Sam Mahler
Since the start of the twenty-first century, Congress members have faced more threats to their safety than at any other point in American history. Up to this point, none of the attacks have been successful in killing a majority of the members. However, such a prospect comes with the possibility of a reality where all Congressional action is stalled until replacement elections are held and new members are seated. In order to address this fear, Congress has changed its interpretation of the Quorum Clause to define the majority needed to conduct business as the majority of the members who are chosen, sworn, and living–rather than requiring the majority of members compared to the total number of seats in each house. But, as the Supreme Court continues to provide opinions deferring to the intentions of the drafters and the First Congress, will this modern reading of the clause survive judicial review? This Note explains why Congress’ position on the Quorum Clause is an unreliable attempt to safeguard our nation’s legislative body during a continuity of government crisis, and why changes need to be made to the modern meaning of quorum.