The previous question "is an ingenious method [...] but its technical name does little to elucidate its operation", so here's a š§µ to consolidate everything there is to know about defeating the PQ.
TL;DR: This is the best method by which a majority can bring up the supplemental.
TL;DR: This is the best method by which a majority can bring up the supplemental.
https://twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/1757750353435467987
First, a very general explanation:
1. In the modern House of Representatives, the previous question is the motion used to bring the House to a vote on something without further debate and amendment.
1. In the modern House of Representatives, the previous question is the motion used to bring the House to a vote on something without further debate and amendment.
2. Quick side note: In the parliamentary usage, the previous question has an entirely different purpose, so don't conflate the two.
https://twitter.com/ringwiss/status/1539949231846432773
3. When the House is debating something, a member who has the floor may move the previous question on the pending question (or on a series of questions).
The speaker then puts the question on ordering the previous question, and then the House votes. A simple majority is required.
The speaker then puts the question on ordering the previous question, and then the House votes. A simple majority is required.
4. If the previous question is ordered, the House proceeds to vote on whatever the motion was applied to. Generally, no further debate nor amendment is in order.
5. OTOH, if the previous question is rejected, the underlying question remains debatable and amendable as before.
5. OTOH, if the previous question is rejected, the underlying question remains debatable and amendable as before.
Here's why that's relevant now:
6. When the House is considering a special rule, after an hour's debate, the majority manager of the rule moves the previous question on it.
7. If the previous question is ordered, the House then proceeds to vote on adoption of the rule.
6. When the House is considering a special rule, after an hour's debate, the majority manager of the rule moves the previous question on it.
7. If the previous question is ordered, the House then proceeds to vote on adoption of the rule.
8. As mentioned above: If, however, the House defeated the previous question, the rule would remain open to debate and amendment.
9. Under the precedents, the speaker would recognise the member leading the opposition to the previous question (i.e., the minority manager).
9. Under the precedents, the speaker would recognise the member leading the opposition to the previous question (i.e., the minority manager).
10. That member would be able to speak for an hour. Crucially, they would also have the right to offer an amendment to the rule. š³
11. After offering that amendment, they would be able to speak for an hour to it as well.
11. After offering that amendment, they would be able to speak for an hour to it as well.
12. After debate, the member would move the previous question on the amendment and the resolution.
13. If the previous question is ordered, the House then votes on the amendment, and finally on the rule (as amended, if amended).
13. If the previous question is ordered, the House then votes on the amendment, and finally on the rule (as amended, if amended).
14. Therefore, if the previous question is defeated on a special rule, the House can amend it.
15. Most of the time, the minority attempts to defeat the previous question so that they can amend the rule to bring up one of their bills:
15. Most of the time, the minority attempts to defeat the previous question so that they can amend the rule to bring up one of their bills:
Successfully doing it is *extraordinarily* rare:
https://twitter.com/ringwiss/status/1583584156629749761
16. There is a very big catch.
The House's germaneness rule still applies. Under the precedents, you may not amend a rule to provide for consideration of a different bill. š¬
The House's germaneness rule still applies. Under the precedents, you may not amend a rule to provide for consideration of a different bill. š¬
17. Maybe no one will bother to make a point of order, especially if this happens unexpectedly. š¤·āāļø
18. Arguably, if you have the votes to defeat the PQ, you also have the votes to overturn the ruling of the chair. I would not be so sure about that, though.
18. Arguably, if you have the votes to defeat the PQ, you also have the votes to overturn the ruling of the chair. I would not be so sure about that, though.
https://twitter.com/ringwiss/status/1693627354898178511
(Personally, I would be very happy if the House set a precedent that you can offer whatever amendment you want to a rule, but I doubt members will be keen on it.)
https://twitter.com/ringwiss/status/1723470147157913758
20. Assuming you can overcome that problem, hijacking a rule is the most efficient way of bringing up the supplemental over the opposition of the leadership.
While a discharge petition would take months, this is basically instant. It also only requires a simple majority, not 218.
While a discharge petition would take months, this is basically instant. It also only requires a simple majority, not 218.
21. As in all of these discussions, it should be abundantly clear that a majority of the House can do whatever it wants to do. The speaker cannot unilaterally "bring a bill to the floor" nor "kill a bill" as is so often said; his power is political, not procedural.
ā¢ ā¢ ā¢
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
ć
