Unanimous Consent Of Members To Adoption Of Resolutions: Fill & Download for Free

Actually, a version of this process - disregarding regular order - happens all the time. Both Houses routinely conduct business via "unanimous consent," and the House of Representatives may conduct business via "suspension of the rules." What prevents complete majoritarian rule, as you're outlining - aside from the Senate filibuster - is that both sides fear what would happen to them if they're ever in the minority. Never mind that it looks really bad to start changing the rules so that you can win a legislative battle.Members in either House may break the rules of their chamber as long as no one objects. This process is called "unanimous consent." For example, just the other day, the Senate passed a resolution commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg:Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 192, which was submitted earlier today.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:A resolution (S. Res. 192) commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg and the significance of this battle in the history of the United States.There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.The resolution (S. Res. 192) was agreed to.The preamble was agreed to.(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')(See Legislation & Records Home > Floor Actions 3 Days Previous)This action enabled the Senate to disregard any and all Committee action, all other procedural rules, and simply pass the resolution.The House may do the same, but it's done less frequently because the House Rules Committee controls floor debate fairly tightly. But for noncontroversial bills, the House will often "suspend the rules" and pass the bill. Under this process, a bill is brought to the floor for just 40 minutes, it may not be amended, and 2/3 of Members must vote for it in order for it to pass. See Suspension of the rules in the United States Congress for more detail.Now then. You're asking why the majority in each House doesn't simply assert its will and rule by 50% + 1. Well, the House of Representatives already operates pretty much by that principle - the Speaker is elected by the whole House, and whoever wins gets a lot of power over the Rules Committee, which controls floor debate.In the Senate, the principle rule stopping this type of process is the filibuster. There have been a few attempts to circumvent the filibuster, but none that would have entirely wiped it away - even the 2003 talk about adopting the Nuclear option was focused on judicial nominees, and Senate Democrats threatened to shut the Senate down unless Republicans backed down. Democrats would have achieved that end by filibustering everything. So, naturally, you might ask, why didn't Republicans just insist on abandoning the filibuster entirely?Because it looks terrible, and because they were afraid of what might happen to them later. People - and especially politicians - are risk-averse, so that fear is quite powerful. And politically, it just looks terrible if you have to change longstanding rules in order to achieve your policy ends. Of course, those "optics" are balanced by how bad your opposition looks when filibustering constantly - and Majority Leader Reid is assuredly considering just how much those points balance.

I presume you’re talking about H.Con.Res. 24, the resolution “expressing the sense of Congress that the report of Special Counsel Mueller should be made available to the public and to Congress.” It was adopted unanimously by the House, 420–0, on March 14, 2019.The short answer to why it got blocked in the Senate is because Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) tried to bring it up by a unanimous consent request—a procedure that requires every senator to agree. And since Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) didn’t agree, the resolution was a no go—at least for now.To see precisely what happened in the Senate, let’s look at the Congressional Record—the official transcript of everything that happens in Congress—from March 14 for the Senate, starting on page S1883 (emphasis added). Senators can be long-winded, so I cut out the bulk of their speeches—I hope you’ll bear with me:Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President [addressing the President of the Senate], this morning, something rather amazing and wonderful happened in the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives this morning passed a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the full report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller should be made available to the public and to Congress. The vote was 420 to 0. Not a single Member of the House, Democratic or Republican, voted no. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the record of the vote, including all 190 Republicans who voted yes, be printed in the Record.There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [here the Record contains the full vote tally in the House for H.Con.Res. 24, with 420 representatives voting Yea and none voting Nay]Mr. SCHUMER. Now, why did every Republican vote for this? That is because there is no good reason that the special counsel’s report should not be made public.[Senator Schumer continues speaking and concludes as follows:]Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 24, expressing the sense of Congress that the report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller be made available to the public and to Congress, which is at the desk; further, that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.There are the magic words: “I ask unanimous consent.”The Senate gives individual senators incredible latitude; they can ask for particular things to happen by way of these unanimous consent requests, and if no other Senator objects, whatever they want to happen happens. In this case, that long sentence basically says “if everyone agrees, let’s pass this resolution and be done with it.”If no other Senator objects.Let’s go back to the Senate Chamber and see what happened to Senator Schumer’s request:The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.Uh oh.