Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 23 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

Quorum Call: Don't Expect the Constitution to Stop Pelosi's House Hijinks

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   No comments
Author 76576
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Thomas Knapp

US Capitol west side.JPG
US Capitol west side.JPG
(Image by Wikipedia (, Author: Martin Falbisoner  (1978–)   )
  Details   Source   DMCA

In mid-May, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution authorizing remote voting by proxy. Per the resolution, one congressperson may vote on behalf of up to ten others. In theory, as few as 40 of the House's 435 members could show up in Washington for the House to do business.

But Article I, Section 5 of the US Constitution says otherwise: "[A] Majority of each [house of Congress] shall constitute a Quorum to do Business." That means 218 members must be present for the House to do anything.

As May draws to a close and the House Democratic majority prepares to race its shiny new unconstitutional proxy muscle car around the track, House Republicans are suing.

Their case seems air tight, but that doesn't mean it will get anywhere. Federal courts, write Melanie Zanona, Heather Caygle, and Sarah Ferris at Politico, "are notoriously reluctant to wade into internal House machinations. .... often citing the Constitution's language that declares that '[e]ach House may determine the rules of its proceedings.'" An obviously inapplicable excuse, true, but an available one.

There are other ways of putting the kibosh on the proxy scheme.

The Senate could simply refuse to take up any legislation passed by the House without a quorum.

Likewise, President Trump could refuse to sign such legislation even if the Senate also passed it.

Better yet, the Senate and/or the president could decline to even acknowledge such legislation as having been passed by the House at all.

How many legs does a dog have if we call its tail a leg? Four -- calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. Ditto bills supposedly passed by a House with no quorum present and therefore with no authority to pass anything at all.

Don't count on any of those outcomes any more than on the courts, though. Expecting any branch of government to start obeying the Constitution is, as Samuel Johnson called the second marriage of a man unhappy in his first, "the triumph of hope over experience."

As is depending on the Constitution itself. As 19th century American anarchist Lysander Spooner wrote of it, "this much is certain -- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it."

Neither Congress, nor the courts, nor the presidency, nor the Constitution will secure our rights for us. If we want them, we're going to have to seize them for ourselves.

Rate It | View Ratings

Thomas Knapp Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism ( He lives and works in north central Florida.

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

2020: I'm So Sick of Superlatives

America Doesn't Have Presidential Debates, But It Should

Hypocrisy Alert: Republicans Agreed with Ocasio-Cortez Until About One Minute Ago

Chickenhawk Donald: A Complete and Total Disgrace

Finally, Evidence of Russian Election Meddling ... Oh, Wait

The Nunes Memo Only Partially "Vindicates" Trump, But it Fully Indicts the FBI and the FISA Court

To View Comments or Join the Conversation: