getting 1980's flashbacks :)

15th-17th centuries flashbacks re: Star Chamber Proceedings, aka Kangaroo Court.

Democrats have no authority whatsoever to act as if they are an overruling Monarchy
with private access to America's Congressional facilities at taxpayer expense and
with privileged rulebreaking powers to exclusively conduct an illegal impeachment
"inquiry."

And how many rules do the Dims trample per day?

That's like asking: How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

I'm going to guess that they trample as many rules per day as they want to trample because they think they're exempt
from America's rules and laws but their opponents aren't. Every day that they misuse the Intelligence Committee
room like it's their secret tribunal headquarters to run an unauthorized impeachment "inquiry" over a Presidential
phone conversation with Ukraine's President - not an Intel agent - it's an attempt, imo, to replace America's
government system with an Anarcho-Communist dictatorship by them. Here are 2 more examples:

Rep. Jordan, GOP lawmakers hold a press conference on the border crisis - YouTube, 38.5 minutes | Streamed live on
Jun 18, 2019 by Fox News

Republican lawmakers including Reps. Roy, Jordan, Biggs, Hice, Harris, Perry, Cloud, Cline, Davidson,
and Norman ...

@ 25:28-26:21, (R-AZ) Rep. Andy Biggs: "by the way, I never knew that we were passing bills in the
United States Congress without actually voting on them. That's what's happening. You get 2 or 3 people
on the floor, they do a suspension bill. Who knew that? I didn't know it. I don't think most American
people know it. And I commend my colleagues who are merely asking for the transparency that we vote
on every amendment in every bill. That's a real simple thing. Allows your voters to know what you
believe in, what you stand for, whether you're keeping your promises. So, tonight, while most people in
and around this country are going to bed and sleeping, we'll be here voting on amendments. Because
why? Because the majority wants to punish us for asking for votes on every bill. That is outrageous. We
should be doing that on every every bill and every amendment anyway."

From the Comments: "It's time to hold Congress in contempt of we the people."

2012 4um discussion refs. re: legislative matters passed in the Senate by only one voice vote: Democrat Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid's of Nevada.

"suspension bill" -- what next!

Incredible. So this Andy Biggs is a good guy?

"suspension bill" -- what next!

Yes, I think he's a good guy. The rules rigging iceberg of Congressional contrivance has been wildly distorting our Founders' legislative intent since at least the 1970s, according to one source - and with court approvals, according to another source (but that might possibly boomerang back at the Democrats complaining about the GOP interrupting their pretend "Intelligence Committee" tribunal):

The Legislative Process

Few bills are passed via the organized, step-by-step, textbook process. Since the 1970s, “unorthodox lawmaking” has become the norm. Most bills wend their way through a circuitous path filled with political and procedural roadblocks. [Ref. Barbara Sinclair, Unorthodox Lawmaking (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1997)]. Individual members, especially those seeking reelection, weigh in on bills, resulting in an often contentious atmosphere for lawmaking. ... The process of making laws involves complex written rules and procedures, some of which date back to 1797, when Vice President Thomas Jefferson prepared a rule book to help him carry out his responsibilities as president of the Senate. Jefferson’s Manual was adopted by the House and remains the authoritative statement of rules except where it has been superseded by provisions passed by members. In addition, [now] there are fifteen volumes of parliamentary procedures and supplementary manuals of notes specifying current rules that pertain to lawmaking in the House. Similar reams of codes exist in the Senate. [Ref. Charles W. Johnson, How Our Laws Are Made (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, January 31, 2000)].

Suspension of the rules in the United States Congress - Wikipedia

A motion to suspend the rules is in order on Mondays and Tuesdays and towards the end of a session of Congress and may only be made by the Speaker of the House or their designee, ... Once a member makes a motion to "suspend the rules" and take some action, debate is limited to 40 minutes, no amendments can be offered to the motion or the underlying matter, and a 2/3 majority of Members present and voting is required to agree to the motion. ... A suspension motion sets aside all procedural and other rules that otherwise prohibit the House from considering the measure—but the motion never mentions the specific rules that are suspended. Typically, a suspension motion is phrased as a motion to "...suspend the rules and pass the bill," and, if the motion is agreed to, the bill is considered passed by the House. A Member can also move to suspend the rules and take another action, such as to "suspend the rules and consider the bill," and the House shall take the proposed action if two-thirds of those voting are in favor of the motion.

[Examples: if 432 House members are not present to vote but 3 are present, then only 2 votes of agreement to suspend the rules and pass the bill would be needed among those 3 to equal a 2/3 majority. If only 2 are present to vote, they would both have to agree "unanimously" to suspend the rules and pass the bill in order to attain the minimum requirement of 2/3 majority. Theoretically, if only the Speaker of the House or their designate is present to vote, they might vote to suspend the rules and pass a bill, which could then be considered as having passed "unanimously".]

