Latest Breaking News

when someone claims an asserted position is obviously true, the matter is hardly obvious.

I quoted Article I, Section 5(1): "...a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide."

Under this provision, a majority of the house constitutes a quorum. Absent a quorum, the only actions the house may take is to adjourn from day to day and to compel the attendance of the truant members.

I also quoted Article I, Section 5(2): "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings. . . ."

The longstanding definition of "quorum" is the minimum number of a body that must be present for the conduct of business. The question is whether Section 5(2) allows a house to determine by rule that a quorum can be met by proxy or virtual attendance contrary to the usual meaning of "quorum."

It seems to be an interesting question of constitutional history and construction, the final determination of which is hardly obvious.