I have a question, please.

As unconstitutional as that may seem, the Hastert Rule requiring a majority of the majority, to bring a rule to the floor, is the game they are playing.

In practical terms, adherence to the rule keeps the minority party from passing bills with the assistance of a small number of members of the majority party. It takes 218 votes to pass a bill. Even when there are 218 votes to pass a bill, the rule prevents votes from taking place when those 218 votes do not include a majority of the majority party. If the Democrats are the minority party and the Republicans are the majority party, under the majority of the majority rule it would not be possible for 170 Democrats and 50 Republicans together to pass a bill, because 50 Republicans votes is far short of a majority of the majority party, so the Speaker would not allow a vote to take place.[7] As an example, if the Republican Party is the majority party and has 234 seats in Congress, it would have to be known that there were 118 (117+1) Republican votes in support of legislation before a vote on the legislation would be scheduled. With less than 118 Republican votes, the legislation would be blocked even if 218 or more votes could be found between the two parties.

A discharge petition signed by 218 members (or more) from any party is the only way to force consideration of a bill that does not have the support of the Speaker. However, discharge petitions are rarely successful, as a member of the majority party defying their party’s leadership by signing a discharge petition can expect retribution from the leadership.

It’s the rule that is giving a very small minority within the majority a very big voice. In a parliamentary government, we’d be having an election. The Senate has a similar rule called a cloture vote that requires 60 votes to end debate on a bill and bring it to the floor. There has been a lot of discussion of late about limiting its use because of the obstruction of the minority to manipulate that rule and stall any movement in the Senate.

It’s all legal until a court says its not and that is problematic, as well. Getting someone with standing to bring a suit in court and finding a court that would even consider such an action would be quite a challenge.

As for drinking while voting, so long as members conduct themselves in an orderly manner on the floor, they can drink and vote. Considering the exposure that both bodies get on C-Span, I suspect they are careful when they have to get up in front of a camera. However, the Senate appears to be the more “sober” side at this point, at least as far as complaints about alcohol abuse.

I’m not an expert on this but I think this is pretty accurate. I can double check my answer with a couple of friends who are and get back to you if you’d like.