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will try to be very brief as far as where I am coming from here.We were told that Mueller may be imminently fired. The President said some things that were at times disturbing about the investigation. I was asked many times, let’s make sure we protect Mueller and let him do his job.[Senator Graham continues speaking and concludes as follows:]But I ask the Democratic leader to modify his request and allow my amendment at the desk to make a simple change—and every Republican will be with me, if you wonder about how Republicans vote in the House—that this resolution be modified calling for the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to investigate Department of Justice misconduct in the handling of the Clinton email investigation and in the handling of the FISA warrant process as it relates to warrants obtained on Carter Page and to publicly release the results of those investigations—be agreed to consistent with law. I ask that the resolution to be modified in accordance with this.Aha, so here’s Senator Graham’s ultimatum: Hey, Senator Schumer, if you incorporate my suggestion, which calls for a special counsel on the Clinton email investigation, then I’ll support your request. Otherwise I won’t.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator so modify his request?Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed in my good friend from South Carolina. This amendment appears to be a pretext for blocking this very simple, noncontroversial resolution.[Senator Schumer continues speaking and concludes as follows:]So let the American people know that the Republican majority in the Senate—at least for now—is blocking a resolution that the Mueller report should be made public. I hope my friend from South Carolina and all of my Republican colleagues take time over the recess to thinks about this. We are going to be back here asking for consent again when the Senate is back in session, and my Republican colleagues ought to think long and hard before they block this resolution again.I object.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.Is there an objection to the original request?Mr. GRAHAM. I object.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.And there it goes. You live by the unanimous consent request, you die by the unanimous consent request. That’s how it is in the Senate of the United States.

Hi Matthew. This question gives an opportunity to explain why Canada and the USA are too foreign to each other for any of these types of mergers to happen. I see various Quora questions about parts of the USA wanting to join Canada or whether Canada want to be annexed to the USA, etc.Would the USA allow Alaska to depart? The US Civil War seems to have established that states do not have the right to secede.No Alaska for Us Canadians!Alaska would have to apply to join Canada. I’m not at all sure that this would be possible or whether most Canadians would have any interest.Letting another province in would probably require an amendment to the Canadian constitution. The last time Canada absorbed a new province was in 1949, when the Dominion of Newfoundland applied to join:Provinces and territoriesIn 1949 there wasn’t actually an in-Canada constitution. The Canadian constitution was the British North America Act, an 1867 act of the British Parliament. As the website says:“1949: British North America Act, 1949Following two referenda in the colony of Newfoundland (which had not had a legislative assembly since 1934) and an address from the Parliament of Canada, the British Parliament approved the union of the oldest British possession in North America with the Canadian federal union, as a province retaining the name of Newfoundland. This law is one of Canada's constitutional laws.”The Canadian constitution was patriated in 1982. Canada would have to amend its own constitution to admit Alaska.Amendments to the Constitution of Canada - Wikipedia“Most amendments can be passed only if identical resolutions are adopted by the House of Commons, the Senate and two thirds or more of the provincial legislative assemblies representing at least 50 percent of the national population. This formula, which is outlined in section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982, is officially referred to as the "general amendment procedure" and is known colloquially as the "7+50 formula".”“here are some parts of the Constitution that can be modified only with the unanimous consent of all the provinces plus the two Houses of Parliament. This formula is contained in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and is known as the "unanimity formula". It is reserved for the following matters:(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;(b) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time the Constitution Act, 1982 came into force;(c) subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;(d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and(e) changing the amendment procedure itself.”I am not sure but the unanimity formula might apply to admitting a new province.French-speaking Canadians would perceive Alaska as an “English” province. Alaska has about 750,000 people, a significant admission of “Anglophones” to Canada’s 36,000,000 people. Quebec would likely object vociferously