Parliamentary Privilege Quotes
In the early days of the Senate Filibuster, a senator could hold the floor (and halt all actions) as long as he could continue to speak or 3/5 of the Senate voted to end the filibuster. The filibuster imposed a physical burden on the Senator who chose to use it. Likewise, the other Senators had to be present in sufficient numbers to have a quorum, else the Filibusterer would be able to rest at he did not have to continue to speak if there was not a quorum. The Senate rules were changed to allow a Senator to “announce” a filibuster of a bill, and all action on that bill would stop but there was no burden on the filibustering senator or other senators who had to form the quorum. But in the 112th Congress, the Republicans resorted to more filibusters than there had been in the entire previous history of the Senate and Nelson wanted to return to the old requirement of holding the floor physically.
In a bitter debate on homosexual rights in the California Assembly, David Knowles, a freshman Republican spoke against the bill in extremely graphic and language.
This is the justification of virtually all legislatures that exempt their members from general requirements of law or grant them special privileges. Occasionally, the justification is warranted; most often, not.
This clause was a throwback to the days before the separation of powers where the legislature could imprison anyone they thought contemptuous or interfering with their deliberation. Contrast this with the earlier constitution of Massachusetts which forbade the legislature from acting as a judge or prosecutor. See {616750} and {616749}. Also this was a clear invasion of freedom of the press and freedom of speech provided by the Bill of Rights. However, at the time, it was not clear that the Federal Constitution was binding on State Governments on State Matters. Modern law is still ambiguous on this general point, but not on freedom of speech and the press which is currently definitely binding on the states.
