Kinda irritating.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (16)
sorted by:
Please point me to the Senate Rule that supports this. I ask sincerely to help my understanding of the rules.
https://www.rules.senate.gov/rules-of-the-senate
I found the validity of motion to discharge in XVII 4.(a).
In general parliamentary procedure, the whole always has power to retake a subject from the part.
Sorry to be so dense, but would you copy the text that you are citing for me? My old eyes just are not finding it.
"All reports of committees and motions to discharge a committee from the consideration of a subject, and all subjects from which a committee shall be discharged, shall lie over one day for consideration, unless by unanimous consent the Senate shall otherwise direct." The fact that motions by the full Senate to discharge are permitted, with the qualification of one-day layover unless waived, makes them valid. Presumably layover was waived by unanimous consent as delay would achieve nothing.
Parliamentarily, this is not used except in extreme cases, but deadlock would qualify. I was surprised to find that Dan Honemann, one of the editors of Robert's Rules Newly Revised 12th edition, is busy answering questions like this on the official forum: "If a committee has been instructed to report at a particular meeting, the chair at that meeting should call upon it to submit its report at the time designated in the standard order of business (assuming that this is the prescribed order of business). If the committee fails to submit a report at this time, as instructed, a motion to discharge it will be in order, and will require only a majority vote for its adoption." Presumably deadlock qualifies as a failure to submit/report at the designated time.
Thank you for the thorough explanation. Very helpful.
I expect the discharge to come up again.
Thank you. I will read XVIi more closely to try to understand the limitations, if any, on this "Discharge" ability. Seems prone to abuse to me.
It also seems that it's use indicates a flaw in the Senate's ability to come to agreement about an issue, and as such, the contentious issue probably needs more time for the truth of the matter to become apparent.