ringwiss Profile picture
🏳️‍🌈 🇪🇺 🇵🇱 🇬🇧 He/him. Armchair parliamentarian. I type at 140 wpm. RTs are endorsements.
Nov 7, 2024 17 tweets 5 min read
After further reflection – a 🧵 on the UC irregularities of 5 November 2024

As I have tweeted elsewhere, the bill will be taken up under suspension of the rules next week. It’s still interesting to look at this from a theoretical perspective, though.

x.com/ringwiss/statu… x.com/ringwiss/statu… (NB: I cut out a ~three-minute pause in the middle of the clip above – pretty much just the Parliamentarian flicking through what I assume to be the Manual.)
Feb 27, 2024 19 tweets 6 min read
Not being a lawyer, I will focus on those aspects of this opinion that deal with parliamentary procedure.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
I'll get the pedantry out of the way first.

1. Why would you count 'not voting' as a vote?

2. To claim that the proper denominator is 435, even if there are vacancies, is simply wrong. This is not a discharge petition. There were 431 members at the time, so a quorum was 216. Image
Feb 14, 2024 16 tweets 5 min read
The previous question "is an ingenious method [...] but its technical name does little to elucidate its operation", so here's a 🧵 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. 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. Image