From the Congressional Glossary – Including Legislative and Budget Terms

Blue-Slip Resolution / Star Print

Blue-Slip Resolution: House resolution ordering the return to the Senate of a Senate bill or amendment that the House believes violates the constitutional prerogative of the House to originate revenue measures.

Article I, Section 7, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Origination Clause because it provides that “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” As generally understood in both the House and Senate, this clause carries two kinds of prohibitions. First, the Senate may not originate any measure that includes a provision for raising revenue, and second, the Senate may not propose any amendment that would raise revenue to a non-revenue measure. The Senate, however, may generally amend a House-originated revenue measure as it sees fit. These prohibitions can be enforced in either the House or the Senate, and there are ample precedents for both.

Star Print: A reprint of a measure, amendment, or committee report to correct errors in a previous printing. The first page carries a small black star. Rarely used today, with technology mitigating the need.

Also see Amendment; Bills; Resolution; § 6.11 Legislation Glossary, in Congressional Deskbook.

More

• Article I, Section 7
• Cannon’s Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 180 – Prerogatives of the House as to Revenue Legislation – FDsys
• “The Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution: Interpretation and Enforcement,” CRS Report RL31399
• “Bills and Resolutions: Examples of How Each Kind Is Used,” CRS Report 98-706
• “Resolving Legislative Differences in Congress: Conference Committees and Amendments Between the Houses,” CRS Report 98-696

Courses

• Congressional Dynamics and the Legislative Process
• Congressional Briefing Conference – Capitol Hill Workshop
• Drafting Federal Legislation and Amendments
• Understanding Congressional Budgeting and Appropriations
• Advanced Legislative Strategies
• Research Workshops

Publications

CongressionalGlossary.com, from TheCapitol.Net

From the Congressional Glossary – Including Legislative and Budget Terms

Political Action Committee / PAC / Leadership PAC

Political Action Committee (PAC): A private group organized to elect or defeat government officials or to promote or defeat legislation. PACs are defined and regulated by state and federal law.

A leadership PAC is a political action committee established by a congressional member to support other candidates. A political committee that is directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained or controlled by a candidate for Federal office or an individual holding federal office but which is not an authorized committee of the candidate or individual and which is not affiliated with an authorized committee of the candidate or individual, except that leadership PAC does not include a political committee of a political party.

A candidate for a House or Senate seat may also establish her own PAC, popularly called a leadership PAC, which is a political committee directly or indirectly established and controlled by the candidate. Strictly, it is a nonconnected PAC, that is, not a PAC affiliated with a corporation, labor union, or membership organization such as a trade association or professional society. It is not the principal campaign committee or an affiliated committee of the candidate and does not influence an election on the candidate’s behalf.

A leadership PAC is subject to the same receipt limit of $5,000 applicable to other PACs. It may receive contributions from individuals, party committees, other PACs, other political committees, and from candidate campaign committees. It may donate as a PAC, which limits contributions to $5,000 for each candidate for each election. A candidate’s leadership PAC may donate up to $5,000 for each election to the candidate’s own campaign committee.

Candidates’ campaign committees and leadership PACs may only receive hard money as contributions, that is, money that is fully covered by federal laws and regulations. The kinds of contributions just described are hard money. Campaign funding that is legal but only partially or immaterially regulated is called soft money. Candidate campaign committees and leadership PACs may not receive soft money contributions. Candidates for Congress are also limited in their participation in events for raising permitted soft-money contributions, such as for state or local parties. Leadership PACs must also report contributions, including contributions bundled by lobbyists, and their spending.

Congressional leaders, aspiring leaders, and many individual members also maintain political action committees (PACs), so-called leadership PACs, which they use to support their party’s candidates for Congress. This support can even extend to advertising not specifically related to a campaign, such as a testimonial for a member on a vote he has cast. Party leaders, such as each chamber’s majority and minority leaders and the House Speaker, may have political responsibilities broader even than their leadership PAC, including not only fund-raising for their party and its members but also messaging and communications, political operations, coordination with the incumbent president (or the presidential candidate) of their party, and coordination of their PACS and campaign organization.

Also see § 2.10 Campaigns and Elections, § 2.70 Federal Campaign Finance Laws, in Congressional Deskbook; § 2.26 The Campaign Compliance Imperative, in Lobbying and Advocacy.

More

• List of Leadership PACs and Sponsors – FEC
• Metadata Description of Leadership PAC List – FEC
• What is a PAC? – opensecrets
• List of Leadership PACs – opensecrets
• “Campaign Financing,” CRS Report IB87020
• “Lobbying and Related Reform Proposals,” CRS Report RL33293
• “Lobbying Regulations on Non-Profit Organizations,” CRS Report 96-809
• “Political Action Committees: Their Evolution, Growth and Implications for the Political System,” CRS Report 84-78
• “The Constitutionality of Campaign Finance Regulation: Buckley v. Valeo and Its Supreme Court Progeny,” CRS Report RL30669
• “Political Spending by Organized Labor: Background and Current Issues,” CRS Report 96-484

Capitol Learning Audio Course ^TM

• PAC Management: Advanced PAC Strategy

Courses

• Congressional Dynamics and the Legislative Process
• Congressional Briefing Conference – Capitol Hill Workshop
• Drafting Federal Legislation and Amendments
• Understanding Congressional Budgeting and Appropriations
• Advanced Legislative Strategies
• Research Workshops

Publications

CongressionalGlossary.com, from TheCapitol.Net

George Wythe (pronounced “with”) was the personal mentor to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison (1749-1812) [a cousin to the more famous James Madison], John Marshall, and many other notable founders of the United States. Consequently, he was known as America’s “Teacher of Liberty.”

A statesman in his own right, Wythe signed the Declaration of Independence, served in the First Continental Congress, and was a Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He also helped develop the Bill of Rights. While teaching at the College of William and Mary, he was the first professor to make American Constitutional Law the subject of regular instruction.

About George Wythe University

Wythe House in Colonial Williamsburg, VA, by Bradley Jones

George Wythe, the second of Thomas and Margaret Wythe’s three children, was born in 1726 on his family’s plantation on the Back River in Elizabeth City County, VA. Both parents died when Wythe was young, and he grew up under the guardianship of his older brother, Thomas. Though Wythe was to become an eminent jurist and teacher, he received very little formal education. He learned Latin and Greek from his well-educated mother, and he probably attended for a time a grammar school operated by the College of William and Mary.

Wythe’s brother later sent him to Prince George County to read law under an uncle. In 1746, at age 20, he joined the bar, moved to Spotsylvania County, and became associated with a lawyer there. In 1747 he married his partner’s sister, Ann Lewis, but she died the next year. In 1754 Lt. Gov. Robert Dinwiddie appointed him as acting colonial attorney general, a position that he held for only a few months. The next year, Wythe’s brother died and he inherited the family estate. He chose, however, to live in Williamsburg in the house that his new father-in-law, an architect, designed and built for him and his wife, Elizabeth Taliaferro. They married in 1755, and their only child died in infancy.

At Williamsburg, Wythe immersed himself in further study of the classics and the law and achieved accreditation by the colonial supreme court. He served in the House of Burgesses from the mid-1750s until 1775, first as delegate and after 1769 as clerk. In 1768 he became mayor of Williamsburg, and the next year he sat on the board of visitors of the College of William and Mary. During these years he also directed the legal studies of young scholars, notably Thomas Jefferson. Wythe and Jefferson maintained a lifelong friendship, first as mentor and pupil and later as political allies.

Wythe first exhibited revolutionary leanings in 1764 when Parliament hinted to the colonies that it might impose a stamp tax. By then an experienced legislator, he drafted for the House of Burgesses a remonstrance to Parliament so strident that his fellow delegates modified it before adoption. Wythe was one of the first to express the concept of separate nationhood for the colonies within the British empire.

