FIFA frankly aren’t thinking about the effects on secondary legislation here and it shows

😳

In response to a question asked in the other place re Luna’s assertion that nongermane amendments are often made in order: I believe this was the last time the Rules Committee made in order an amendment that would otherwise be subject to a point of order.

I feel like it really should not take the government 24 years to commence legislation passed by Parliament. www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/71...

In 1979, when the temperature in the Capitol was turned up to 78°F to save energy, the House tabled (killed) a resolution to allow men to take off their jackets and ties by a vote of 303–105.

There’s a nice passage in Jefferson’s Manual where he talks about exactly this issue.

Can’t risk having a series of divisions during the England match!

MIRV missile: A missile that, after it's sent as one missile, splits & arrives as "Multiple Independently targetable Reentry Vehicles". MIRVed bill: A bill that, by a rule, takes independently passed bills – that otherwise would arrive in the Senate as multiple bills – and delivers them as one. 1/

Queen Elizabeth II cutting a cake for Canada 100 on Parliament Hill ft. 700 pounds of icing sugar 😋 July 1, 1967 Happy Canada Day / Bonne fête du Canada!

Even members of the majority don’t trust the speaker not to ignore the two-day limit for postponing record votes.

Congress-dot-gov is still broken...

If it means we get to see the House defeat the previous question on a rule, I’m all for it.

By rejecting so many special orders, the House is obviously signifying its desire to return to the regular order.

And what are they doing with the vote on the motion to reconsider that they postponed earlier today? Under the rule, it must be taken within two legislative days.

It would be so much more efficient to defeat the previous question and amend one of these rules, instead of successively rejecting every rule the Rules Committee reports until the speaker gives in (which seems to be the strategy at the moment).

The last time a bill became law sine manu:

In the Old Days newly elected Members would go to a bipartisan orientation retreat where experts would teach them basics. Until Newt decided to pretend that it was a communist plot or something and shut it down.

What is this, the Senate?

Just when you thought counting days couldn’t get any more complicated, someone decided it would be funny to come up with a completely new definition of a legislative day.

🤦‍♂️ The Senate has no knowledge of how the House puts a bill together.* Whether the text is added by amendment or by ‘correcting’ the engrossment, the result is the same.

OK, the enrolled bill was signed by the speaker and (presumably) the presiding officer of the Senate last Thursday ⬇️. It was apparently presented to the president today.

Hot take: The rules of the US House of Representatives still require members to wear a hat to make a point of order during a record vote.

Yes, more or less.

↙️ 1987 2026 ↘️

🚨COINAGE ALERT🚨 "Sine manu" – "without hand". A bill becoming law without the president's signature shall henceforth be known as a bill enacted "sine manu". (not to be confused with "Sine Manu Raju") "It was pocket vetoed." "It was sine manued." #HRules #SRules

Yeah, the bill has not been presented to the president yet. (I was waiting for Wednesday’s edition of the Record to come out to see whether it had even been signed by the presiding officers of the two houses – it has not.)

This didn’t last long.

😁

An instance in which the head of state directed that a bill be not presented to him:

NB: Nowadays, the House and Senate can receive veto messages during adjournments, so pocket vetoes are only possible after the final adjournment sine die at the end of a Congress.

It would have been fun if a senator had tried to amend it to turn it into a joint resolution.

The US House of Representatives apparently has no such rule.

Not great that Congress-dot-gov has been broken for the past week or so.

I believe this will be only the second civilian nomination this Congress to be considered under a unanimous-consent agreement, not using cloture. (The other one was Rubio. None have been confirmed by unanimous consent/voice vote.)

Fun fact: In principle, the House could not propose a further amendment to this.

🤔 I agree with much of the sentiment, but... www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...

You’d think that being able to consider nominations en bloc would allow the Senate to devote more of that precious, precious floor time to legislation. 🤷‍♂️

If you’re presiding over the House and get tired of reading your lines, you can just have your script entered into the Record instead.

After years of searching…

Good strategy for those who can never remember the difference between a recorded vote and the yeas and nays:

No one made a point of order against the short title and the table of contents? 🤔

One of my vote-a-rama pet peeves: the senators presiding keep misreading their script and announcing that ‘the amendment fails’ (it should be ‘falls’).

Apparently little-known fact:

😳

Because Chadha. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Fun fact: According to Deschler, a concurrent resolution that contains legislation should be presented to the president for approval. 😳

(1) Reconciliation bill: 20 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 today, even if the Democrats don’t yield back their time, it could vote to limit debate on the reconciliation bill.

For those wondering whether the Senate can originate this reconciliation bill: probably.

😁 that they were prepared for this!