Members like them because it allows them to present a nicely-prepared parchment with a nice official seal to their constituents and make them feel special. As Ayn Rand observed, if everybody is special, then nobody is. And that’s just about how bad it’s got. I haven’t seen a resolution commending a child for enrolling in kindergarten, but I could certainly see a Member introducing one in the Texas House.

Members rarely oppose their colleagues ridiculous resolutions because they know that, someday, they’ll have one of their own. Most go unread; that’s how Representative Tom Moore of Waco convinced his colleagues in the Texas House to adopt a resolution on April 1, 1971, honoring Albert DeSalvo of Massachusetts for “his noted activities and unconventional techniques involving population control and applied psychology.” DeSalvo is better known as the Boston Strangler, who killed 13 women between 1962 and 1964. Although Moore said it was joke, the Austin American-Statesman quoted another Member’s misgivings: “It just proves you could pass anything in the House.”

Texas House Speaker Pete Laney tried to stop the flow of superfluous resolutions by replacing them with a simpler congratulatory or memorial “motion,” which would be printed in the journal and on a simple certificate, but Members didn’t seem to like those motions as much–probably because their constituents didn’t know what a motion is–and the motion practice died a-borning.

One of the biggest knocks against these kinds of measures is the expense of processing them. They are accorded the dignity of other resolutions, which means they are individually introduced, referred to committee, placed on a calendar that is printed and distributed, and read on the floor–often by title but many times in full, especially if the honoree, the honoree’s family, or the decedent’s family is present. Many are prepared by the research staff of the Texas Legislative Council, which distracts them from performing other, more meaningful tasks for Members. Once passed, the Chief Clerk prepares one or more copies on parchment with seals and ribbons for the Member to present afterwards. Accordingly to Texas Legislature Online, there were 3,140 resolutions introduced in the Texas House in the 2009 regular session; accounting for those that actually transact business such as adopting the House rules and suspending limitations on conference committees, I’d bet that 3,000 of those were puffery. (Although I am pleasantly surprised that my birthday last year was designed as “Texas Friendship Day [to] encourage all Texans to reflect on the meaning of friendships in their own lives.”) While no one has publicly estimated the expense of resolutions, I do know that several House Administration chairmen have privately lamented the cost. I personally think they trivialize the House, the Member, and the recipient, but I don’t think the practice will die out so long as Members think the resolutions help them stay in office.

For your records, the proposed new rule language would ban any measure that “expresses appreciation, commends, congratulates, celebrates, recognizes the accomplishments of, or celebrates the anniversary of an entity, event, group, individual, institution, team or government program; or acknowledges or recognizes a period of time for such purposes.”

Senate Business & Commerce Chairman Troy Fraser, the cooperative’s chief legislative critic, told the paper that “[n]ow it’s time to put people under oath.”

Now, the paper didn’t say, and the Horseshoe Bay Republican didn’t elaborate on, who would be administering the oath or in what forum. Let’s assume, however, that the Senator meant that he would be calling those “former executives and insiders” to testify under oath before his committee. And although the paper didn’t say so, it earlier reported on the pending criminal investigation. So, let’s assume for a moment that a parade of coop executives and insiders are called before the committee next year.

Friendly advice to those called: You might want to show up, assert that what you are about to say will incriminate you, and tell all.

Why? Because Texas law provides that you cannot be “indicted or prosecuted for any transaction, matter, or thing about which the person truthfully testified or produced evidence.” Tex. Govt. Code § 301.025(c). The privilege is absolute; it applies regardless of whether the witness testified under subpena or voluntarily. Op. Tex. Atty. Gen. No. M-206 at 2 (1968). A witness must answer truthfully and responsively for the immunity to apply. Id.

This privilege is provided because “[a] witness called . . . by a legislative committee does not have a privilege to refuse to testify to a fact” by asserting the witness’s Constitutional rights against self-incrimination. See Tex. Govt. Code  § 301.025(a). The only way the Legislature can take away those rights is by providing the absolute immunity from criminal proceedings. Ferrantello v. State, 256 S.W.2d 587, 594  (Tex. Crim. App. 1952).

The statute makes sense because it permits adequate inquiry by the legislature by removing the self-incrimination obstacle. Consider allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, such as failing to refrain from prosecuting or threatening to prosecute a charge that a prosecutor knew was not supported by probable cause or other conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation or otherwise constituting obstruction of justice. A witness must be able to testify fully and freely about the prosecutor’s actions without worrying that the prosecutor would attempt to imidate him with prosecution on trumped-up charges.

