Right. That is not the Clerk’s call to make. * If *you DO have the votes to impose your will, then dagnabbit, do it like everyone else has had to all along.
If the leadership is keeping you on a short leash, and you do have those votes, then take over, seat a leadership of your preference, have them adopt the rules that enable you to pass your agenda and pass it.
What does you mean when you say something has the force of law? If a rule doesn’t have the force of law, are you suggesting that adherence to the rule is optional? I don’t understand what you think the difference is between “a rule that cannot be disregarded” and “a rule that has the force of law.” To me, they are the same thing.
People in this thread are using the term “law” in multiple senses. Legal theorists spend a lot of time debating what exactly constitutes the “law.” But from a legal theory standpoint, I’d say, yeah, Congressional Rules fall under the umbrella of the term “law.” They are rules that certain people have to follow (in this case, legislators), and if they don’t follow them, there are sanctions. And if you really want to get into the weeds, they also have a judicial process (e.g., the Parliamentarian).
But most people don’t use the term “law” in this sense. If I saw someone referring to a “law” without any qualifier (such as “regulatory law” or “common law”), I would assume they were talking about legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President (or if vetoed, overridden by Congress). So, I guess you could say that the Congressional Rules aren’t law, but they fall under the umbrella of “the law” from a theoretical standpoint.
Which is a long way of restating what Really Not All That Bright is saying.
As for the term “force of law,” I would take that to mean that there is a sanction or punishment associated with the “law” in question. And Congressional rules do certainly have sanctions and punishments associated with them. But if you want to say “force of rules” instead of “force of law,” I’m not going to stop you.
And since I know someone’s going to bring this up, yes, there are laws passed by legislative bodies which have no sanctions or punishments. Are they “laws” in the layman sense? Sure, why not. Are they “laws” from a theoretical standpoint? Well, that’s an interesting debate, but if you want to lump them in, it’s fine by me.
Plus there are laws that cannot not be enforced … I’m sure many States still have prohibitions to same sex marriage still … those laws have no “force of law”, but they were enacted lawfully.
Maybe we should look at where these violations are prosecuted. If a Congressman fails to report to the Floor when rules require him to do so, the district attorney won’t be filing a complain in a Federales court … the Congressman will meet with the House Ways and Means Committee behind closed doors … who knows what inane torment would be imposed … hop on one foot and bark like a dog maybe.
Ok, you’re using the term “prosecuted” to mean turned over to the AG, which from a layman’s perspective, is how most of us think about it. That’s a perfectly valid way to look at it.
But, Congress does have the power to “prosecute” in a sense. It has things like its inherent contempt power and its impeachment power. And in the case of certain rules violations, there will be a procedure resembling a prosecution and a trial. Take an ethics violation. Charges will be brought, evidence will be heard, and if the accused is found in violation, he may have to face censure, or pay a fine or even be expelled. So, those are sanctions attached to a procedural process that has a similarity to a trial involving an AG and a court, it’s just that all of this happens entirely within the legislative branch.