    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 106th Congress]
    [106th Congress]
    [House Document 105-358]
    [Jeffersons Manual of ParliamentaryPractice]
    [Pages 260-263]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                           sec xliii.--reconsideration

    Sec. 513. Early Senate practice as to
    reconsideration.

      1798, Jan.  A bill on its second reading being amended, and on
    the question whether it shall be read a third time negatived, was
    restored by a decision to reconsider that question. Here the votes of
    negative and reconsideration, like positive and negative quantities in
    equation, destroy one another, and are as if they were expunged from the
    journals. Consequently the bill is open for amendment, just so far as it
    was the moment preceding the question for the third reading; that is to
    say, all parts of the bill are open for amendment except those on which
    votes have been already taken in its present stage. So, also, it may be
    recommitted.

    [[Page 261]]

    which it is passed has been parted with, there can be no
    reconsideration, as if a vote has been for the passage of a bill and the
    bill has been sent to the other House. But where the paper remains, as
    on a bill rejected, when or under what circumstances does it cease to be
    susceptible of reconsideration? This remains to be settled, unless a
    sense that the right of reconsideration is a right to waste the time of
    the House in repeated agitations of the same question, so that it shall
    never know when a question is done with, should induce them to reform
    this anomalous proceeding.

      The rule permitting a reconsideration of a question affixing it to no
    limitation of time or circumstance, it may be asked whether there is no
    limitation? If, after the vote, the paper on

      The House provides for reconsideration by clause 3 of rule XIX.

    Sec. 514. Parliamentary law as to
    reconsideration.

      In Parliament  a question once carried can not be questioned again
    at the same session, but must stand as the judgment of the House.
    Towns., col. 67; Mem. in Hakew., 33. * * *

    [[Page 262]]

    orders of the House or instructions to committees may be discharged. So
    a bill, begun in one House and sent to the other and there rejected, may
    be renewed again in that other, passed, and sent back. Ib., 92; 3 Hats.,
    161. Or if, instead of being rejected, they read it once and lay it
    aside or amend it and put it off a month, they may order in another to
    the same effect, with the same or a different title. Hakew., 97, 98.

    Sec. 515. A bill once rejected not to be brought
    up again at the same session.

      * * * And a  bill once rejected, another of the same
    substance can not be brought in again the same session. Hakew., 158; 6
    Grey, 392. But this does not extend to prevent putting the same question
    in different stages of a bill, because every stage of a bill submits the
    whole and every part of it to the opinion of the House as open for
    amendment, either by insertion or omission, though the same amendment
    has been accepted or rejected in a former stage. So in reports of
    committees, e.g., report of an address, the same question is before the
    House, and open for free discussion. Towns., col. 26; 2 Hats., 98, 100,
    101. So

      In the House, with its rule for reconsideration, there is rarely an
    attempt to bring forward a bill once rejected at the same session. One
    instance is recorded (IV, 3384), but the House has declined to consider
    a bill brought forward after a rejection (IV, 3384; Mar. 9, 1910, p.
    2966). The Committee on Rules may report as privileged a resolution
    making in order the consideration of a measure of the same substance as
    one previously rejected and to rescind or vacate the action whereby the
    House had rejected a measure (VIII, 3391; Mar. 17, 1976, p. 6776); and a
    special order of business nearly identical to one previously rejected by
    the House, but providing a different scheme for general debate, was held
    not to violate this section (July 27, 1993, p. 17115).

    [[Page 263]]

    de novo. 2 Hats., 94, 98. Or a part of the subject may be taken up by
    another bill or taken up in a different way. 6 Grey, 304, 316.

    Sec. 516. Expedients for changing the effect
    of bills once passed.

      Divers expedients  are used to correct the effects of this rule,
    as, by passing an explanatory act, if anything has been omitted or ill
    expressed, 3 Hats., 278, or an act to enforce and make more effectual an
    act, &c., or to rectify mistakes in an act, &c., or a committee on one
    bill may be instructed to receive a clause to rectify the mistakes of
    another. Thus, June 24, 1685, a clause was inserted in a bill for
    rectifying a mistake committed by a clerk in engrossing a bill of
    supply. 2 Hats., 194, 6. Or the session may be closed for one, two,
    three, or more days and a new one commenced. But then all matters
    depending must be finished, or they fall, and are to begin

    Sec. 517. Exceptions to the rule against bringing up a
    matter once rejected.

      And in  cases of the last magnitude this rule has not
    been so strictly and verbally observed as to stop indispensable
    proceedings altogether. 2 Hats., 92, 98. Thus when the address on the
    preliminaries of peace in 1782 had been lost by a majority of one, on
    account of the importance of the question and smallness of the majority,
    the same question in substance, though with some words not in the first,
    and which might change the opinion of some Members, was brought on again
    and carried, as the motives for it were thought to outweigh the
    objection of form. 2 Hats, 99, 100.

    Sec. 518. Passage of supplementary bills.

      A second  bill may
    be passed to continue an act of the same session or to enlarge the time
    limited for its execution. 2 Hats., 95, 98. This is not in contradiction
    to the first act.

      The House has by a joint resolution corrected an error in a bill that
    had gone to the President (IV, 3519).