When war broke out, Wythe volunteered for the army but was sent to the Continental Congress. Although present from 1775 through 1776, Wythe exerted little influence and signed the Declaration of Independence after the formal signing in August 1776. That same year, Wythe, Jefferson, and Edmund Pendleton undertook a 3-year project to revise Virginia’s legal code. In 1777 Wythe also presided as speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates.

An appointment as one of the three judges of the newly created Virginia high court of chancery followed in 1778. For 28 years, during 13 of which he was the only chancellor, Wythe charted the course of Virginia jurisprudence. In addition, he was an ex officio member of the state superior court.

Wythe’s real love was teaching. In 1779 Jefferson and other officials of the College of William and Mary created the first chair of law in a U.S. institution of higher learning and appointed Wythe to fill it. In that position, he educated America’s earliest college-trained lawyers, among them John Marshall and James Monroe. In 1787 he attended the Constitutional Convention but played an insignificant role. He left the proceedings early and did not sign the Constitution. The following year, however, he was one of the Federalist leaders at the Virginia ratifying convention. There he presided over the Committee of the Whole and offered the resolution for ratification.

In 1791, the year after Wythe resigned his professorship, his chancery duties caused him to move to Richmond, the state capital. He was reluctant to give up his teaching, however, and opened a private law school. One of his last and most promising pupils was young Henry Clay.

In 1806, in his eightieth year, Wythe died at Richmond under mysterious circumstances, probably of poison administered by his grandnephew and heir, George Wythe Sweeney. Reflecting a lifelong aversion to slavery, Wythe emancipated his slaves in his will. His grave is in the yard of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Richmond, VA.
Source: America’s Founding Fathers: Virginia, National Archives

George Wythe, from William and Mary Law School

The first chair of law in America and the second in the English-speaking world was established December 4, 1779, at the College of William and Mary. The College’s board of visitors included among others Governor Thomas Jefferson, James Blair, James Madison (1749-1812) [a cousin to the more famous James Madison], Edmund Randolph, Thomas Nelson, and Benjamin Harrison. They elected as the first professor to occupy that chair George Wythe, styled by Jefferson as the American Aristides.
. . .
[Thomas] Jefferson said of Wythe, “He was my ancient master, my earliest and best friend, and to him I am indebted for first impressions which have had the most salutary influence on the course of my life.”

Besides Jefferson, Wythe at one time or another taught John Marshall, James Monroe, Edmund Randolph, and Henry Clay. Thus the mind of George Wythe, acting through those whom he had trained, dominated the policies of this republic for fully fifty years, and is still a potent force.

George Wythe: William & Mary’s – and the nation’s – first law professor, W&M Law School

Seals of Virginia, B&W

Seal of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Encyclopedia Virginia

Wythe played a role in creating [Virginia's] new constitution and served with Jefferson on the committee that revised Virginia’s laws. Wythe also sat on the committee to design Virginia’s seal.
…
Jefferson wrote a brief sketch of Wythe near the end of his own lifetime.

George Wythe, Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia, Monticello.

Sic semper tyrannis

(letter) I became acquainted with Mr. Wythe when he was about thirty-five years of age. He directed my studies in the law, led me into business, and continued, until death, my most affectionate friend. A close intimacy with him, during that period of forty odd years, the most important of his life, enables me to state its leading facts, which, being of my own knowledge, I vouch their truth. Of what precedes that period, I speak from hearsay only, in which there may be error, but of little account, as the character of the facts will themselves manifest. In the epoch of his birth I may err a little, stating that from the recollection of a particular incident, the date of which, within a year or two, I do not distinctly remember. These scanty outlines, you will be able, I hope, to fill up from other information, and they may serve you, sometimes, as landmarks to distinguish truth from error, in what you hear from others. The exalted virtue of the man will also be a polar star to guide you in all matters which may touch that element of his character. But on that you will receive imputation from no man; for, as far as I know, he never had an enemy. Little as I am able to contribute to the just reputation of this excellent man, it is the act of my life most gratifying to my heart: and leaves me only to regret that a waning memory can do no more.
. . .
(notes) George Wythe was born about the year 1727 or 1728, of a respectable family in the county of Elizabeth City, on the shores of the Chesapeake. He inherited, from his father, a fortune sufficient for independence and ease. He had not the benefit of a regular education in the schools, but acquired a good one of himself, and without assistance; insomuch, as to become the best Latin and Greek scholar in the state. It is said, that while reading the Greek Testament, his mother held an English one, to aid him in rendering the Greek text conformably with that. He also acquired, by his own reading, a good knowledge of Mathematics, and of Natural and Moral Philosophy. He engaged in the study of the law under the direction of a Mr. Lewis, of that profession, and went early to the bar of the General Court, then occupied by men of great ability, learning, and dignity in their profession. He soon became eminent among them, and, in process of time, the first at the bar, taking into consideration his superior learning, correct elocution, and logical style of reasoning; for in pleading he never indulged himself with an useless or declamatory thought or word; and became as distinguished by correctness and purity of conduct in his profession, as he was by his industry and fidelity to those who employed him. He was early elected to the House of Representatives, then called the House of Burgesses, and continued in it until the Revolution. On the first dawn of that, instead of higgling on half-way principles, as others did who feared to follow their reason, he took his stand on the solid ground, that the only link of political union between us and Great Britain, was the identity of our Executive; that that nation and its Parliament had no more authority over us, than we had over them, and that we were co-ordinate nations with Great Britain and Hanover.

Letter to John Saunderson, Esq., Notes for the Biography of George Wythe, by Thomas Jefferson, August 31, 1820. (Copy of handwritten note at the Library of Congress.)

General Court in the Capitol, Williamsburg, James City County, VA, Library of Congress, csas200905870

One person has estimated that Wythe instructed fewer than 200 pupils in the law, yet is is amazing what these students accomplished in later life. Students taught by George Wythe occupied almost every office this young nation had to offer, including President, Vice President, Secretary of State, Attorney General, U.S. Senator, Speaker of the U.S. House, Chief Justice, Associate Justice, federal District Judge, foreign Minister, Governor of Virginia, President of the Virginia Court of Appeals, member of the Virginia, Kentucky, and North Carolina legislatures, President of William and Mary, Professor of Law at both William and Mary and Transylvania, and Episcopal Bishop of Virginia. While some of the men who occupied such stations were taught by Wythe in a private capacity, it is also true that “no law school in America has since sent from its class rooms into public life, in the same length of time, if at all, an equal number of men of such amazing ability.”

Chapter 8 The Teaching of George Wythe, by Thomas Hunter, in “The History of Legal Education in the United States: Commentaries And Primary Sources, Volume 1, by Steve Sheppard and William Enfield. Pasadena, CA: Salem Press, 1999, reprinted by Lawbook Exchange, 2007, pages 153-154, footnotes omitted.

More

• George Wythe – Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
• “George Wythe Teaches America the Law,” by Jack Lynch, Colonial Williamsburg Journal, Spring 2010
• George Wythe – Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
• George Wythe – Wikipedia
• “George Wythe: Lawyer, Revolutionary, Judge,” by Robert Bevier Kirtland. New York: Garland, 1986. Worldcat
• “George Wythe of Williamsburg,” by Robert A. Peterson, The Freeman, June 1984
• “American Aristides: A Biography of George Wythe,” by Imogene E. Brown. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1981.
• Chapter 8 The Teaching of George Wythe, by Thomas Hunter, in “The History of Legal Education in the United States: Commentaries And Primary Sources, Volume 1, by Steve Sheppard and William Enfield. Pasadena, CA: Salem Press, 1999, reprinted by Lawbook Exchange, 2007 (Dr. Thomas R. Hunter is a professor at the University of West Georgia.)
• “Discovered: Jefferson’s list of George Wythe’s ‘legacie’,” Monticello, Winter 2009 (2-page PDF)
• George Wythe House on Palace Green, Williamsburg, VA

From the Congressional Glossary – Including Legislative and Budget Terms

Appeal the Ruling of the Chair

Stone walls and chains do not make a prison --- for Houdini, Library of Congress, LC-USZC2-3784

The right to appeal from a decision of the Chair on a question of order is derived from the English Parliament and is recognized under clause 5 of House Rule I, which dates from 1789. This right of appeal, which may be invoked by any House member, protects the House against arbitrary control by the Speaker.

