Not by special rule of order

[Dan Honemann]

3 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

How am I to understand what is the list of FPPLs except by seeing what is called an FPPL in RONR?

If RONR is your parliamentary authority, you have no need to.  So relax. 🙂

[J. J.]

7 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

I feel a bit like I'm watching my parents argue here...

But I remain deeply confused over the term FPPL.  It appears in a few places in RONR, usually in the form of "X is a FPPL".  But I have no way, from RONR, to understand what an FPPL is or how something is determined to be an FPPL. 

Of course, the purpose of the rules is to allow the majority to work its will while paying due regard to the rights of minorities, especially large ones, and of individual members, as well as those not present.  From this, I can derive the principle of majoritarianism for most things as an FPPL.  Also, that members have a right to a fair trial, and that notice is required for meetings and separately for momentous actions (amending bylaws and elections) and at least some of the requirements for unanimous consent.  But how do I derive that there exists a FPPL that a two-thirds vote is the correct threshold to suppress a motion for the duration of a session?  Why not three-fifths or three-fourths?  How am I to understand what is the list of FPPLs except by seeing what is called an FPPL in RONR?

This is by far the most frustrating question that I have in regards to RONR.

A fundamental principle of parliamentary law is whatever the author or authors of a particular parliamentary authority identify as one. 

It has two characteristics, that are not unique, under RONR.  Its violation creates a breach of a continuing nature.  It cannot be suspended.  Other things have those characteristics as well.  If something could be suspended, it could not be a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, under RONR.