Calling all Parliamentary Procedure Nerds

[MrCoffee]

i'm still not convinced that the motion to refer the Articles to committee was in order.

DK introduced the Articles under Rule IX as a question of the privileges of the House, which it clearly is. He used Rule IX becuase HRes 333 had been trapped in House Judiciary since April. It was a smart move.

Now my understanding of Rule IX is that it takes precedence over all other motions except for a motion to adjourn for two legislative calendar days. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=House_Rule_IX_-_Questions_of_privilege

however, it expressly does not have precedence over a motion to table. so the motion to table was in order. but then what happened? wasn't the motion to refer to committee out of order? was the vote on the previous question a vote to move the Articles to committee? (i'm not sure because i'm a cube rat and was relying on DU for news...shame on me)

i think the original motion to refer the question to committee was out of order. am i wrong?

[MADem]

1. Why not? The idea is that the committee most responsible for the measure give it the once over,

make sure it passes muster, irons out any issues that make it "bad law," and then hand it back out to the crowd for a vote.

In reality, a lot can happen in committee. The measure can be beaten to death, changed around six ways to Sunday so it is unworkable, stripped of any/all its meat, or it can do that famous swan dive and "die in committee."

Aren't those Republicans clever, though. They can all say that THEY voted for impeachemnt when they're running for reelection...and the inattentive will actually believe that they meant it!! What a day for the Gee Oh Pee...! They get to have it both ways...

[MrCoffee]

2. well, yeah, but that wasn't really my question

i want to know if today's vote to move the question to committee was out of order or not.

[MADem]

4. I am by no means an expert, but I do not think that it was.

DK has been around for awhile--he would have been on his feet squawking if it were.

I think that Hoyer had a tool in his toolbox, and he used it.

[Selatius]

3. In a way, Steny Hoyer may have helped the Republicans in close election races.

Intentional or not is irrelevant to the outcome. Besides, as you note, a good many voters wouldn't know any better whether they were sincere or not. Only the political junkies and activists would.

[unpossibles]

5. true

just like how millions thought Kerry was a flip-flopper because they were told he was. How many people bother to look at his record or what he actually said?

[MADem]

6. Well, what the GOP has done is put Conyers in a bind.

They're all laughing like hell about it. Of course, if the thing popped back out from Judiciary toute suite, they'd stop laughing--they'd have to do that "up or down vote" thing. And then they'd be shown up as craven hypocritical jerks, who were "For it, before they were AGAINST it."

This can still be made useful. It's not a total mess if you take a longer view of the situation.

[ManiacJoe]

7. It has to do with the nesting of the motions.

It starts with the motion to send the articles to committee. During the debate on (move to committee) a nested motion to table is introduced. The motion to table is debated and voted on. If the motion to table had passed, everything would have stopped until a motion to untable was introduced. Since the motion to table failed, the articles go back to the previous state of being debated regarding the move to committee.

Or, are you questioning the original motion of (move to committee)?

[Spazito]

8. With the flurry of votes that were taken....

it is hard to say, at this point anyway, whether one of those votes was to suspend the rules which would allow the motion to be in order or a variation of upholding the ruling of the Chair who had ruled the motion in order.

I will be reading the transcripts of the sequence of votes with interest to see what actually transpired.

Edited to add: If there was no challenge to the chair to rule whether the motion to refer was in order then the question becomes moot, I believe.

Even if such a challenge had occurred and the chair ruled the motion in order, the next procedure would be a vote to sustain the chair or not and, given the way the vote went, the chair would be sustained and the motion would then be in order. The will of the body governs how their business is done, the rules of order are simply an orderly way to get there.