Member: I (respectfully) appeal the ruling of the Chair.
Chair: The question is, shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House [or the Committee]?

An appeal is debatable but is subject to the motions for the previous question and to table in the House. In the Committee of the Whole, an appeal is subject to the motion to limit debate and to rise and close debate in the House. The vote on an appeal may be taken by record vote. A majority vote sustains the ruling. The weight of precedent indicates that a tie vote (especially where the Chair has not voted to make the tie) sustains the ruling as well. The Chair may vote to make or break a tie and may cast a vote in favor of the decision.

An appeal from a ruling of the Chair goes only to the propriety of the ruling; the vote thereon should not be interpreted as a vote on the merits of the issue at hand.

Clause 5 of House Rule I provides the right of appeal from decisions of the Speaker on questions of order. An appeal may also be taken from the ruling of the chair of the Committee of the Whole on a question of order. For example, an appeal may be taken from a ruling of the Chair on the germaneness of an amendment or that an amendment proposes to change a portion of the bill already passed in the reading. The Speaker’s decision on a question of order is not subject to appeal if the decision is one that falls within the discretionary authority of the Chair.

In the Committee of the Whole, a member can move to close debate (end debate) on a pending amendment or to limit debate at a specified time. (After the last section of the bill has been read in the House sitting as the House, a member can move the previous question. This motion is not in order in the Committee of the Whole.) Unlike the previous question, closing or limiting debate does not preclude offering additional amendments. It means that all subsequent amendments are decided without debate.

Source: House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House, Chapter 3. Appeals, § 1 In General; Forms.

Also see Committee of the Whole; Germane / Germaneness; Point of Order; Previous Question; Recorded VoteSpeaker; § 6.120 Committee of the Whole: Amendment Process, in Congressional Deskbook.

More

• “Suspension of the Rules in the House of Representatives,” CRS Report RL32474
• “Points of Order, Rulings, and Appeals in the House of Representatives,” CRS Report 98-307
• “The Amending Process in the House of Representatives,” CRS Report 98-995
• “Commonly Used Motions and Requests in the House of Representatives,” CRS Report RL32207

Courses

• Congressional Dynamics and the Legislative Process
• Capitol Hill Workshop – Congressional Operations Briefing and Seminar
• Drafting Federal Legislation and Amendments
• Understanding Congressional Budgeting and Appropriations
• Advanced Legislative Strategies

Publications

CongressionalGlossary.com, from TheCapitol.Net

George Mason is known, together with James Madison, as the “Father of the Bill of Rights.” However, George Mason would be better named the “Grandfather of the Bill of Rights” since the basis for the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution was the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

That all men are born equally free and independant, and have certain inherent natural rights,… among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of acquiring and possessing Property, and pursueing and obtaining Happiness and Safety.

George Mason, Virginia Declaration of Rights, May, 1776.

Virginia’s Declaration of Rights was drawn upon by Thomas Jefferson for the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. It was widely copied by the other colonies and became the basis of the Bill of Rights. Written by George Mason in May 1776, and amended by Thomas Ludwell Lee and the Virginia Convention, it was adopted by the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776. This uniquely influential document was also used by James Madison in drawing up the Bill of Rights in 1789.

The George Mason Bronze, on the GMU campus in Fairfax, VA

George Mason, for whom [George Mason University] is named, was one of the greatest of the founding fathers of the United States. Mason drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which became a model for the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps the most well-known landmark on the Fairfax Campus [of George Mason University], the George Mason Bronze is located between the Johnson Center and the Performing Arts Building. Created by internationally known artist Wendy M. Ross, it is the first three-dimensional portrait of George Mason in the United States.

Seven feet tall, the statue portrays the great statesman presenting his handwritten first draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

The writing table on Mason’s right replicates the original, which can be found in the study at Gunston Hall, his home in Fairfax County, Virginia. The three books on the table–works by Hume, Locke, and Rousseau–depict the sources of his thoughts on individual liberty.

The statue is a constant reminder of the ideals most important to both the man and the university: freedom and learning.

George Mason, the Man, from George Mason University

Virginia Declaration of Rights

George Mason wrote the first draft of The Virginia Declaration of Rights in May 1776.

The Virginia Convention met in Williamsburg on May 6, 1776, and by May 15th had passed a resolution calling for the Virginia delegates at the Continental Congress to move for independence. At the same time they formed a committee for drafting a bill of rights and a constitution for Virginia. George Mason took the lead on this project and his notes below are considered the first draft. To this draft eight additional propositions were added by the committee before it was read to the Convention on May 27, 1776. After debate, and several changes, the Declaration of Rights was passed unanimously on June 11, 1776.

A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government .

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.

Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

Section 4. That no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, nor being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.

Section 5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part, of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.

Section 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled for the public good.

Section 7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.

Section 8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man has a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.

Section 9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Section 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.

Section 11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.

Section 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Section 14. That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from or independent of the government of Virginia ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.

Section 15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

Section 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.

Adopted unanimously June 12, 1776
Virginia Convention of Delegates

“The federal and state constitutions, colonial charters, and other organic laws of the United States,” by Benjamin Perley Poore. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1878, pages 1908-1909.

The current Virginia Constitution and Bill of Rights is found here.

More

• George Mason – Wikipedia
• Gunston Hall, home of George Mason
• The Virginia Declaration of Rights – NARA
• Virginia’s Declaration of Rights – Primary Documents in American History, Library of Congress
• Declaration of Independence
• Bill of Rights
• George Mason Memorial – National Park Service
• George Mason Memorial – Wikipedia
• George Mason University
• James Madison

From the Congressional Glossary – Including Legislative and Budget Terms

President of the United States / State of the Union

The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, established the office of the President of the United States, who is the head of the executive branch of the United States government:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected…

Article II, Section 1 – The President

The power of the executive branch is vested in the president, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

U.S. Constitution, Article 2 – The Executive Branch
  Section 1 – The President
  Section 2 – Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
  Section 3 – State of the Union, Convening Congress
  Section 4 – Disqualification

It is possible under the Constitution for the president to reconvene Congress within or between sessions. The threat of the president calling Congress back is sometimes used tactically to extract an extra effort from Congress toward completing a specific legislative action.

[The president] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper….

Article II, Section 3, U.S. Constitution

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Twentieth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Section 1.

The inauguration of the president is referred to as a “joint gathering” of Congress, although in recent years it has been held pursuant to concurrent resolution and thus would be a joint session of Congress.

A piece of legislation must also pass the test of having sufficient political support to gain the president’s signature to become law. The president, however, might veto a measure for any number of reasons, including a different sense of what the nation wants or needs. For Congress then to override a presidential veto requires a two-thirds supermajority in each chamber. On those infrequent occasions when a veto is overridden, political consensus in Congress must be very high.

It is in the power of the presidential veto that one can clearly see what the phrase “co-equal branches of government” means. Unless there are two-thirds of the members of each chamber willing to vote to override a veto, almost the equivalent of Congress speaking with one voice, the power of the sole executive–the president–is equal to the votes of more than 280 representatives and more than 60 senators, assuming all members are present and vote overwhelmingly for a measure. But few controversial measures pass Congress by majorities within striking distance of the two thirds required for a veto override. The president’s exercise of the veto should be seen as a constitutional action first and a political action second.

Lansdowne portrait of George Washington by Gilbert Stuart, 1796

GAO is headed by the comptroller general. After receiving a list of candidates from a special bicameral, bipartisan commission, the president nominates the comptroller general to a fifteen-year term; the presidential appointment is subject to the Senate’s confirmation.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) organizes the preparation of the annual budget in the executive branch, and works to implement the president’s guidance and decisions during that process.