to Alaska joining Canada. They might separate.How About Alaska Being a Commonwealth or Freely Associated State?This isn’t the way we do things here. Partly because of the lengthy debate over Quebec’s status in Confederation it has been established that a province is a province is a province. There isn’t any Canadian equivalent to Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, Micronesia or Palau.So, If Canada Did Let Alaska in, What Would Happen to Alaska?A lot of things would happen. Alaskans would perceive some of those things as terrible.I should explain that some of my impressions of Alaska come from three TV shows, Alaska State Troopers, Ice Road Truckers before it moved to my very own Manitoba (comparing my Winnipeg to Fairbanks), and the one where the man and the woman sing an introductory duet about “Alaska, the last frontier.”Yes, I know that quite a few Alaskans live comfortable, middle class lives in Anchorage.However, the last frontier is not at all a popular concept in Canada. There wasn’t any Canadian Davy Crockett. What Americans see as the last frontier Canadians see as the North, a place where Canada’s aboriginal peoples have suffered colonial oppression and deserve redress.No More Northern AlaskaIn 1999 Canadian established Nunavut, a special federal territory for Canada’s Inuit. (The term Eskimo is considered rude in Canada.) Alaska might not maintain its territorial integrity if it was admitted to Canada. The federal government might feel that the aboriginal peoples of northern Alaska should be respected by adding the region to Nunavut.Big Changes that Alaskans Might Really, Really DislikeCanadian provinces are similar to American states but they are not the same. This would have some serious consequences for the Alaskans. The Government of Canada would doubtless provide a transitional period but, at the end of the line:-Canadian provinces do not have the constitutional authority to pass criminal laws. There is only one Criminal Code in Canada, the federal one. Alaska’s state criminal code would be declared null and void.-Canadian provinces do not have the authority to charter banks. In Canada most retail banking is done by five nation-wide banks. They don’t want competition. They have a lot of power. The state-chartered banks of Alaska would have to be wound up and liquidated.-In Canada persons other than police officers and members of the military are, except with very small exemptions, not allowed to own hand guns. There might be some “grandfathering” but no more guns could be sold to members of the Alaskan public. Alaskans with hand guns would be prohibited from taking them to any other part of Canada.-In Canada each province and territory must provide free medical care to all citizens and permanent residents. Alaska would have to. Private insurance companies would only be allowed to offer what we call “supplemental coverage”. Doctors can only charge the provincial public health insurance plans according to the provincial government fee schedule. Additional fees are illegal. Canadian medical care operates on a triage-based system rather than the ability to pay. It is unlikely that most private hospitals in Alaska would survive. The Alaska provincial government would have to take responsibility for supporting hospitals and allocating care.-In Canada many federal laws require bilingualism. You have to be proficient in English or French for many Government of Canada jobs. This system is very, very basic to the Canadian provision of federal government services. Presumably the United States federal civil servants of Alaska would be transferred to the Canadian federal public service. After a transition period, if they haven’t learned enough French, they might be required to leave.-Presuming that northern Alaska did not get transferred to Nunavut, the Government of Canada would be determined to recognize and honour Alaska’s aboriginal peoples. For example, the federal government might grant Yupik local official language status in the way that Inuktitut has official status in Nunavut. There might be a real issue about aboriginal land claims and the right of Alaska’s indigenous people to have a veto over the use of Alaska’s resources.-The US military would have to leave Alaska, closing bases and taking all the jobs with them. Canada doesn’t like foreign bases on its soil.Alaskans in PurgatoryWhen I describe all of the above it almost sounds like one of those 1950’s movies where a clever alliance of Comsymps, Pinkos and Fellow Travellers have successfully plotted with Russian agents to impose Soviet Communism on America. I live in the Canadian system every day and mostly like it but I am scaring myself.It might be too late for Alaskans to escape. Canada allows dual citizenship but the United States might refuse it to Alaskans, them having chosen to become aliens. Getting to Hawaii, Seattle and Fort Lauderdale might require permission from the United State Border Patrol. Alaskans could no longer work in the USA.Let Us Canadians be the Lovable Foreigners That We AreOf course, from the American point of view, Canadians are more cute and lovable then other foreigners but foreigners we are. Every day we happily do our foreign things in our foreign place. We are aliens, although we are very nice ones. Things work best that way.I would say to even the most fervent Bernie Sanders supporter, do you really, really want to live in a constitutional monarchy where court houses and post offices are adorned with pictures of our Royal Highness, Queen Elizabeth the Second? Do you really want to have a dollar that is worth 78 American cents? Eh?The snow always look greener on the other side but, Alaskans, enjoy the American way of life! You would find ours way too different.Martin Levine-