3persuaded that the Plaintiffs possess a “procedural” right,grounded in the text of the Constitution, that entitles them tothe majority enactment of legislation. Second, and no lessimportant, the Court is firmly convinced that to intrude intothis area would offend the separation of powers on which theConstitution rests. Nowhere does the Constitution containexpress requirements regarding the proper length of, or methodfor, the Senate to debate proposed legislation. Article Ireserves to each House the power to determine the rules of itsproceedings. And absent a rule’s violation of an expressconstraint in the Constitution or an individual’s fundamentalrights, the internal proceedings of the Legislative Branch arebeyond the jurisdiction of this Court.Accordingly, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion toDismiss, the response and reply thereto, the supplemental briefsfiled by the parties, the arguments made at the hearing held onDecember 10, 2012, the relevant law, the entire record in thiscase, and for the reasons stated below, the Court will
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
History of the Cloture Rule
The Complaint sets forth the following background regardingthe history of the Cloture Rule. At the time the Constitutionwas adopted, there was no recognized “right” on the part of