Congress typically holds several joint meetings or joint sessions each year, one to receive the president’s State of the Union address and others to allow noted Americans and foreign leaders to address members of the House and Senate meeting together. The president in his State of the Union address to Congress outlines his priorities for the year, which may lead to legislation. Senators, by tradition, rarely introduce legislation until after the president delivers his State of the Union address.

In contemporary practice, the president appears before a joint session of Congress in late January to deliver a speech popularly referred to as the State of the Union address or message, laying out his legislative program, explaining his policies on the major issues of the time, and exhorting Congress to take specific actions in support of his vision and program. The address emanates from a constitutional provision (Article II, Section 3, clause 1): “He [the president] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient[.]”

After consultation with the White House, the House and Senate pass a concurrent resolution setting a day and time for a joint session “for receiving such communication as the President of the United States shall be pleased to make to them.” When the day arrives, a special security sweep is made of the Capitol, and other security measures are triggered. The senators are escorted to the House chamber by the Senate sergeant at arms. Other dignitaries are also seated in the chamber–former members, justices of the Supreme Court, the joint chiefs of staff, Cabinet secretaries and Cabinet-rank officials, and ambassadors to the United States. Traditionally, one Cabinet secretary and several members of Congress, representing both parties, do not attend the joint session, to ensure succession should a catastrophe happen at the Capitol while the president is there. The first lady and guests of the president are allocated seats in the gallery. Other gallery guests must obtain tickets.

James Madison, Father of the Constitution, 4th President of the United States. Portrait by John Vanderlyn

The Speaker presides over the joint session, but shares the dais with the vice president in his role as president of the Senate. A group of senators and representatives that was previously selected escorts the president into the chamber. The president is announced first at the House door by the House sergeant at arms and then again by the Speaker after the president takes his place on the dais. The group of members also escorts the president out of the chamber after he completes his address.

President Truman’s 1947 address was the first to be televised. President Johnson was the first to make his address during prime-time television viewing hours, recognizing the opportunity to speak to the nation that the event presented. A formal opposing-party response was first made in 1966. The State of the Union address has now become an important media event, and both parties use it to publicize their positions on issues covered or not covered in the address, in events both before and after the address.

Immediately following a State of the Union address, members of Congress meet the press in National Statuary Hall to put their “spin” on it. The day after the State of the Union address, the president might travel to several states to publicize his program and to build public support for his proposals. In years in which a new president takes office, the outgoing president might choose not to deliver an address in person, or might choose to make a televised address at a place other than the Capitol, and the incoming president might choose to make a more focused address several months into office to seek action by Congress on a specific presidential initiative.

Also see Comptroller General; Electoral College; Executive Branch; Executive Order; Executive Privilege; Impeach / Impeachment; Joint Session; Office of Management and Budget (OMB); Presidential Appointment; Presidential Signature / Presidential Signing Statements; Presidential Succession; President of the Senate; President Pro Tempore; Speaker; Terms and Sessions of Congress; Veto; § 5.30 Terms and Sessions of Congress, § 6.290 Presidential Action on Enacted Measures, § 7.40 Presidential Budget Process, § 8.20 Congress and the Executive: Legislation, § 8.21 State of the Union Address, § 8.90 Congress and the Executive: Presidential Election and Succession, in Congressional Deskbook.

More

• The Presidents – White House
• James Madison, Father of the Constitution (1751-1836)
• President of the United States – Wikipedia
• “Presidential and Vice Presidential Terms and Tenure,” CRS Report RS20827
• “Presidential and Vice Presidential Succession: Overview and Current Legislation,” CRS Report RL31761
• “War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance,” CRS Report IB81050
• “Election of the President and Vice President by Congress: Contingent Election,” CRS Report RS20300
• “The Role of the President in Budget Development,” CRS Report RS20179
• “The President’s State of the Union Message: Frequently Asked Questions,” CRS Report RS20021
• “Impeachment: An Overview of Constitutional Provisions, Procedure, and Practice,” CRS Report 98-186
• “Censure of the President by the Congress,” CRS Report 98-843
• “Presidential Nominating Process: Current Issues,” CRS Report RL34222

Courses

• Congressional Dynamics and the Legislative Process
• Capitol Hill Workshop – Congressional Operations Briefing and Seminar
• Drafting Federal Legislation and Amendments
• Understanding Congressional Budgeting and Appropriations
• Advanced Legislative Strategies

Publications

CongressionalGlossary.com, from TheCapitol.Net

From the Congressional Glossary – Including Legislative and Budget Terms

Executive Privilege / Qualified Privilege

The phrase “executive privilege” is a shorthand reference to the “qualified privilege” of the executive to decline to respond to a request for information–documents or testimony or both–from either of the other two branches of the federal government. A unanimous circuit court opinion in 1997 distinguished between two different kinds of executive privilege—presidential communications privilege and deliberative process privilege–with different legal bases and different thresholds of need required to compel disclosure.

Presidential communications privilege is based in “the constitutional separation of powers principles and the President’s unique constitutional role.” (In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729 at 745, 326 U.S.App.D.C. 276 (D.C. Cir. 1997).) This privilege allows the president to protect from disclosure the details of decision-making and deliberations with close advisors. Presidential communications are considered to be “presumptively privileged,” but the privilege is not absolute; it may be overcome by an adequate showing of need. The court indicated that “the privilege should apply only to communications authored or solicited and received by those members of an immediate White House adviser’s staff who have broad and significant responsibility for investigating and formulating the advice to be given the President on the particular matter to which the communications relate.” The privilege protects such communications where they involve government operations that require the president’s direct decision-making. The In re Sealed Case court limited the claim of such privilege to those advisors in close decisional proximity to the president. The court specified that “the privilege should not extend to staff outside the White House in executive branch agencies.” The reasoning of the court in In re Sealed Case was subsequently adopted in Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice, 365 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Presidential claims of executive privilege are unusual, and they are normally made by the president or at his direction. Such claims usually lead to negotiations between the White House and Congress.

Deliberative process privilege is a common-law privilege and applies to executive officials generally. The threshold of need for overcoming this claim of privilege is lower than for overcoming a claim of presidential communications privilege. If a claim is made by a department or agency that does not involve the president and his assertion of the claim, the practice is for a requesting congressional committee to make a case-by-case evaluation of the claim. The department or agency and Congress normally negotiate over the requested material, and a congressional committee might begin drafting a congressional contempt citation to add leverage to its request. If negotiations between Congress and the executive fail, the parent chamber can adopt a contempt citation and even seek relief in the courts. Alternatively, Congress may use other constitutional powers, such as its appropriations authority or the Senate’s confirmation power, as leverage in obtaining the needed information.

Special privilege, Puck, March 25, 1908, Library of Congress

Since the beginning of the federal government, Presidents have called upon executive branch officials to provide them with advice regarding matters of policy and administration. While Cabinet members were among the first to play such a role, the creation of the Executive Office of the President (EOP) in 1939 and the various agencies located within that structure resulted in a large increase in the number and variety of presidential advisers. All senior staff members of the White House Office and the leaders of the various EOP agencies and instrumentalities could be said to serve as advisers to the President.

Occasionally, these executive branch officials playing a presidential advisory role have been called upon to testify before congressional committees and subcommittees. Sometimes, such invited appearances have been prompted by allegations of personal misconduct on the part of the official, but they have also included instances when accountability for policymaking and administrative or managerial actions have instigated the request for testimony. Because such appearances before congressional committees or subcommittees seemingly could result in demands for advice proffered to the President, or the disclosure–inadvertent or otherwise–of such advice, there has been resistance, from time to time, by the Chief Executive to allowing such testimony.

Congress has a constitutionally rooted right of access to the information it needs to perform its Article I legislative and oversight functions. Generally, a congressional committee with jurisdiction over the subject matter, which is conducting an authorized investigation for legislative or oversight purposes, has a right to information held by the executive branch in the absence of either a valid claim of constitutional privilege by the executive or a statutory provision whereby Congress has limited its constitutional right to information.

