Legislatures can quietly bury bills rather than defeat them by open vote
Evidence
There seemed to be an understanding betw.een the two houses that when one passed a bill to repress food adulteration the other would see to it that it was buried. In the later stages of the struggle, when it had become dangerous to oppose such measures openly, the proponents of pure food bills encountered great difficulty in getting the bills called up at all. Excuses were always found. Among the most common were: more pressing legislation, agreement in principle but opposition to construction, the desirability of letting the states handle their own problems in their own way, and the prevention of hasty legislation. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 980
Categorization
- XREF: Connects directly to ch8-ch9 of this same book on hearings and legislative inaction as techniques of control. — connects to: Legislative inaction is itself a distinct technique of control — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 728; Hearing transcripts rarely influence committee bill decisions — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 665; Legislative hearings function as displays of raw power, not deliberation. — Robert A. Caro, The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the…, 4571 (+2 more)
- ADDENDUM: Supports the mechanism content for how deferral-by-procedure works as a control technique distinct from substantive defeat.
- recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source
Broader Connections
- Legislative hearings function as displays of raw power, not deliberation.
#corroborates(0.75) — Robert A. Caro, The Power Broker, 4571