Rule Fails to Suspend...

Any advantage in this? (0.00 / 0)

Since you've "been there, done this" in the Legislature, Glen, is there any possible advantage in their doing so? 

As in is there any possible advantage in terms of the delay resulting in viable legislation that serves the public interest rather than self-serving legislation that is just quickly taken to the floor and passed by the majority simply because they are the majority and it's a "majority" bill?

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 19:20:12 PM UTC

Thanks to the 34! (5.00 / 1)

This failure to suspend the constitutional rule limiting the window for legislation to be brought up for vote on the House floor is very beneficial for two reasons.

First, this will mean that the Senate will get out ahead of the House on all the meaningful legislative issues. The Senate is a more deliberative body (would someone please pass this fact along to Dan Patrick?) and is more cooperative and bipartisan as compared to the autoCraddick rule in the House.  That is a huge benefit.

Second, to get around this constitutional limit, the Craddick will have to get the governor to declare the matter an "emergency."  This means that Craddick will have to share control over the House calendar with Perry.  Perry is not anyone's idea of a prince, but he is less likely to support the worse aspects of Craddick's agenda which Craddick would unilaterally push to the front if the rule had been suspended (crappy immigration bills and the worst type of voucher bills will have to be moderated).  Also, the bottom just fell out of the value of those selfishly coveted appointments to the calendars committee (ha!).

This is a big win for Texas (and also a win for the Senate and for Perry) and a HUGE loss for Craddick and his allies!

---

by: SouthTexasDemocrat @ Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 20:15:06 PM UTC