A congressional committee may request (informally or by a letter from the committee chair, perhaps co-signed by the ranking member) or demand (pursuant to subpoena) the testimony of a presidential adviser. However, Congress may encounter legal and political problems in attempting to enforce a subpoena to a presidential adviser. Conflicts concerning congressional requests or demands for executive branch testimony or documents often involve extensive negotiations and may be resolved by some form of compromise as to, inter alia, the scope of the testimony or information to be provided to Congress.

Also see Appropriation; Contempt of Congress; Executive Branch; Oversight / Oversight Committee; President of the United States; Ranking Member; § 8.72 Executive Privilege, in Congressional Deskbook.

More

• In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729 at 745, 326 U.S.App.D.C. 276 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (46-page PDF)
• “Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege: History, Law, Practice and Recent Developments,” CRS Report RL30319
• “Congressional Access to Executive Branch Information: Legislative Tools,” CRS Report RL30966
• “Homeland Security: The Presidential Coordination Office,” CRS Report RL31148
• “Presidential Advisers’ Testimony Before Congressional Committees: A Brief Overview,” CRS Report RL31351
• “Obstruction of Justice: An Overview of Some of the Federal Statutes That Prohibit Interference with Judicial, Executive, or Legislative Activities,” CRS Report RL34303
• “The Position of Director of National Intelligence: Issues for Congress,” CRS Report RL32506
• “Congressional Investigations: Subpoenas and Contempt Power,” CRS Report RL31836
• “Congressional Oversight Manual,” CRS Report RL30240
• “House Resolutions of Inquiry,” CRS Report RL31909

Courses

• Congressional Dynamics and the Legislative Process
• Capitol Hill Workshop – Congressional Operations Briefing and Seminar
• Drafting Federal Legislation and Amendments
• Understanding Congressional Budgeting and Appropriations
• Advanced Legislative Strategies

Publications

CongressionalGlossary.com, from TheCapitol.Net

As part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), P.L. 111-148, as amended, Congress enacted a “minimum coverage provision,” which compels certain individuals to have a minimum level of health insurance (i.e., an “individual mandate”). Individuals who fail to do so may be subject to a monetary penalty, administered through the tax code. Congress has never compelled individuals to buy health insurance, and there has been significant controversy and debate over whether the requirement is within the scope of Congress’ legislative powers.

The Supreme Court,—"As It May Hereafter Be Constituted", in Puck, 1896

(cartoon info here)

Shortly after ACA was enacted, several lawsuits were filed that challenge the individual mandate on constitutional grounds. While some of these cases have been dismissed for procedural reasons, others have moved forward. These challenges have now reached the Supreme Court. During the last week of March, the Court heard arguments in HHS v. Florida, a case in which attorneys general and governors in 26 states as well as others brought an action against the Administration, seeking to invalidate the individual mandate and other provisions of ACA. Besides evaluating the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the Court is examining the question of whether the Anti-Injunction Act currently prevents the Court from ruling on the merits of the case. It also is considering the extent to which the minimum coverage provision can be severed from the remainder of ACA, if it is found to be unconstitutional. Finally, the Court is analyzing ACA’s expansion of the Medicaid program and whether it unconstitutionally “coerces” states into compliance with federal requirements.

While there is no specific enumerated constitutional power to regulate health care or establish a minimum coverage provision, Congress’s taxing power or its power to regulate interstate commerce may be pertinent. With regard to the taxing power, the requirement to purchase health insurance might be construed as a tax and upheld so long as it was found to comply with the constitutional restrictions imposed on direct and indirect taxes. On the other hand, opponents of the minimum coverage provision may argue that since it is imposed conditionally and may be avoided by compliance with regulations set out in the statute, that the requirement may be more accurately described as a penalty. If so, the taxing power alone might not provide Congress the constitutional authority to support this provision.

In evaluating the minimum coverage provision under the Commerce Clause, one of several issues that may be examined is whether the individual mandate is a regulation of economic activity. Some argue that the requirement to purchase health insurance is economic in nature because it regulates how an individual participates in the health care market, through insurance or otherwise. Conversely, others argue that forcing individuals to participate in commerce in order to regulate them goes beyond the bounds of the clause.

This report analyzes certain constitutional issues raised by requiring individuals to purchase health insurance under Congress’s authority under its taxing power or its power to regulate interstate commerce. It also addresses whether the exceptions to the minimum coverage provision to purchase health insurance satisfy First Amendment freedom of religion protections. Finally, this report discusses some of the more publicized legal challenges to ACA, as well additional issues that are currently before the Court.

“Requiring Individuals to Obtain Health Insurance: A Constitutional Analysis,” CRS Report R40725, April 6, 2012 (42-page PDF)

A free download of our Pocket Constitution is available on Scribd.
While supplies last, single copies of this Pocket Constitution are available at no charge. For details, see TCNConst.com

More

• The United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence
• Pocket Constitution
• Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) – Wikipedia
• Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Cases – United States Supreme Court
• ACA Federal Funds Tracker – Kaiser Family Foundation
• “Affordable Care Act: Litigation Resources,” CRS Report R42437, March 23, 2012 (13-page PDF)
• “Federalism Challenge to Medicaid Expansion Under the Affordable Care Act: Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services,” CRS Report R42367, February 21, 2012 (20-page PDF)

From the Congressional Glossary – Including Legislative and Budget Terms

Amending the Constitution

One of the ways in which federalism is most clearly expressed in the Constitution is in the process for its amendment. Nine of the thirteen original states were required to ratify the Constitution to establish it. Amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the states (thirty-eight states today) to take effect.

The Constitution provides two methods for proposing amendments and two methods for ratifying amendments. Article V reads as follows:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose
Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress. . . .

All amendments to the Constitution that have been adopted have been proposed by Congress. All but the Twenty-First Amendment, which repealed the Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition), were ratified by state legislatures. The Twenty-First Amendment was ratified by the convention method.

Any member of Congress may propose a constitutional amendment by introducing a joint resolution. A joint resolution may be introduced in the House (H.J. Res.) or Senate (S.J. Res.), or companion joint resolutions might be introduced by like-minded members in each chamber. Joint resolutions proposing to amend the Constitution are within the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, to which these resolutions are referred.

If the committees choose to act, they would most likely follow normal legislative procedures–hearings at the subcommittee or full committee level or both, possibly subcommittee markup, full committee markup, and reporting. Floor consideration of a joint resolution proposing to amend the Constitution would also likely happen under a set of procedures that the House or Senate normally crafts to consider important legislation.

The Constitution, however, requires supermajority votes in the full House and Senate–a two thirds vote in each chamber. This provision has been interpreted as two-thirds present and voting, a quorum being present; it is not two-thirds of the membership. Like other legislation, each chamber must agree to exactly the same proposed amendment before it can be submitted to the states. A conference committee might be needed to reconcile differences in joint resolutions approved in the House and Senate. A two-thirds vote of those voting in each chamber would be needed to adopt the conference report on a joint resolution.

The president does not have a formal role in the amendment process. He might exhort Congress to submit a constitutional amendment to the states on some subject, lending his political support to a movement to amend the Constitution, or he might oppose an amendment. But a proposed amendment does not need the president’s review or approval before being submitted to the states.

Once Congress has completed its role in proposing an amendment, the joint resolution is transmitted to the archivist of the United States, who is the head of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The archivist has delegated ministerial functions related to the amendment process to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) within NARA. OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution, and publishes it in slip-law format. OFR also prepares official and informational documents for the archivist to submit to the states.

The archivist notifies each state governor with a letter and the documents prepared by OFR. Assuming the joint resolution provides for ratification by three-fourths of the states’ legislatures, the governors submit the proposed amendment to the legislatures.

State legislatures have adopted different procedures for ratification. For example, some require a supermajority vote. (States also adopted or had in effect differing provisions for the state conventions that ratified the Twenty-First Amendment, repealing the Eighteenth Amendment.) Legislatures must ratify the exact amendment proposed by Congress, and must include a clear statement of ratification in the legislative act they use to express ratification. They may not amend the proposed amendment or attach conditions to ratification. The question of whether ratification by a legislature can subsequently be rescinded is not settled. Because the Constitution requires ratification by state legislatures, governors are not required to approve or sign ratification legislation, although they might lend support or express opposition during legislative debate over the amendment.