These votes, under the rules, may only take place on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays. Under special circumstances, suspension votes may take place on Thursdays or Fridays, or other days, but that happens rarely and requires a separate vote of the House as to whether that should occur.

Suspension of the rules | Rules that cannot be suspended - Wikipedia

Three of the major parliamentary authorities: Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, and Demeter's Manual — all agree that provisions in the bylaws that do not relate to parliamentary procedure may not be suspended. Demeter notes how this plays into the reality of parliamentary situations:

Bylaws cannot be suspended even by unanimous vote. But sometimes circumstances, expediency or strong assembly determination in behalf of a cause or proposition make violations necessary. In all such cases of violations, the action taken is illegal per se; but if no one objects at the time, or never challenges it at any time thereafter, a violation never challenged is never a violation.

Similarly, Mason states:

It has been held that public bodies can adopt rules, even by majority vote, that cannot be suspended or amended without a two-thirds vote, but it is also held by the courts that actions, taken in violation of procedural rules of parliamentary law and of adopted rules, are valid nevertheless, since failure to conform to the rules of this class suspended them by implication.

The action is still illegal if it violated a mandatory constitutional provision, since a legislature cannot suspend the constitution.

Hastert Rule - Wikipedia

The Hastert Rule, also known as the "majority of the majority" rule, is an informal governing principle used in the United States by Speakers of the House of Representatives since the mid-1990s to maintain their speakerships and limit the power of the minority party to bring bills up for a vote on the floor of the House. Under the doctrine, the Speaker will not allow a floor vote on a bill unless a majority of the majority party supports the bill.

The Hastert Rule is an informal rule and the Speaker is not bound by it; he or she may break it at his or her discretion. Speakers have at times broken the Hastert Rule and allowed votes to be scheduled on legislation that lacked majority support within the Speaker's own party. Hastert described the rule as being "kind of a misnomer" in that it "never really existed" as a rule.

Under House rules, the Speaker schedules floor votes on pending legislation. The Hastert Rule says that the Speaker will not schedule a floor vote on any bill that does not have majority support within his or her party—even if the majority of the members of the House would vote to pass it. The rule keeps the minority party from passing bills with the assistance of a minority of majority party members. In the House, 218 votes are needed to pass a bill [Note: except so-called "suspension bills"? Ref. above.]; if 200 Democrats are the minority and 235 Republicans are the majority, the Hastert Rule would not allow 200 Democrats and 100 Republicans together to pass a bill, because 100 Republican votes is short of a majority of the majority party, so the Speaker would not allow a vote to take place.

In summary: "there are fifteen volumes of parliamentary procedures and supplementary manuals of notes specifying current rules that pertain to lawmaking in the House. Similar reams of codes exist in the Senate." [Ref. The Legislative Process source linked above.]

How absolutely bizarre. And the USG has even published a book about it -- Unorthodox Lawmaking (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1997)?

Yes, it is -- like incongruent "spaghetti codes" of foreign systems programming to supplant our rightful form of government by "suspension bills" and whatnot. Thanks for spotlighting that "Unorthodox Lawmaking" publication.

Am archiving more links here with relevance to volumes of the Rules referenced at Post #5. This 4um topic has some discussion about Robert's Rules of Order (which are also used for organizational meetings); with a linked source included there. The YouTube source below concerns a controversial matter in the House of Representatives this year during a mid-July session. The last time that something occurred there similarly was 35 years ago and both matters involved calls for the House Speaker's comments to be removed as violations of the Rules of Conduct. A Fox News reporter cites VP Thomas Jefferson’s Manual and another rules compliation called the Cannon Book of Precedents:

House tensions erupt as Collins accuses Pelosi of crossing line - YouTube, 7.25 minutes | Published by Fox News on Jul 16, 2019

[Republican] Congressman Doug Collins demands [Democrat] Speaker Pelosi's comments be stricken; Chad Pergram reports from Capitol Hill.

@ 1:49, "They use Thomas Jefferson's manual on Congressional Procedure. That's one of the 3 main volumes they use here in Congress. And it says, quote, that you 'cannot use language that is personally offensive to the President.' Now, there's also something they use that's the Cannon Book of Precedents. This is not Speaker Cannon (we're in the Cannon Rotunda here)." [Ref. CHOB, circa 1908 ; The building was later named in 1962 for the Illinois Republican Speaker of the House from 1903 to 1911, Joseph Cannon.] "This was Clarence Cannon who was another Congressman, from Missouri." [A Democrat Representative from 1923 to 1964.] "And his booklet says here that 'Personal criticism of the President, innuendo, ridicule or approbrium are out of order.'"

