Difference Between Parliamentary Law & Procedure

[anon]

Being fairly new to the rigors of RONR parliamentary requirements, I was wondering if any of you more studied in parliamentary law and procedure could entertain a discussion on the differences. Can you actually draw a line between them or are there grey areas?

It seems like much of what gets discussed on this forum is a mix between the two. Does the expertise of a parliamentarian extend into an understanding of the law?

[J. J.]

General parliamentary law is not "law" in the sense that it is created by statute or court precedent.  It has been described this way:

" ''[P]arliamentary law,' is, broadly, those rules and customs that, originated in the English parliament, that dealt with the transaction of business, but that further developed due to legislative procedure in America.  This parliamentary law is a broad set of rules, which when written and adopted, become “rules of order (RONR, p. xxix).'  RONR itself is a codification of these rules."

Parliamentary procedure is " ''these 'rules of order' together with whatever additional rules of order the society may adopt (RONR, p. xxx).'  In that definition, it would include bylaw provisions and any applicable statute that would deal with the transaction of business in meeting or with the duties of officers within a meeting.  Basically, it is the procedural rules that govern a specific assembly.  Parliamentary procedure, which would probably include large elements of parliamentary law, is much narrower."¹

In this forum, people often post about real situations where the answer is unique to that assembly.  That is, by its nature, is a question about parliamentary procedure.  As noted in the article, "Parliamentary law expresses the general and theoretical rule, while parliamentary practice expresses the specific rule for the specific assembly."

Just today, I came across a discussion of the general parliamentary law in the debate of the US House on January 29, 1890 ( Volume XXI, 1889 p. 949), beginning with a Representative McCreary stating, "I deny your right, Mr. Speaker, to count me as present, and I desire to read from the parliamentary law on that subject." The Speaker (Reed) famously replied, "The Chair is making a statement of the fact that the gentleman from Kentucky is present. Does he deny it?"²  It continues on from there though at least February 1, 1890.

 

¹National Parliamentarian, (Vol. 79, No. 1), pp. 12-13 https://issuu.com/parliamentarians/docs/nap_20np_2079-1-wwwr

²It occurs to me that, as I am responding at 11:14 PM on New Years Eve, I need to improve my social life.

Edited January 1, 2020 at 05:57 PM by J. J.

[Dan Honemann]

13 hours ago, anon said:

Being fairly new to the rigors of RONR parliamentary requirements, I was wondering if any of you more studied in parliamentary law and procedure could entertain a discussion on the differences. Can you actually draw a line between them or are there grey areas?

It seems like much of what gets discussed on this forum is a mix between the two. Does the expertise of a parliamentarian extend into an understanding of the law?

These questions evidence what appears to be a misunderstanding of what is meant by "parliamentary law".

As has been noted, the term "parliamentary law'" refers to rules which have gradually evolved over many years from rules and precedents adopted by deliberative assemblies for the governance of their proceedings, and parliamentary law continues to evolve in this fashion. This is the general (or "common") parliamentary law which is codified in RONR.

Parliamentary law isn't taught in law schools because it isn't law. It isn't the kind of law that lawyers deal with. Parliamentarians, not lawyers, are (or at least are supposed to be) the experts in parliamentary law.