Menu
Arguing the ability to determine “rules of its proceedings” is insufficient to justify internal supermajoritarian rules.
Discussing “rules of proceedings” in the context of “background rules” from parliamentary practice.
Joshua A. Chafetz, Democracy’s Privileged Few: Legislative Privilege and Democratic Norms in the British and American Constitutions 208 (2007).
Describing the framing context of power to “expel a member,” the scope of the power to punish members, and whether nonmembers could be punished.
Quoting Justice Story for the proposition that “[F]or some members of the Founding Generation, the legislature’s power over its rules was merely a specific instance of a general right of self-government derived from natural law.”
John O. McGinnis & Michael B. Rappaport, Symmetric Entrenchment: A Constitutional and Normative Theory, 89 Va. L. Rev. 385 (2003).
Noting that the relevance of the Rules of Proceedings Clause to the constitutionality of legislative entrenchment might “turn[] on whether the Framers’ generation had a technical lawyer’s understanding that this matter was governed by rules of proceedings, or an ordinary person’s understanding that would be more likely to focus on legislative power.”
Describing the scope of “rules of proceedings” in arguing for the constitutionality of supermajority rules.
Laura Krugman Ray, Discipline Through Delegation: Solving the Problem of Congressional Housecleaning, 55 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 389 (1994).
Discussing meaning of “disorderly behavior.”
Have we missed an article? Please let us know of any additional scholarship that should be included in the Interactive Constitution.