States send ratification documents to the archivist, where OFR examines them for legal sufficiency. OFR retains the documents until the amendment is ratified or fails ratification. Once ratification documents are received from the constitutionally required three-fourths of the states, the archivist issues a proclamation certifying ratification. The certification is published in the Federal Register and the Statutes at Large.

In the twentieth century, Congress began the practice of setting a time limit for states to ratify a proposed amendment. Seven years has been the time limit used, although amendments that have been ratified have usually achieved ratification within one or two years.

Like other legislation, members might introduce the same constitutional amendments in one Congress after another, making their opinions known and working to change the Constitution. Even if an amendment is submitted to the states and fails ratification within the prescribed time period, members might introduce a new joint resolution with the same or similar language in another Congress and work for its adoption and submission to the states.

Twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution have been ratified. Seven other amendments submitted to the states have failed ratification.

Amendments to the Constitution

Also see the Bill of Rights Card, from Two Seas Media.

Also see The Constitution of the United States; Conference Committee; Markup; Quorum; Slip Law; § 8.210 Congress and Federalism: Amending the Constitution, in Congressional Deskbook.

More

• House Judiciary Committee
• Senate Judiciary Committee
• The Constitution of the United States
• The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription – The National Archives
• United States Constitution: Texts, Commentaries, Historical Texts and Judicial Decisions – Law Library of Congress
• The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation – FDsys
• “Federalism and the Constitution: Limits on Congressional Power,” CRS Report RL30315
• “Ratification of Amendments to the U.S. Constitution,” CRS Report 97-922
• “The Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution: Interpretation and Enforcement,” CRS Report RL31399
• “Constitutional Conventions: Political and Legal Questions,” CRS Report IB80062
• “A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment: Background and Congressional Options,” CRS Report 97-379
• “Flag Protection: A Brief History and Summary of Supreme Court Decisions and Proposed Constitutional Amendments,” CRS Report 95-709
• “Super-Majority Voting Requirement for Tax Increases: An Overview of Proposals for a Constitutional Amendment,” CRS Report 98-351
• “Victims’ Rights Amendment: Proposals to Amend the United States Constitution in the 106th Congress,” CRS Report RL30525
• “House Vacancies: Proposed Constitutional Amendments for Filling Them Due to National Emergencies,” CRS Report RL32031
• “Legal Analysis of President Reagan’s Proposed Constitutional Amendment on School Prayer,” CRS Report SP-82
• “The Proposed Equal Rights Amendment,” CRS Report 82-51

Courses

• Congressional Dynamics and the Legislative Process
• Capitol Hill Workshop – Congressional Operations Briefing and Seminar
• Drafting Federal Legislation and Amendments
• Understanding Congressional Budgeting and Appropriations
• Advanced Legislative Strategies

Publications

CongressionalGlossary.com, from TheCapitol.Net

From the Congressional Glossary – Including Legislative and Budget Terms

Presidential Succession

Under Article II and the Twelfth, Twentieth, and Twenty-fifth Amendments to the Constitution, Congress has critical roles to play in the selection of the president and vice president during the quadrennial election process and in the event of a vacancy between elections.

Article II, Section 1, as modified by the Twelfth Amendment, established Congress’ role in the electoral college system. Under these constitutional provisions and federal law, Congress, in joint session on January 6 (or another date set by Congress) following a presidential election, receives and counts electoral votes, and the election of the president and vice president is announced. Congress is empowered to resolve objections regarding the electoral votes at that time.

In order to be elected president or vice president by the electoral college, a candidate must receive a majority, and not merely a plurality, of the electoral votes (currently 270 of 538). The Twelfth Amendment, as modified by the Twentieth Amendment, established a system for the contingent election of the president and vice president in the event that no candidate attains this threshold. In the case of the president, the House of Representatives chooses the president from among the three candidates with the largest numbers of electoral votes; each state delegation casts a single vote. A majority of states is needed for election. Although the Twenty-third Amendment to the Constitution provided electors for the District of Columbia, it did not provide the District with a role in a contingent election. In the event that no vice presidential candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the Senate chooses between the two candidates with the largest numbers of electoral votes; each senator has one vote, and a majority of votes is needed for election.

The Twelfth Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1803 in response to difficulties encountered during the presidential election of 1800-1801. After ratification by the states, the Twelfth Amendment went into effect in 1804. There have been two contingent elections under its provisions. The president was elected by the House of Representatives in 1825, and the vice president was elected by the Senate in 1837. The Twelfth Amendment mandates some of the specific procedures that must be used during a contingent election. Other procedures were developed by the House and Senate during the respective contingent elections, but those procedures could be altered in the event of another contingent election.

The Twentieth Amendment provided that the vice president serve as acting president until the House is able to choose a president, should the House be unable to reach a decision by inauguration day, January 20. (The Twentieth Amendment provided that a president’s and vice president’s terms of office end at 12:00 noon on January 20 following a presidential election.) This amendment also allows Congress to establish by law who serves as acting president in the event that neither a president nor a vice president is qualified by January 20. In the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (61 Stat. 380; 3 U.S.C. § 19), Congress addressed this matter, naming first the Speaker of the House, alternatively the president pro tempore of the Senate, and then the Cabinet secretaries in the order in which their departments were created (beginning with the secretary of state). To serve, an individual would need to meet the constitutional qualifications required for any president–a natural-born citizen, a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years, at least thirty-five years old, and not disqualified by previous service as president.

President
Vice President
Speaker of the House
President pro tempore
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General

Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution originally provided for presidential succession in the event of “the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office.” The Twenty-fifth Amendment, ratified in 1967, superseded this provision. It established a role for Congress in confirming a president’s nomination to fill a vice presidential vacancy. The amendment also provided a role in determining, under certain circumstances, whether a president was “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

Also see Electoral College; House; Impeachment; Mid-Term Election; President of the United States; President pro tempore; Speaker; Vice President; § 8.90 Congress and the Executive: Presidential Election and Succession, § 8.100 Congress and the Executive: Impeachment, in Congressional Deskbook.

More

• Article II, Section 1
• Twelfth Amendment
• Twentieth Amendment
• Twenty-fifth Amendment
• United States presidential line of succession – Wikipedia
• “The seven stages of the office seeker“
• “Presidential Succession: Perspectives, Contemporary Analysis, and 110th Congress Proposed Legislation,” CRS Report RL34692
• “Presidential and Vice Presidential Succession,” CRS Report RL31761
• “The President-Elect: Succession and Disability Issues During the Transition Period,” CRS Report RS22992
• “Continuity of Operations (COOP) in the Executive Branch: Issues in the 109th Congress,” CRS Report RL32752
• “Continuity of Congress: Enacted and Proposed Federal Statutes for Expedited Election to the House in Extraordinary Circumstances,” CRS Report RL32958
• “Continuity of Government: Current Federal Arrangements and the Future,” CRS Report RS21089

Courses

• Congressional Dynamics and the Legislative Process
• Election Capitol Hill Workshop
• Capitol Hill Workshop – Congressional Operations Briefing and Seminar
• Drafting Federal Legislation and Amendments
• Understanding Congressional Budgeting and Appropriations
• Advanced Legislative Strategies

Publications

CongressionalGlossary.com, from TheCapitol.Net

From the Congressional Glossary – Including Legislative and Budget Terms

Senate

The United States Senate in the Senate Chamber, 108th Congress, 2003. Credit: U.S. Senate Photo Studio

The Senate, as distinct from the House of Representatives, although each body is a “house” or “chamber” of Congress. Established by the Constitution, Article I, Section 3. The size of the Senate, currently 100 members, is established by the Constitution (“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State….”). Each member of the Senate is called “Senator”.

U.S. Capitol - Senate on north side, House on south side

The Senate chamber and Senate Office Buildings are on the north side of the Capitol.

