" they are free to pass a law like TPA that sets special procedures."
Agreed.
However my point was: they can only do that to the degree that these procedures do not violate explicitly promulgated constitutional requirements.
Ie they cannot decide to give a senator two votes, or declare that votes are decided by something other than yeas and nays, etc.
This is because the constitution says that is what is supposed to happen, and you can't override those requirements.
The no amendments appears to possibly run afoul of that, if what i quoted from the constitution is read the way i read it :)
It looks like this actually came up during NAFTA. A lower federal court found the NAFTA ratification process constitutional, and the appeals court found the question was political and thus not justiciable.
Agreed. However my point was: they can only do that to the degree that these procedures do not violate explicitly promulgated constitutional requirements.
Ie they cannot decide to give a senator two votes, or declare that votes are decided by something other than yeas and nays, etc. This is because the constitution says that is what is supposed to happen, and you can't override those requirements.
The no amendments appears to possibly run afoul of that, if what i quoted from the constitution is read the way i read it :)