English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The congressional enactment of legislation involves many elements. Some are well known and well publicized: the clashes of personality, the cautious attention to public opinion and political ramifications, and the place of a bill within the larger political agenda of an administration or a legislature. Less visible, but no less influential, are the procedural mechanisms relied upon by members of Congress to transform a legislative aspiration into a binding law of the United States. A full analysis of the legislative process requires an understanding of the ways lawmakers use procedural tools to outmaneuver one another. Furthermore, procedure can be especially critical in the passage of legislation that addresses controversial issues such as race and civil rights, for legislators can escape public criticism or accountability by using procedural intricacies to mask the content of particular votes or committee recommendations. As Charles Tiefer, Deputy General Counsel to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, asserts, "Congressional procedure is the language of legislative action; its central aspects . . . have at least the meaningfulness and the importance-if not more-possessed by civil procedure as the language of the courts and international law as the language of diplomacy."1

An Idea Whose Time Has Come: A Comparative Procedural History of the Civil Rights Acts of 1960, 1964, and 1991