See “A Note About Usage: ‘Congress’.”

When members of the Senate and Senate staff speak of “the other body,” they are speaking of the House.

Also see A Note About Usage, “Congress”; Congressional Leadership and Committees; Filibuster; House; Impeach / Impeachment; President of the Senate; Senate Chamber; Senate Classes; Senate Floor; Senate Journal; Senate Manual; Senate Office Buildings (SOB); Senate Rules (Senate); Senate Salaries and Perquisites; Senator; Senatorial Courtesy; Treaties; § 5.70 Senate Leadership, § 6.04 Selected Procedures: House and Senate Rules, § 6.150 House and Senate Compared, § 6.180 Senate Calendars and Legislative and Executive Business before the Senate, § 6.210 Consideration and Debate on the Senate Floor, § 6.250 Voting in the Senate, § 11.20 How to Follow Floor Proceedings in the Senate, in Congressional Deskbook.

More

• Senate
• Congress by the Numbers
• Congress Seating Charts
• Congressional Schedule
• Congress Profile: The Backgrounds and Groups Among Members of Congress
• “The seven stages of the office seeker“
• “The First Day of a New Congress: A Guide to Proceedings on the Senate Floor,” CRS Report RS20722
• “Supreme Court Nominations: Senate Floor Procedure and Practice, 1789-2011,” CRS Report RL33247
• “Evolution of the Senate’s Role in the Nomination and Confirmation Process: A Brief History,” CRS Report RL31948
• “Supreme Court Nominations, 1789-2005: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President,” CRS Report RL33225
• “Senate Administrative Officers and Officials,” CRS Report 98-418
• “Presiding Officer: Senate,” CRS Report RS21553
• “Expulsion and Censure Actions Taken by the Full Senate Against Members,” CRS Report 93-875
• “How Measures Are Brought to the Senate Floor: A Brief Introduction,” CRS Report RS20668
• “Senate Floor Procedure: A Summary,” CRS Report 97-368

Courses

• Congressional Dynamics and the Legislative Process
• Congressional Briefing Conference – Capitol Hill Workshop
• Drafting Federal Legislation and Amendments
• Understanding Congressional Budgeting and Appropriations
• Advanced Legislative Strategies
• Research Workshops

Publications

CongressionalGlossary.com, from TheCapitol.Net

From the Congressional Glossary – Including Legislative and Budget Terms

Impeach / Impeachment

President Andrew Johnson, first President of the United States to be impeached by the House of Representatives

The House has sole power to impeach (Article. I. Section. 2.), and the Senate has sole power to try an impeachment (Article. I. Section. 3.).

Senate deliberations during impeachment trials may be held in secret session.

Also see Secret Session; § 8.100 Congress and the Executive: Impeachment, in Congressional Deskbook.

More

• Article. I. Section. 2.
• Article. I. Section. 3.
• Research Guide on Impeachment – Library of Congress
• Impeachment, United States – Wikipedia
• “Impeachment: An Overview of Constitutional Provisions, Procedure, and Practice,” CRS Report 98-186
• “Compendium of Precedents Involving Evidentiary Rulings and Applications of Evidentiary Principles from Selected Impeachment Trials,” CRS Report 89-413
• “The Intersection Between the Former Presidents Act and the Impeachment Process,” CRS Report 98-524
• “Secret Sessions of Congress: A Brief Historical Overview,” CRS Report RS20145
• “Congressional Oversight,” CRS Report 97-936
• “Censure of the President by the Congress,” CRS Report 98-843
• “The Chief Justice of the United States: Responsibilities of the Office and Process for Appointment,” CRS Report RL32821

Courses

• Congressional Dynamics and the Legislative Process
• Capitol Hill Workshop – Congressional Operations Briefing and Seminar
• Drafting Federal Legislation and Amendments
• Understanding Congressional Budgeting and Appropriations
• Advanced Legislative Strategies

Publications

CongressionalGlossary.com, from TheCapitol.Net

From the Congressional Glossary – Including Legislative and Budget Terms

Precedents of the House of Representatives / Cannon’s / Deschler’s / Hinds’ / House Practice

Each chamber of Congress follows laws, rules, precedents, and practices that apply in its chamber. Each chamber is very different. The strategies that work in the House, a majoritarian institution, are different from those that work in the Senate, an institution where the individual senator reigns supreme.

House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents, and Procedures of the House
This volume, commonly referred to as House Practice, was compiled by Parliamentarian Emeritus of the House William Holmes Brown, and updated by the House parliamentarian to be current through the 111th Congress. House Practice summarizes the most common procedures used by the House and explains their usage in lay language. It was updated in 2011. The book is organized alphabetically by topic and cites other parliamentary reference sources. It is thoroughly indexed and available online at FDsys.

Precedents of the House of Representatives – House Precedents
The Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives is a combination of three different documents: Hinds’ Precedents, Cannon’s Precedents and Deschlers’s Precedents. The parliamentarian compiles the precedents of the House.

In addition to House Rule X, precedents and agreements affect committee referral decisions. In general, these precedents dictate that once a measure has been referred to a given committee, the measure’s subject matter remains the responsibility of that committee. The precedents further presume that amendments to laws that originated in a committee are within the purview of that committee as well.

House Rule XVI, clause 7, governing germaneness, is one of the most discussed rules of the House and thousands of precedents have resulted from its interpretation or application. Over 2,000 pages of precedents in Hinds and Cannon, Deschler’s Precedents, and the parliamentarian’s annotations in the House Rules Manual address germaneness.

Over the years, both chambers have developed an extensive set of rules (some set forth in statute) and precedents that lay out complicated, multiple processes for making budgetary decisions. For example, under House precedents, a continuing appropriations measure is not considered to be a general appropriations bill, and it may thus fund unauthorized programs.

Hinds’ and Cannon’s Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives
This multivolume series provides an historical overview of House precedents during the period 1789 to 1936. Volumes 1 through 5 are known as Hinds’ Precedents and volumes 6 through 11 are known as Cannon’s Precedents. (Collectively, they are referred to as Hinds’ and Cannon’s Precedents.) Asher C. Hinds was a Republican representative from Maine from 1911 to 1917, and Clarence Cannon was a Democratic representative from Missouri from 1923 to 1964 and a parliamentarian of the House from 1915 to 1920.

These volumes are out of print. Copies are available for reference at the House Legislative Resource Center, B-106 Cannon House Office Building, and they are available online at GPO’s Federal Digital System (FDsys), and look under “Collections” for “Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives.”

Hinds’ Precedents
Asher C. Hinds, Clerk at the Speaker’s Table of the House from 1895-1911, compiled the early precedents of the House, dating from the First Congress. These materials were prepared and published by authority of the Act of Congress, approved March 4, 1907. Hinds’ Precedents is a 5-volume series containing selected rulings made by the chair. The publication provides valuable coverage of the historical origins and evolution of House procedures dating back to 1789. The precedents are numbered sequentially throughout the volumes. Hinds’ Precedents are available online through FDsys.

Cannon’s Precedents
Clarence Cannon, Clerk at the Speaker’s Table of the House 1917-1921, compiled the precedents of the House dating from 1908-1936 (60th-74th Congresses). These documents are the second half of an eleven-volume series containing selected rulings made by the Chair between 1789 and 1936, with the first have being Hinds’ Precedents. Cannon’s Precedents was published in 1936. The precedents are numbered sequentially throughout the volumes. Cannon’s Precedents are available online through FDsys.

(In 1962 the Cannon House Office Building building was named for former Speaker Joseph Gurney Cannon, not Clarence Cannon.)

Deschler’s Precedents / Deschler-Brown Precedents
This single-volume document, referred to as Deschler’s Procedure (after former House Parliamentarian Lewis Deschler), presents selected precedents from 1959 through 1980. A 1985 supplement covers 1981 through 1984, and a 1987 supplement covers precedents created from 1981 through 1986. House Practice, described above, was designed to replace Deschler’s Procedure. This document is arranged around topics of procedure, with each chapter divided into broad subtopics. As such, a knowledge of procedure is helpful in navigating the publication. Deschler’s Procedure is out of print. Copies are available for reference at the House Legislative Resource Center, B-106 Cannon House Office Building.

