[BreitbartSentMe]

Question for you, I assume that since there is one Democrat left in the special session, in order to call for a quorum anytime they want to do business, it seems that if the Republicans would begin fillibustering the session, and not allow it to adjourn, they could spell each other, allowing them to sleep in shifts. I'm sure after a few days, the remaining democrat would at one time or another fall asleep, and then the Republican shoud be able to pass something by unanimous consent to change the rules suspending the quorum rules. Where am I going wrong?

[Congressman Billybob]

Two different legislative rules are in play in Texas. One, in the Senate only, allowed one-third of the Senators to prevent any matter from being introduced. That was merely a Senate rule, and I understand that the Republican leaders in the Senate have eliminated that one.

The quorum of one-third of each House to be able to vote on any issue, is in a different category. That one is in the Texas Constitution, so it is beyond the power of the legislature to change it. Only a proposed and ratified constitutional amendment could get rid of that requirement.

Hence, you have the effort of the Senate -- and later the House if the Democrats play tag-team obstruction and the Senate Dems come home as the House Dems skedaddle -- to use fines and other disciplines to punish the missing members. These are matters of internal discipline in each House, and under normal circumstances they are no business of the courts. (Federal courts have long since recognized that sort of autonomy for internal Senate and House discipline in Congress.)

However, I wouldn't count heavily on the Texas courts, because the judges are all part of the raise-trial-lawyer-money-and-get-elected process. So the Texas courts might not be as protective of their constitution as the federal courts are of the US Constitution. (And, yes, I recognize that amouonts to d*mning with faint praise.)

John / Billybob