Perhaps this seems like letting a wrong-doer off easy, and that will surely be the result at least once, and might be the result here. However, the Legislature can often act much faster than the courts or even the Executive branch. As the branch closest to the people and directly responsible to them like none other (even considering our elective plural executive or our elective judiciary), the Legislature is in an unique position to remedy the situation at the coop. Since legislative changes to the coop’s governance and operations are  needed, the Legislature needs a full record of the misdeeds and wrongdoing in order to craft its enactments accordingly. The absolute immunity thus aids the Legislature in providing quick, effective relief to citizens. For that, the tradeoff is worth it.

UPDATE: A reader asks some good questions I will briefly answer. The first question is “Do you have to be called to testify to be covered by the privilege?” The answer is no, you do not have to be called by the committee; your presence may be voluntary and the privilege applies. The second question is “What if you just sign up as a witness,and start blabbing the truth after saying what you’re about to say possibly will incriminate you, do you get immunity?” Probably not, since the incriminating testimony needs to be in response to a question by a committee member that is relevant to the proceedings. For example, I don’t think immunity applies to a person confessing to a murder when appearing before House Ways & Means to discuss the franchise tax. The third question is “Has a legislator ever called a witness explicitly so that the witness can get immunity (in an effort to help that person avoid prosecution)?” While this is almost like trying to prove a negative, I do not have any notes where someone has made this allegation.

While technically the vice president could function as the Senate’s equivalent of the Speaker of the House and exert major influence over legislation and policymaking, senators would have to grant her that power. And historically, senators have refused to do it.

For example, the Vice President generally has no independent right to address the Senate from the chair absent unanimous consent or other indulgence of the Senate. Riddick, Senate Procedure at 1390, 1391-1392. It is true that the Vice President has made “long statements from the chair” in the past. Id. at 1391. An examination of those precedents show that the statements were made by Vice President Alben Barkley, who was held in high esteem by his colleagues since his days as Senate leader under Roosevelt. The seminal episode demonstrating this came during World War II when he famously resigned his post as leader because he could not support FDR’s veto of a tax bill. After he voted with his colleagues to override the veto, they re-elected him as leader. There may be other times when the Vice President spoke at length of the chair, but I cannot readily locate them in the Senate’s published precedents.

Unlike Tom Craddick, Palin could not attempt to control debate by refusing recognition because the Senate Rules require the Vice President to recognize the first Senator who asks the chair for recognition. U.S. Sen. R. XIX  § 1(a) (providing that “[w]hen a Senator desires to speak, he shall rise and address the Presiding Officer, and shall not proceed until he is recognized, and the Presiding Officer shall recognize the Senator who shall first address him“) (emphasis added.)

Further, Palin cannot exert control over policymaking because she has no role in appointing the Senate committees that have the greatest control over shaping policy thru legislation — the Senate itself appoints committees and committee chairs by a resolution embodying the selections of the majority and minority party caucuses. See id. at R. XXIV § 1.

Finally, I would note that Lyndon Johnson, who went from powerful majority leader to figurehead vice president, asked his former colleagues to allow him to be the “permanent presiding officer” of the Senate Democratic Caucus in 1961 in an attempt to keep operating as a “super-leader.” The request was approved by less than unanimous consent after bitter debate showing that the senators didn’t like the idea and Johnson gave up trying to lead the Senate as vice president.

If Lyndon couldn’t do it, I doubt Sarah can.

The judge instead looked to the fact that the bill was not presented to the Governor for his signature until April 16, a day on which the Legislature was not  in session. Since the Legislature could not legally be in session, a presiding officer could not sign an enrolled bill and a legislative officer could not present the bill to the Governor for his consideration. Thus, the time for getting it to the Governor’s desk just ran out. At least 11 other bills and five resolutions are also subject to invalidation under the judge’s decision, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal, “includ[ing] some key measures, including a House bill aimed at energy conservation, a broad criminal justice bill and the authorization of local water and sewer projects.” No word yet on any appeal. Williams v. Grayson, No. 08-CI-856 (Ky. Circ. Franklin Co. July 31, 2008) (opinion available here). [Thanks to the Kentucky Law Review for posting the initial stories.]