Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Recommended Posts

First of all, I am sorry in advance if this question seems really stupid but I am new to RONR and I am still trying to figure it all out.

Is it stated anywhere in RONR that Federal/State Laws take precedence above RONR or taken into consideration when our Bylaws or Standing Rules have no mention?

I am currently on trial with my organization for the second time for the same offence with no new charges or evidence. I was acquitted in my first trial and the same executive member started both trials. Nowhere in our rules states that our judicial committee cannot hear this charge but I will like to use a 'double jeopardy' like defense stating that this is not allowed by federal laws. I have also considered using "Object to Consideration" but I am not sure if that is applicable in a trial situation. Any and all help is really appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jay Rivera said:

Is it stated anywhere in RONR that Federal/State Laws take precedence above RONR or taken into consideration when our Bylaws or Standing Rules have no mention?

Yes, see RONR 11th ed., p. 580.

And see pp. 3-4.

Edited by Hieu H. Huynh
Added citation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Rivera, state and federal procedural laws take precedence over RONR, but a question as to whether the double jeopardy provision of the U.S. Constitution or a state constitution applies to the disciplinary actions of a private, voluntary organisation is a legal question which is beyond the scope of this forum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jay Rivera said:

First of all, I am sorry in advance if this question seems really stupid but I am new to RONR and I am still trying to figure it all out.

Is it stated anywhere in RONR that Federal/State Laws take precedence above RONR or taken into consideration when our Bylaws or Standing Rules have no mention?

I am currently on trial with my organization for the second time for the same offence with no new charges or evidence. I was acquitted in my first trial and the same executive member started both trials. Nowhere in our rules states that our judicial committee cannot hear this charge but I will like to use a 'double jeopardy' like defense stating that this is not allowed by federal laws. I have also considered using "Object to Consideration" but I am not sure if that is applicable in a trial situation. Any and all help is really appreciated.

Procedural rules of law, that are applicable to the organization, i.e. a hypothetical law saying that votes must be taken by roll call for the particular type of assembly, would take precedence over  RONR.  In that instance, it would be out of order to hold a vote by secret ballot.  Some other law, e.g. a law that says armed robbery is illegal are not subject to a point of order (p. 251, c.).  It would not be out of order for an assembly to consider and adopt a motion "That a committee be appointed to rob the first nation bank, using shotguns, and to bring the proceeds back to the assembly."   While such a motion is not out of order, it may, in fact be illegal. 

The concept of "double jeopardy" does not exist within RONR, nor within the general parliamentary law as I am familiar with it.  There for, it would not be legitimate grounds to find your second trial out of order.

I will agree with my learned colleague, Mr. Brown, that there is a legal question as to if any national or state constitutions would apply to this organization.  As he noted, that is beyond the scope of this forum. 

Objection To the Consideration of the Question, could not apply to a trial, as that, by this point, the assembly has adopted a motion to hold the trial; Objection To the Consideration of the Question can be made in regard to an original main motion, and a motion to hold a trial is, at best, an incidental main motion.

If there is an initial motion to investigate you or to consider the filing of charges, that possibly could be subject to a timely Objection To the Consideration of the Question.

 

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...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×