Why was the ruling of the Chair not fought?

[Matt Collins]

I was listening from home so to speak, but I am curious why the parliamentary procedure that allows you to appeal the ruling of the chair not used during the rules fight?

 

[acptulsa]

When was the last time you saw a chair with ears?

Watch the vid. Objections were shouted from the floor. They were ignored.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I guess people didn't fully understand the rules. I have this problem in my local GOP. First year on the committee and my head spins trying to figure out what the hell is going on. I think this crap is confusing on purpose.

 

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

Collins is no doubt more of an expert in parliamentary procedures than I am, but my understanding is that the rules were simply ignored. The Chair refused to acknowledge either Point of Order or Call for Division, as he legally should have.

 

[nobody's_hero]

How dare you question the mighty teleprompter!

----------[RNC Teleprompter]-----------

Matt Collins is on to us! Ron Paul Forums, go to scenario 42b, right now!

----------[/RNC Teleprompter]--------

 

[Travlyr]

It was scripted.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77W5OKStO5s&feature=youtu.be

 

[wgadget]

And if the rules can't be ignored, Scenario B goes into effect: CHANGE THE RULES ON THE SPOT.

 

[acptulsa]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?387925-The-Republican-National-Calvinball-Tournament!

 

[CBC4L]

We did obtain the signatures to fight it. They ended up at the same place as the nomination papers, the shredder bin.

 

[Carlybee]

They were shouting point of order...the chants of USA USA USA drowned them out

 

[Matt Collins]

Collins is no doubt more of an expert in parliamentary procedures than I am

Yes, while working for Ron in Minnesota I helped turn over a ton of local Republican parties. And I also ran the war room ops for the RP Campaign during the State Convention where we completely dominated (Marianne was a delegate on the floor and couldn't be in the war room the whole time). I must admit I'm gloating and quite proud of that

But more importantly....

, but my understanding is that the rules were simply ignored. The Chair refused to acknowledge either Point of Order or Call for Division, as he legally should have.

Watch the vid. Objections were shouted from the floor. They were ignored.

In Robert's Rules of Order there is a procedure for this. When the Chair ignores a valid motion from the floor, a delegate is allowed to stand up and directly challenge the chair 3 times. If the Chair ignores them after the 3rd time, then the delegate is then legally allowed to take control of the convention!!! (assuming they are not being dilatory)

Now it's my understanding that the RNC was using Mason's Rules of Order instead of Robert's. I am not as familier with Mason's because it's typically only used by legislative bodies. But I have got to believe that there is a similar procedure in Mason's as there is in Robert's for dealing with an unresponsive chair?

 

[angelatc]

Any delegate who tried to take control of the preceedings would have been taken out back and beaten to a pulp.

The other delegates could have walked out and held a rump convention, but the outcome would have been exactly the same.

 

[Matt Collins]

Any delegate who tried to take control of the preceedings would have been taken out back and beaten to a pulp..

That would've strengthened our cause if our guys were following the rules as written and violence was perpetrated against them for it.

 

[jllundqu]

We did obtain the signatures to fight it. They ended up at the same place as the nomination papers, the shredder bin.

And the sad part is... no one really cares. Just like everything else illegal and unconstitutional.... no one cares.

 

[LostNFoundNTx]

The point where you knew things were going horribly wrong was failing to properly follow the rules on the "without objection, the previous question is ordered" in regards to the seating of delegates (report of the credentials committee, wayyy before the rules vote). Unlike a normal vote (majority) or moving the previous question (2/3 majority), this particular motion requires unanimous consent. On that motion, one of the delegates did object to moving the question so the proceedings should have gone to debate.

You are correct in theory that a delegate can stand in place of the chair. However, it's extremely difficult to do so when:

1. The vote to overrule the chair would need to be at least a majority of the delegates
2. The mics were disabled with the exception of the stage mic
3. Delegates were chanting USA, USA, etc.

It would take an exceptionally coordinated effort as a combination of calling the members of the delegation to order (on both sides), and then succinctly informing them that you are taking a vote regarding whether or not the point of order is well taken. All that without getting ejected from the room. Had someone known they intended to completely disregard the most obvious of motions, they could have been prepared for this by first calling the delegates to order because that would appear to be supporting the continuation of proceedings making it less likely to be cut off.

As it stands, the rules which they currently claim are the rules were not adopted by the delegates to the convention and (among other things) Ron Paul was robbed of a rightfully earned nomination. I doubt the executive committee members will attempt to do anything about any of this though.

Also, as an FYI: the opinion of the chair as to the result of a voice vote is not a ruling subject to appeal (RONR p. 259). If a member questions the result of a vote the only proper motion is division of the assembly, and if that's ignored a point of order is supposed to be allowed to correct it.

 

[libertyjam]

Yes, while working for Ron in Minnesota I helped turn over a ton of local Republican parties. And I also ran the war room ops for the RP Campaign during the State Convention where we completely dominated (Marianne was a delegate on the floor and couldn't be in the war room the whole time). I must admit I'm gloating and quite proud of that

But more importantly....




In Robert's Rules of Order there is a procedure for this. When the Chair ignores a valid motion from the floor, a delegate is allowed to stand up and directly challenge the chair 3 times. If the Chair ignores them after the 3rd time, then the delegate is then legally allowed to take control of the convention!!! (assuming they are not being dilatory)

Now it's my understanding that the RNC was using Mason's Rules of Order instead of Robert's. I am not as familier with Mason's because it's typically only used by legislative bodies. But I have got to believe that there is a similar procedure in Mason's as there is in Robert's for dealing with an unresponsive chair?

The RNC would have turned into the LAGOPC!

 

[Matt Collins]

And the sad part is... no one really cares. Just like everything else illegal and unconstitutional.... no one cares.

It's funny... Bruce Fein and I were chatting on the phone earlier today and he said essentially the same thing. If they don't care about going to war illegally or unconstitutionally, then they definitely don't care about upholding parliamentary procedure.

 

[Matt Collins]

The RNC would have turned into the LAGOPC!

That's the idea, especially considering that this was being broadcast aroudn the world, the LAGOP was not.

 

[libertyjam]

That's the idea

I Know

 

[Matt Collins]

Also, as an FYI: the opinion of the chair as to the result of a voice vote is not a ruling subject to appeal (RONR p. 259). If a member questions the result of a vote the only proper motion is division of the assembly, and if that's ignored a point of order is supposed to be allowed to correct it.

Is this Robert's or Mason's?