reply to post by jackinthebox
March 27 1861
Mr Bayard "you cannot tell if there is a quorum until you have a vote upon it. If there appears to be no quorum, then I agree we cannot adjour sine
Mr Truble "the fact has been that there is no quorum; an until there is ascertained that there is a quorum,i raise the point in order that it is not
competent for any person, any more it would be to introduce a bill or any other project.....
Mr. Breckenridge " It is true the senators point is well taken; but if nobody had raise it, we might have adjourned sine die."
The Constitution specifies that a majority of members constitutes a quorum to do business in each house. The rules of each house provide that a
quorum is assumed to be present unless a quorum call demonstrates the contrary. Representatives and senators rarely force the presence of a quorum by
demanding quorum calls; thus, in most cases, debates continue even if a majority is not present.
Mr Breckenridge "As some preceedings have taken place since the vote which disclosed the want of a quorum, and it may be very possible that there is
a quorum now in the chamber, and it will be assumed so
,unless some question be raised....."
They want on to call a recess until the next day at 1 pm. The next day there was no quorum call, therefor it is assumed, by law, that a quorum was
indeed present. if there is no quorum call there is a quorum
I need to edit. There was indeed a quorum on the 28 regardless. As there were 36 senators present. As you can see from the votes taken on that day.
There show each of the ya's and nay's and who voted which way. Total votes. 36. They only needed 32 for a quorum.
[edit on 22-7-2008 by tide88]