Steven Britton

Fundamental Rights Under Common Parliamentary Law

3 posts in this topic

Page 656 of RONR, 11th ed. states " member or officer has the right that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground. If thus accused, he has the right to due process—that is, to be informed of the charge and given time to prepare his defense, to appear and defend himself, and to be fairly treated."

To what extent is this a fundamental right under common parliamentary law? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Steven Britton said:

Page 656 of RONR, 11th ed. states " member or officer has the right that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground. If thus accused, he has the right to due process—that is, to be informed of the charge and given time to prepare his defense, to appear and defend himself, and to be fairly treated."

To what extent is this a fundamental right under common parliamentary law? 

I'm not at all sure as to exactly what it is that you are asking, or why, but I am unaware of anything that would lead me to believe that what is said in that first paragraph on page 656 of RONR is not an accurate statement of what is generally accepted to be common parliamentary law here in the United States.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid that what little has been said so far in this thread can very easily be misinterpreted or misunderstood, and so I do hope that Mr. Britton will return to explain what he means by "a fundamental right under common parliamentary law". This term is found nowhere in RONR. 

As RONR makes clear in its Introduction: "Acting under the general parliamentary law, any deliberative assembly can formally adopt written rules of procedure which, as fully explained on pages 15 ff., can confirm, add to, or deviate from parliamentary law itself." (RONR, 11th ed., p. xxix)

In other words, an organization may adopt and enforce whatever rules it wishes for the governance of its proceedings, whether it finds them in a book or simply makes them up out of whole cloth, provided that such rules do not violate the constitutional rights of any of its members or conflict with any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...