1

2 U.S. Code § 30b specifies certain Senate procedures involving Senators objecting to proceedings. (It appears that the intent was to make it clear which Senator was doing the objecting.)

There is a note on this statute which says:

Pub. L. 110–81, title V, § 555, Sept. 14, 2007, 121 Stat. 774, provided that: “The Senate adopts the provisions of this title [see Effective Date note above]—
“(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate; and
“(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of the Senate to change those rules at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of the Senate.”

So, given that this is not (and cannot be, constitutionally) binding on the Senate the instant they don't want it to be, why was this made a statute as opposed to a normal Senate rule?

At first I thought it was because it was part of the larger law mentioned by the note. However, that law actually directly modified or added several other House and Senate rules not in the statutes. So that alone doesn't really explain why this particular provision was given different treatment.

3
  • It seems like a symbolic action, as suggested by (1).
    – Barmar
    Commented Jan 19, 2023 at 11:41
  • They wanted the symbolism just for this one part of the law and not the parts before or after which directly change the rules without touching the statutes? I guess that's possible, but it seems a bit strange.
    – D M
    Commented Jan 19, 2023 at 21:50
  • Yeah, it does seem strange. But so did all the votes the House held to repeal Obamacare, when they knew it would be blocked in the Senate.
    – Barmar
    Commented Jan 19, 2023 at 21:52

1 Answer 1

1

Why is 2 U.S. Code § 30b in the statutes at all?
[W]hy was this made a statute as opposed to a normal Senate rule?

The provision was never intended to be incorporated as a standing rule of the Senate, nor a modification thereof. It happens that some responsibilities of some officers and employees are placed in statutes rather than rules. In this case, 2 U.S. Code § 30b assigns responsibility to the Secretary of the Senate for establishing new sections in the calendars. Another section of the same law, never incorporated as a rule, is 2 U.S. Code § 4728, also a responsibility of the Secretary.

In the 112th Congress (the law was 110th Congress), S.Res.28 - A resolution to establish as a standing order of the Senate that a Senator publicly disclose a notice of intent to objecting to any measure or matter, incorporated the provisions of 2 U.S. Code § 30b, in modified form, something permitted under the Constitution (Article I, Section 5, Clause 2). This standing order references Pub. L. 110-81, placing responsibility for adding items to the calendar, established by the Secretary, to the Legislative Clerk.

In the Senate Manual (PDF 787 pages), that particular provision is in the part titled: Nonstatutory Standing Orders Not Embraced In The Rules, And Resolutions Affecting The Business Of The Senate, in manual section 72 (page 107), Public Disclosure Of Notice Of Intent To Object To A Measure Or Matter.

If the provisions could have been implemented as Rules changes or Standing Orders, one may ask why the changes were put into law in the first place.

Placing rules changes into law allows for more consistency in checking with the stated goals of the law. Or, perhaps it's because laws are covered by media more broadly than internal matters. These laws addressed important concerns for their times and both either changed or affected House and Senate rules and created new responsibilities for some.

  • Pub. L. 110-81 originated as S.1 - Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007

  • Pub. L. 104-4 originated as S.1 - Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

3
  • I'm still confused. The fact that they modified the provisions before incorporating them makes it even weirder, because now we have a statute which is still on the books but which doesn't reflect the actual current practice of the Senate (the newer standing order says 2 session days while the statute says 6, for example.)
    – D M
    Commented Jun 14, 2023 at 3:41
  • And I don't see any reason why a duty of the Secretary of the Senate needs to be in a statute instead of a rule. There are certainly rules which tell the Secretary to do things.
    – D M
    Commented Jun 14, 2023 at 3:44
  • @DM - "The roles and duties of these officers and officials have developed over time. They derive from Senate instructions codified in the Senate Rules, standing orders, the Senate Handbook, and law; Senate officers’ activities may also be influenced by historical custom and precedent." -- Offices and Officials in the Senate: Roles and Duties
    – Rick Smith
    Commented Jun 14, 2023 at 12:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .