Pelosi doesn't like that she's losing in Congress, so she's changing the rules

ballz2wallz · 05-16-2007, 04:36 PM

Well it seems Pelosi is fed up with the very low approval ratings and her failed attempts to get something done...so fed up that instead of trying to work with a bipartisan Congress, she'd rather just end any influence the minority has!

PELOSI LOWERS THE BOOM
Wed May 16 2007 14:43:59 ET

After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority.

The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit. This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822.

In protest, the House Republicans are going to call procedural motions every half hour.

Developing...

JaJae · 05-16-2007, 04:37 PM

Pelosi is the one who's starting to sound the fascist.

In protest, the House Republicans are going to call procedural motions every half hour.

How mature.

ballz2wallz · 05-16-2007, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

How mature.

I don't know what 'calling procedural motions' means

Publius · 05-16-2007, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I don't know what 'calling procedural motions' means

5.5 Procedural Motions:

a procedural motion may be raised at any time (other than during a vote unless the procedural motion relates to the conduct of that vote) and shall be discussed immediately in accordance with the order of debate as in 5.1 above. Procedural motions may be proposed as follows:

(i) that the chairperson take a further round of speeches

(ii) that the chairperson move straight to the vote

(iii) that the meeting be adjourned

(iv) that the vote be by secret ballot

(v) that the vote be recounted

(vi) to vote on different parts of a proposal separately

(vii) not to take a vote on the issue under discussion

(viii) that the meeting has no confidence in the chairperson (during the debate on which the chairperson shall vacate the chair and shall be afforded the opportunity to speak against the procedural motion)

^^ UWESU Laws - 5.5 Procedural Motions:

Procedural motions

Procedural motions occur when all other business is halted to deal with one topic.

To enact a procedural motion, you would need a proposer, a seconder, and the support of twenty full members.

Several can be rejected by the Chair on the grounds of attempting to disrupt the meeting or not being relevant.

However if the motion is calling for a count of members or 'quorum' as its known, a change to the order of business, a motion that a question be not put in, a vote of "no confidence" in the Chair or a challenge to the Chair's ruling, then there is one speech in favour of the motion, one against and a summing up followed by a simple majority vote.

^^ UPSU.net | Meetings: procedural motions | Portsmouth Students' Union online

Basically it's part of the Robert's Rules of Order / Parliamentary Procedure that deals with things unrelated to laws themselves, but rather the conduct of the House itself.

Publius · 05-16-2007, 04:54 PM

Motion to Recommit:

A motion to recommit returns a bill to committee, in effect killing it. However, a motion to recommit with instructions is a last opportunity to amend the bill.

The instructions to the committee direct changes to the text of the bill. If adopted, the chairman of the named committee immediately stands and reports the change back to the House. The next step is the House vote on final passage of the bill.

Minority Members receive priority of recognition for offering motions to recommit.

^^ MOTION TO RECOMMIT

So basically she is pissy that the Republicans are motioning to send bills back to committee, so she's trying to change the rules to prevent them from doing so.

Publius · 05-16-2007, 04:55 PM

And finally, an overview on the "Test of Germaneness":

GERMANENESS: AN OVERVIEW

Thorgrim · 05-16-2007, 04:55 PM

She's one of the most popular, acclaimed, and just do basic research:

Check out the roll call, see how all the big votes have gone her way, and a lot of the small ones

She only looks bad on right-wing websites, because they are smearing her

Publius · 05-16-2007, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

She's one of the most popular, acclaimed, and just do basic research:

Check out the roll call, see how all the big votes have gone her way, and a lot of the small ones

She only looks bad on right-wing websites, because they are smearing her

I don't care how "popular" she is ... trying to change House rules of order that have been in place since pretty much the opening session of the House (and haven't been changed in nearly 200 years) in an effort to silence the minority is unacceptable.

ballz2wallz · 05-16-2007, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Basically it's part of the Robert's Rules of Order / Parliamentary Procedure that deals with things unrelated to laws themselves, but rather the conduct of the House itself.

Well if she is wanting to change the rules, maybe they should deal with the conduct of the House itself

ballz2wallz · 05-16-2007, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

She only looks bad on right-wing websites, because they are smearing her

Um, I don't think so. Every big bill she's tried to pass has been vetoed (and here, and here) or stopped in the Senate. That's what the American people see, not the conservative websites.

She's one of the most popular, acclaimed,

You speak of her as if she's a movie and you're Ebert

Thorgrim · 05-16-2007, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

I don't care how "popular" she is ... trying to change House rules of order that have been in place since pretty much the opening session of the House (and haven't been changed in nearly 200 years) in an effort to silence the minority is unacceptable.

they "change the rules" every 2 years, the GOP shut out some 49% of the congress (democrats) from participating in basically anyway with medicare D and most of their other bills, they simply dropped them on the floor, with basically no time to read through, and rammed them through the house, this is hard ball politics not libertarian fantasyland

Publius · 05-16-2007, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

they "change the rules" every 2 years, the GOP shut out some 49% of the congress (democrats) from participating in basically anyway with medicare D and most of their other bills, they simply dropped them on the floor, with basically no time to read through, and rammed them through the house, this is hard ball politics not libertarian fantasyland

Changing some rules every two years is normal, but changing a rule that has stood UNCHANGED since JAMES MONROE was President isn't just "hard ball politics"

Thorgrim · 05-16-2007, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Changing some rules every two years is normal, but changing a rule that has stood UNCHANGED since JAMES MONROE was President isn't just "hard ball politics"

The GOP has done things that no party has EVER done, doesn't that make them even worse?

Find me the part of the Constitution that says Congress can't do what you're complaining about

Publius · 05-16-2007, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The GOP has done things that no party has EVER done, doesn't that make them even worse?

Find me the part of the Constitution that says Congress can't do what you're complaining about

The Republicans and the Democrats both do it, and it's idiotic. Changing rules of order in an effort to give your own party the upper hand while it is the majority is short-sighted in the extreme.

And this has nothing to do with the Constitution. Congress has every right to create its own rules of order. However changing longstanding rules just to help yourself in the immediate NOW is not kosher under Robert's Rules of Order nor Parliamentary Procedure. And contrary to how bitter you and other extremists may be about anyone that disagrees with you, the members of Congress typically uphold gentlemenly agreements between each other not to do shit like this.

JaJae · 05-16-2007, 05:30 PM

We shouldn't change the constitution because Pelosi is upset about something. That's absurd. What happens with the Dems aren't the majority anymore and they lose these rights? Will they want it changed back and not have enough votes? It's a bad precedent.

Publius · 05-16-2007, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

We shouldn't change the constitution because Pelosi is upset about something. That's absurd.

This has nothing to do with the Constitution though, it's more just the internationally accepted conduct of debate as laid down by every civilized nation in the world.

nbiggershaft · 05-16-2007, 05:36 PM

If I remember correctly this is coming after a rather shameful streak of using congressional loopholes to prevent bill passage.

Thorgrim · 05-16-2007, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Congress has every right to create its own rules of order.

Thanks

Thorgrim · 05-16-2007, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

We shouldn't change the constitution because Pelosi is upset about something. That's absurd. What happens with the Dems aren't the majority anymore and they lose these rights? Will they want it changed back and not have enough votes? It's a bad precedent.

Publius just said this has nothing to do with the Constitution...