Some inaccuracies @ 2:24 re: May 15, 1984 when Rep. Trent Lott, the GOP's House Minority Whip, moved to have Democrat Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill's words taken down [removed], which he had disdainfully addressed to Republican Rep. Newt Gingrich (who would later become a Speaker of the House). ; "This meant to strike [O'Neill's derisive words] from the record, the first such rebuke of a speaker since 1798." - realclearpolitics.com and c-span.org/video refs.

From the YouTube Comments: "Dems put together this 'political theater' in 2 days? ... Congress seems to work at blazing speed when they are playing politics but when it comes to the People's work and major issues like Immigration law and asylum law reform they do nothing or work at a snails pace."

Congress seems to work at blazing speed when they are playing politics but when it comes to the People's work and major issues like Immigration law and asylum law reform they do nothing or work at a snail's pace.

Perfect analysis.

Am archiving more links here with relevance to volumes of the Rules referenced at Post #5.

Aha, somebody else is treating this place as a RESOURCE. Good, GreyL!

I'm not at all happy with the idea the Prexy can't be criticized. Speech codes in our legislative chambers, including a prohibition on impugning Congresscritters' motives? Absolutely horrendous -- unless they pulled that one out of mothballs just to shut Pocahontas up that day, which I doubt....

www.youtube.com/watch? v=TieiUMRDOec

It's just like prefacing their names with "the Honorable" -- been standard procedures for centuries I'm sure, but we just can't HAVE that kind of thing in America. Borders on a title of nobility, c.f. 'Your Honor'".

Politicians' egos off limits? Unthinkable. I'm sure I'm repeating myself again, but you got me going ;)

Watch as Senate silences Elizabeth Warren after attacks on Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions - YouTube, 3.75 minutes | Published on Feb 8, 2017 by AL.com

Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren drew a rebuke from Republicans Tuesday night after Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said her comments about Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions broke Senate rules.

Sorry for the delay in getting back here to thank you for your reply with that very pertinent video contribution to the Rules of Conduct issue. I see your point about those as bordering on a sense of nobility entitlement but, since that was the third example posted here of Democrats misusing our government facilities like their personal mudwrestling ring to denigrate their opponents, I think some degree of orderly behavior should be required. Otherwise, they probably would've wasted more tax funded time than they already have with their pompous and indignant pretenses of being America's "feewings powice".

While watching that video, I noticed this one on the YouTube sidebar: Jeff Sessions announces Senate bid on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' - YouTube, 6.5 minutes | Published on Nov 7, 2019 by Fox News : )

The reason I came back here when I did, though, was because of your question at Post #4 about R-AZ Rep. Andy Biggs being a good guy. Thought you might like to see this, which I found recently, as more evidence of that being so than just my personal opinion:

Text of H.R. 193 [115th Congress]: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017 - GovTrack.us

To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

Introduced by R-AL Rep. Mike Rogers with 9 Republican Co-Sponsors listed alphabetically in date order, so R-AZ Rep. Andy Biggs is listed first.

details:

H.R. 204 was a re-introduction of this bill in a later Congress [116th].

Introduced by R-AL Rep. Mike Rogers with 3 Republican Co-Sponsors listed alphabetically in date order, so R-AZ Rep. Andy Biggs is again listed first.

Last Action: Jan 3, 2019

What do you think of Sessions? Shall I stop hating him now?

The biggest mistake was made when dueling was outlawed.

And the strict observance of correct protocol that it entailed. Chivalry died a lingering death in the years since.

Chivalry died

"Ivanhoe restored it." -- Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi

I'd like to think that UN bill proves Biggs is real -- but how many times have we been burned by grandstanders? That's a nice safe feather to stick in his cap since there's (alas) no exceptional anti-UN feeling among the sheeple these days and zero discussion in politics or media (but I repeat myself).

What do you think of Sessions? Shall I stop hating him now?

Oh my gosh! How can you hate someone who looks so much like one of Santa's elves or at least a Keebler elf? Nobody's perfect, so please do stop hating him as quickly as you can.

Andy Biggs and the other R-Reps. who've acted to free America from the Communist UN are heroic, imo. The UN has long had plans to control our nation and every other, as well. They call it Agenda 21/30. Will post some sources about that later. Also, their Migration Pact is decimating Europe as we speak -- along with its cultural tourism industry, as if there's no such thing as "European culture" before the UN's Migration Pact was invented. They're in the process of destroying America's culture of Constitutionalism, too, but it hasn't affected the tourism industry here as noticeably yet because we have huge scenic parks like Yellowstone, Yosemite and the Grand Canyon, etc.