Might that prevent one Member from giving his voting card to someone else and allowing that person to cast a vote on the first Member's behalf? Interesting...
15.02.2026 03:53
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Might that prevent one Member from giving his voting card to someone else and allowing that person to cast a vote on the first Member's behalf? Interesting...
Yup. I like: "At the end of 42USC1983, insert 'For acts occurring between 1/20/2025 and 1/20/2029, the foregoing provisions shall also apply to those acting under color of federal law (including any executive order or operation), with funds for any judgment drawn from budget of affected agency"
Well, if by Rule, then it wouldn't be a QoP, right? Because a QoP cannot seek to effectuate an amendment to a Rule of the House? (I'm trying to remember all I learn from our exchanges!)
Does the Speaker have that by the Rules or by resolution? If by resolution, wouldn't a new resolution ("Notwithstanding House Res. _, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House for more than 3 days before consideration of...") be a question of privileges of House? Immed. precedence if offr'd by MinLdr?
And me! And a happy birthday to you and best wishes for an easy Election Day court tomorrow, sir.
Oh my! Quite honored by that. Really never thought of it being cited by anyone. Will be getting a copy of the Wayne Law Review issue with your article for my office (and well also to read it).
Congratulations! I wrote my student Note on the Gov. absence provision in the NJ Constitution, but I felt like the subject was due far more than my elementary student view. Look forward to reading your work, Professor!
I can confirm the fanbase did not want this throw.
I always have an extra Giants hat avail, if you make the right choice
It was a beautiful May.
So predictable. Tyler used 7 pitches. Why not keep him for another inning? Ugh.
They better figure this out soon! Preferably before Sat when I go again to Citi Field. Hells Bells is not as advertised.
Enjoy the vacation! Well deserved!
Oh yeah, this would never happen. A majority strong enough to get this through would have easier ways to accomplish the same end than a non-germane amendment. Still, fun to think about.
I knew you would know the answer! So a (determined) House member seeking to make in order a non-germane amdt would have to: (a) get the rule through Rules; (b) pass the question of consideration if PoO is made against the Rule on the floor; and (c) get a majority to adopt the Rule on the floor?
Hmm. Could a Rule authorize consideration of an amendment that is not germane to the bill? Wouldn't the challenge to a non-germane amendment be a point of order that could be waived by Rule?
Or they need some time to get the votes.
Yeah, but how much opposition might occur in those 72 hours? Seems like they’ve calculated 15 hours of dry text over a wkend is less risky than 72 hours of notice?
As I understand it, the order issued from the Secretary of Defense to the Adjutant General of the California National Guard acting in his/her capacity as the vehicle for the Governor’s orders to NG
Agreed with Adam here. Steve’s article may be behind a paywall, but it is worth it. www.stevevladeck.com/p/156-federa...
@stevevladeck.bsky.social wrote a great piece on this law and its history. Don’t have the link handy but I’ll find it!
Sure, and Trump theoretically could’ve claimed to use the Insurrection Act here (and whoever is calling the shots chose not to). But the question is whether this specific section requires substantive consult with a state governor. Sadly, I don’t think that’s the best reading of the law
I think the alternative conclusion you’d draw isn’t workable though. Go back to 1963 Alabama. The President has to get substantive consent from Governor Wallace to nationalize the AL guard and enforce Brown v Bd of Ed?
Why didn’t he pitch like this when he was on the Mets?
We got some (many) problems, but McNeil is not high on the list right now. Acuña is a problem at the plate. Alvarez looks lost at the plate, too. (fixing typo)
As was Buttó. Great team win. LGM!
I regret my responsibility in this incident. I pledge to do better in the future.
I like this, I think. He’s had a good record for clean innings.
Not necessarily opposed to him getting four outs. But also: we may have other fires that need putting out over the next few games.
Would it be a save?