Without questioning the importance of fighting crime, I never bought the excuse the Supreme Court came up with for ignoring the Constitution's requirement of a trial by jury for all federal crimes -- that the Constitution could not possibly mean something so ridiculous. Yes, everyone charged with a crime in DC is entitled to a jury trial, no matter how insignificant the offense. The Constitution says so.
While I am happy that the disapproval resolution cannot be filibustered, I think it is a violation of the constitutional order for any statute to prescribe the rules a house must follow. Except for rules such as quora and two-thirds majorities for overriding vetoes, the proper procedure for the Senate is whatever the Senate says it is.
Is there any data on false confessions rising as sentence lengths are shortened? It seems not unlikely that a thug with limited prospects might, for a the right payoff, take the four years, so a senior thug could get off, especially if there is a possibility of parole.
I have my doubts that a change in the DC Code -- a trifling matter compared to national legislation -- will be seen as warranting a filibuster. I also have doubts that, even if liberal Democratic senators don't like the override, this is the hill they want to die on. Seems like potentially a big political price to pay to placate the most liberal faction of a tiny jurisdiction.
It turns out there are special provisions in the DC Home Rule Act that specify procedures for a joint resolution to disapprove a DC law, including a special provision that applies only to criminal code change disapprovals. These allow a member of the minority to bring a motion to discharge the relevant committee from further consideration of a resolution of disapproval, allow a motion to proceed to the joint resolution without debate, and limit debate on the joint resolution itself to 10 hours. Here's a link to a CRS report about this.
Without questioning the importance of fighting crime, I never bought the excuse the Supreme Court came up with for ignoring the Constitution's requirement of a trial by jury for all federal crimes -- that the Constitution could not possibly mean something so ridiculous. Yes, everyone charged with a crime in DC is entitled to a jury trial, no matter how insignificant the offense. The Constitution says so.
While I am happy that the disapproval resolution cannot be filibustered, I think it is a violation of the constitutional order for any statute to prescribe the rules a house must follow. Except for rules such as quora and two-thirds majorities for overriding vetoes, the proper procedure for the Senate is whatever the Senate says it is.
Is there any data on false confessions rising as sentence lengths are shortened? It seems not unlikely that a thug with limited prospects might, for a the right payoff, take the four years, so a senior thug could get off, especially if there is a possibility of parole.
What about a filibuster in the Senate though?
Read just a minute ago that "resolutions" require only a majority. Don't know why this is a resolution but apparently it is.
Pretty sure that's not right.
I have my doubts that a change in the DC Code -- a trifling matter compared to national legislation -- will be seen as warranting a filibuster. I also have doubts that, even if liberal Democratic senators don't like the override, this is the hill they want to die on. Seems like potentially a big political price to pay to placate the most liberal faction of a tiny jurisdiction.
It turns out there are special provisions in the DC Home Rule Act that specify procedures for a joint resolution to disapprove a DC law, including a special provision that applies only to criminal code change disapprovals. These allow a member of the minority to bring a motion to discharge the relevant committee from further consideration of a resolution of disapproval, allow a motion to proceed to the joint resolution without debate, and limit debate on the joint resolution itself to 10 hours. Here's a link to a CRS report about this.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IN10249.pdf