Is the Senate rule against &quot;impugning a senator&quot; constitutional?
<p>I was astonished by the news that Warren was silenced by the Senate for "impugning a senator" because in my eyes the rule itself seems to conflict with democratic principles of the USA as well as the 1st amendment. It seems incredible that:</p>

<p>1) A rule that prevents criticism of politicians during political debates in Senate because that would allow the majority to prevent minority from criticizing majority, therefor cementing perpetual rule by the current majority. In particular, this rule would prevent quite rightful impugning of senator MacCarthy in 1950s.</p>

<p>2) A rule that dictates what somebody can or cannot say about the conduct of a public person seems to violate the 1st amendment.</p>

<p>Can anybody clarify how this rule can even exist?</p>

<p>Art. 1 Sect 5 of the Constitution empowers both houses to make <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Rules_of_the_United_States_Senate" rel="noreferrer">their own rules</a>. That means that they can articulate rules regarding what or how you can talk on the floor. It is held that the president of the senate can issue a ruling, and the ruling can be overridden by majority vote. If the Constitution were amended to be more specific about rules of conduct, then some such Senate rules might be unconstitutional and SCOTUS could invalidate the rule. The only specific constitutional requirement on conducting business is that a majority constitutes a quorum.</p>

<p>This rule does not limit most kinds of debate. It only limits remarks about senators, the policies proposed by senators are not protected. Saying a policy is wrong is fine, but saying it was proposed by a jerk is not. This rule is to avoid debates degenerating to name calling and help protect the dignity of office. </p>

<p>The oddity here is that a senator is the nominee. So the rule limiting remarks about a senator is usable to limit the kinds of remarks made about the nominee. There is some contention that a senator is not <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_2:_Independence_from_the_executive" rel="nofollow noreferrer">eligible</a> for appointment, but  resignation on appointment seems to be acceptable.</p>

<p>Of course private citizens can still disparage senators, but the senate will not provide a platform for detracting from the senate.</p>

united-states constitutional-law