This multivolume series contains precedents from 1936 to the recent past. Additional volumes are being prepared by the office of the parliamentarian. The first nine volumes are called Deschler’s Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives; the volumes thereafter, numbered 10 to 16 as of 2007, are referred to as Deschler-Brown Precedents, to acknowledge the work of former Parliamentarian William Holmes Brown. Additional volumes are anticipated.

The books are organized by topical chapter parallel to those in Deschler’s Procedure. For many of the topics, the full text of discussion creating or interpreting precedent on the House floor is provided, as well as the page citation from the Congressional Record. Some of these volumes are out of print. Copies are available for reference at the House Legislative Resource Center, B-106 Cannon House Office Building, and available online at FDsys.

Also see Budget Process; Continuing Appropriations Act; Germane / Germaneness; Impeachment; Parliamentarian; Point of Order; Presiding Officer; Referral; Secret Session; § 6.120 Committee of the Whole: Amendment Process, § 10.30 Congressional Rules and Precedents, in Congressional Deskbook.

More

• Rules and Precedents that Govern the House of Representatives – FDsys
• Cannon’s Precedents – FDsys
• Deschler’s Precedents – FDsys
• Hinds’ Precedents – FDsys
• House Practice – FDsys
• “Parliamentary Reference Sources: House of Representatives,” CRS Report RL30787
• “Tracking Current Federal Legislation and Regulations: A Guide to Basic Sources,” CRS Report 98-461
• “Legislative History: A Basic Guide For Constituents,” CRS Report RS21178
• “The Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution: Interpretation and Enforcement,” CRS Report RL31399
• “Procedures for Contested Election Cases in the House of Representatives,” CRS Report RL33780
• “Suspension of the Rules in the House of Representatives,” CRS Report RL32474
• “Impeachment: An Overview of Constitutional Provisions, Procedure, and Practice,” CRS Report 98-186
• “Status of a Member of the House Who Has Been Indicted for or Convicted of a Felony,” CRS Report RL33229
• “Continuing Appropriations Acts: Brief Overview of Recent Practices,” CRS Report 97-892
• “House Rules and Precedents Affecting Committee Markup Procedures,” CRS Report 97-1045 (7-page PDF)
• “Compendium of Precedents Involving Evidentiary Rulings and Applications of Evidentiary Principles from Selected Impeachment Trials,” CRS Report 89-413
• “Resolving Legislative Differences in Congress: Conference Committees and Amendments Between the Houses,” CRS Report 98-696
• “Censure of the President by the Congress,” CRS Report 98-843
• “Conference Committee and Related Procedures: An Introduction,” CRS Report 96-708
• “Decorum in House Debate,” CRS Report 98-572
• “Legislative Procedure in Congress: Basic Sources for Congressional Staff,” CRS Report RS21363
• “Privileged Business on the House Floor,” CRS Report 98-315
• “Points of Order, Rulings, and Appeals in the House of Representatives,” CRS Report 98-307
• “Secret Sessions of Congress: A Brief Historical Overview,” CRS Report RS20145

Courses

• Congressional Dynamics and the Legislative Process
• Congressional Briefing Conference – Capitol Hill Workshop
• Drafting Federal Legislation and Amendments
• Understanding Congressional Budgeting and Appropriations
• Advanced Legislative Strategies
• Research Workshops

Publications

CongressionalGlossary.com, from TheCapitol.Net

From the Congressional Glossary – Including Legislative and Budget Terms

Code of Federal Regulations / CFR

Palatul CFR / Romanian Railways Palace, by cod_gabriel

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government. It is divided into fifty titles that represent broad areas subject to federal regulation; the CFR and U.S. Code titles, however, do not correspond to each other. Each volume of the CFR is updated once each calendar year. Each Title is divided into chapters that are assigned to agencies issuing regulations pertaining to that broad subject area. Each chapter is divided into parts and each part is then divided into sections — the basic unit of the CFR.

Items in the CFR are typically cited by title and section, with year; 34 C.F.R. § 1100.2 (2003), and 20 C.F.R. 404.1520, indicating Title 20, part 404, and section 1520.

The purpose of the CFR is to present the official and complete text of agency regulations in one organized publication and to provide a comprehensive and convenient reference for all those who may need to know the text of general and permanent Federal regulations.

The CFR is keyed to and kept up-to-date by the daily Federal Register. These two publications must be used together to determine the latest version of any given rule. When a federal agency publishes a regulation in the Federal Register, that regulation usually is an amendment to the existing CFR in the form of a change, an addition, or a removal.

Title 3 of the CFR cumulates executive orders, proclamations, and other presidential administrative orders.

The 50 subject matter titles contain one or more individual volumes, which are updated once each calendar year, on a staggered basis. The annual update cycle is as follows: titles 1-16 are revised as of January 1; titles 17-27 are revised as of April 1; titles 28-41 are revised as of July 1; and titles 42-50 are revised as of October 1. Each title is divided into chapters, which usually bear the name of the issuing agency. Each chapter is further subdivided into parts that cover specific regulatory areas. Large parts may be subdivided into subparts. All parts are organized in sections, and most citations to the CFR refer to material at the section level.

To assist the user between revisions, there is the List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which shows amendments published in the Federal Register and not yet incorporated into the appropriate, revised CFR title. The LSA is published quarterly and cumulates amendments to a title until that title is next revised. Available online at GPO’s Federal Digital System (FDsys.gov), under “Collections,” select “Code of Federal Regulations,” then select “List of Sections Affected.”

e-CFR – Electronic Code of Federal Regulations

A full set of the CFR consists of approximately 200 volumes. The approximately 200 CFR volumes are revised at least once a year on a quarterly basis.

Also see Committee Veto / Congressional Veto; Federal Register; Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA); Public Law (Pub. L.); Statutes at Large; U.S. Code; § 5.40 Federal Regulations, § 5.44 Code of Federal Regulations, in Real World Research Skills; § 9.70 Laws and Their Codification, in Congressional Deskbook.

More

• Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) annual edition – FDsys
• Code of Federal Regulations – Legal Information Institute
• Code of Federal Regulations – FindLaw
• List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA) – FDsys
• “Federal Regulatory Reform: An Overview,” CRS Report IB95035 (15-page PDF)
• “Tracking Current Federal Legislation and Regulations: A Guide to Basic Sources,” CRS Report 98-461

Courses

• Congressional Dynamics and the Legislative Process
• Capitol Hill Workshop – Congressional Operations Briefing and Seminar
• Drafting Federal Legislation and Amendments
• Understanding Congressional Budgeting and Appropriations
• Advanced Legislative Strategies

Publications

CongressionalGlossary.com, from TheCapitol.Net

From the Congressional Glossary – Including Legislative and Budget Terms

At-large Representative

Cattle at Large, by daryl_mitchell

An at-large representative is a member of the House whose congressional district is their entire state. Under the Constitution, seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned among the states. They are reapportioned every ten years following the decennial census. Every state is entitled to one seat under the Constitution (Article. I. Section. 2.), and seven states, because of their relatively small population in the 2010 census, have just one seat. These states are Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. These same seven states also were apportioned one seat each following the 2000 census.

A National 112th Congressional District Wall Map is available from the Census Bureau.

Also see Apportionment; District; Mid-Term Election; Reapportionment; § 2.40 Reapportionment and Redistricting, § 5.10 Members of Congress: Service, Qualifications, Characteristics, and Filling Vacant Seats, in Congressional Deskbook.

Courses

• Congressional Dynamics and the Legislative Process
• Capitol Hill Workshop – Congressional Operations Briefing and Seminar
• Drafting Federal Legislation and Amendments
• Understanding Congressional Budgeting and Appropriations
• Advanced Legislative Strategies

Publications

CongressionalGlossary.com, from TheCapitol.Net