🙃

I would make a British version of this, but an AI chatbot might come up with an unparliamentary interpretation of ‘adjournment during pleasure’.

Spoiler alert: There’s not going to be a conference.

Indeed 🙂

It’s quite funny that when you look at yesterday’s Record, it looks as though the House convened for the sole purpose of hearing an address by the King.

Today would have been a good occasion for a king-of-the-hill rule.

A couple of things re the upcoming prorogation: 1. Reminder:

After over three months – finally some amendments!

Instead of voting against the rule, why not try to amend the rule to make these amendments in order?

Budget reconciliation 🤝 Restoration and Renewal

“Could lawmakers speak to King Charles about the Epstein files when he speaks to a Joint Meeting of Congress next month?” www.foxnews.com/politics/kha... From the precedents:

20 successful discharge petitions in one day!

Many of the older precedents will be much more literally applicable today than usual.

Mondays in the House would be a lot more fun if the speaker had less control over the timing of business.

The expedited procedures in the War Powers Resolution are so poorly drafted that the House replaces them with a special order each time. Why not make this permanent?

An instance in which the House did this by special rule:

This seems a little inconsistent.

Could be worse. www.congress.gov/crs_external...

Having a full day’s debate on a second-degree amendment* to a motion that the House resolve itself into a 🐄 is truly wonderful.

Setting aside the subject matter... It is perfectly possible to expunge a resolution, but the House is not a continuing body! It clearly does not have the power to interfere in something done by a previous house, any more than it could e.g. expunge a resolution of the Senate.

Tbf, the Senate has also come up with some fascinating theories about fractions.

Only 19 votes? Barely even a vote-a-rama. I would suggest that people really overestimate senators’ ability and willingness to sustain a filibuster by amendment (and therefore a ‘talking filibuster’).

Apparently little-known fact:

😍😍😍

(1) Budget resolution: 50 hours of debate + infinite, nondebatable amendments. (2) Talking filibuster: 2 speeches per senator* + infinite amendments, which can be disposed of by a nondebatable motion to table. Somehow the Senate can cope with (1) but not (2). 🤷‍♂️

Fun fact: If the Senate wanted to start the vote-a-rama now, it could vote to end debate on the budget resolution.

The House of Representatives should bring back the motion to recommit with instructions, so that members get to say ‘forthwith’ more often.