Josh Martin Posted October 19, 2015 at 10:30 PM Report Share Posted October 19, 2015 at 10:30 PM Procedural rules are just that - procedural. Their justice or injustice stems from protecting the rights of minorities, majorities, absentees, etc. They don't become unjust based on their outcomes. Substantive rules have their justice evaluated precisely by what they prohibit or require. That's why I don't see a contradiction in thinking a substantive law is unjust, but not a procedural rule (or even law) which makes it difficult to protest it. Heck, I can go further if you want. I think certain laws are so unjust that they justify protesting in the streets, but don't think that laws against protesting in the streets are unjust.But similarly, might not a law be so unjust that it justifies violating a procedural rule which provides that a motion which conflicts with applicable law is out of order, even if the rule itself is not unjust? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted October 20, 2015 at 12:19 AM Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 at 12:19 AM However the question as I understand it is whether it is possible for them to decide to carry out an action that violates the letter of the law without violating the letter of RONR. And it appears that the 11th edition makes that possible. As long as we all understand that it's not too productive to go much further than that modest proposition when mentioning this aspect of parliamentary procedure, then maybe having the conversation in this topic (which hasn't exactly gone in the direction I was hoping for) has been somewhat worthwhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted October 20, 2015 at 10:03 AM Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 at 10:03 AM As long as we all understand that it's not too productive to go much further than that modest proposition when mentioning this aspect of parliamentary procedure, then maybe having the conversation in this topic (which hasn't exactly gone in the direction I was hoping for) has been somewhat worthwhile. My own view of it is that your posts in this topic have made this conversation very much worthwhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted October 20, 2015 at 04:10 PM Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 at 04:10 PM My own view of it is that your posts in this topic have made this conversation very much worthwhile. Thanks, Dan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted October 25, 2015 at 12:04 PM Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 at 12:04 PM Some of the posts here have referred to the 11th edition, and some to the 10th. Was something about this changed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted October 25, 2015 at 01:07 PM Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 at 01:07 PM Some of the posts here have referred to the 11th edition, and some to the 10th. Was something about this changed? Sure. For instance, the 10th says that no applicable procedural rule prescribed by federal, state, or local law can be suspended unless the rule specifically provides for its own suspension on pages 254-255, whereas the 11th doesn't get around to saying so until you get all the way up to page 263. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted October 25, 2015 at 03:47 PM Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 at 03:47 PM Some of the posts here have referred to the 11th edition, and some to the 10th. Was something about this changed? Not between the 10th and 11th editions. The changes were introduced in the 10th edition, and those changes are discussed in the preface of the 10th edition, which is why that edition was cited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.