Anthony Weiner on House rules

(youtube video, posted 11feb11, found on reddit)

Brief background and tl;dr: House Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Health session on HR 358 (Protect Life Act). Weiner (D-NY) presents opposition to the bill’s following house rules. Various political opponents present fallacious counter-arguments. Established parliamentary order not followed.



Weiner’s main argument:

House rule 12, section 7, subsection 5c1 states: bills must be enrolled with statements asserting the constitutional authority under which bill may be considered.

HR 358 (as of 20jan11) does not cite a specific constitutionally authority.

Therefore the bill has not been properly enrolled.

Therefore the bill must be resubmitted with the proper constitutional authority cited.

Verdict: evidently cogent.

He then states the included statement and proves the lack of constitutional authority.

Further points made by Weiner:

Rule of House is valid and should be followed.

Bill may not have constitutional authority, and denies fourth amendment.



These propositions can be considered as support for the conclusions above. Both of these propositions are theoretically arguable.



[2:25]

Shimkus (R-IL)

The debate over the fourth amendment will enter the territory of arguing over the protection of the rights of the unborn.



Though Shimkus does not word this as a concise argument, we can extend the benefit of the doubt to see how Shimkus means that he will assert points as to the constitutionality of abortion.



[2:53]

Weiner:

Most of the American people believe in a woman’s right to privacy.



Shimkus interrupts and asks for citation of this premise.

Weiner states that this could be argued, but the rules of the house are clear.

Shimkus reasserts, causing his argument to be very apparently fallacious as a strawman, in order to attempt to usurp the credibility of Weiner’s primary conclusion.



[3:30]

Weiner reasserts his conclusion.



[4:27]

Pallone (D-NJ):

The reason why the majority (taken in this context as the collective that supports the bill) has not cited a specific part of the constitution is that they do not possess the ability to do so.

This premise has an implied conclusion: therefore the bill is unconstitutional and should be stuck down.



Hence the burden of disproving Pallone’s initial premise falls on finding a specific clause in the constitution which supports the legality of the bill. This, however, does not support or refute Weiner’s conclusion.

He makes further points:

Bill infringes upon Roe v. Wade and must state such intention.

Therefore there is both procedural violation (Weiner’s argument) and a constitutional violation in the bill.



He then summarizes.



[6:37]

Barton (R-TX):

The document citing constitutional authority was filed with the bill. This is confirmed with the council.

Therefore the rule has been complied with.



Weiner:

There is no reference to the constitution within the document.

Therefore the rule has not been complied with.



Note that Weiner has already stated this point, making Barton suspiciously fallacious.

Barton:

Difference in opinion of the relative legality of a bill does not make it unconstitutional.



Weiner:

House rule still not followed.

House rule must absolutely be followed.

Taking the statement submitted with the bill as citing constitutional authority is circular reasoning.



Barton:

Two federal courts have determined law seeking to amend (Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act) unconstitutional.

Two federal courts have determined that the law is constitutional.

The majority of the house will side with the former, not the latter.





[10:13]

Dingell (D-MI):

The argument is not if the document has been filed or not.

Evidence of constitutional authority must be submitted.



Weiner:

Furthering above point: constitutional authority must be shown within words already submitted. Words submitted restated.

Challenge is not constitutionality. Challenge is if rule has been followed.

Rule has not been followed.



Dingell:

Paper submitted should be examined for if the requirement of the rule has been followed or not.





[13:15]

Chair requests Council’s opinion of Weiner’s argument.

Council:

No requirement that statement defined in rule be circulated in committee before the consideration of the bill.



Weiner:

Not the argument.

Addresses the council:



Weiner (after reading the rule): Does the rule state that the bill must cite the constitution in the statement determining constitutional authority?

Council: Yes.

Weiner (after reading the statement): Does the statement cite a specific section of the constitution?

Council: No.



[14:55]

Dingell:

Rule must be interperated.





[15:50]

Barton:

Constitution states the House can enact legislation.

Legislation can amend existing laws.



Dingell:

Statement of constitutional authority not circulated.



The chair of the committee (Pitts, R-PA) moves for the council to rule, which the council denies to do on the basis that debate has not closed.

Council:

House rule cannot define point of order.



Weiner:

Premise is false.

In addition, by not hearing the opinion of ever committee member poised to speak, house rules are not being followed.



Chair:

Chair may entertain as much debate as he wishes.

Moves for council to rule.





[19:30]

Unknown voice:

Bill is not properly put before committee.





[19:50]

Opposition chair:

Requests two minutes of discourse.



Chair awards two minutes to each side.

Opposition chair:

Rule in act.

Rule not followed.

Congress cannot determine if a piece of legislation is constitutional by stated opinion.

Court opinions have not determined the legality of abortion within Affordable Health Care, only the legality of requiring individuals to purchase health care.

Justification makes a mockery of the rule.

Restates Weiner’s point.





[22:50]

Gingrey (R-GA) (addressing council): Is it constitutional to amend laws which the congress determines unconstitutional?

Council: Yes.

Gingrey: Is the opinion posed by the opposition subject to a point of order?

Council: That question is to the Chair’s discretion.

Barton:

The premise that rule not followed is the opinion of Weiner.



This is a conclusion without premises to support and fallacious.

Legislation complies with constitutional authority.





[25:34]

Chair moves to rule.

Pallone: Additional members would like to speak on point of order.

Chair to Council: Is the debate on point of order debatable under five minute rule?

Council: Yes.



[26:38]

Weiner: …not referring to the constitutionality, conformity to rules of the house…

Gringrey: …rule followed, article submitted…

Weiner: …does not follow the rule…

Please note that this is now the ninth time Weiner has expressed this point.



More debate requested, chair moves to rule, more debate requested, chair moves to rule.



[28:40]

Chair rules that the point of order does not lie.



Point of ability to debate raised.

Schakowsky (D-IL):

Parliamentary procedere explicitly not followed.



Pallone:

Point of order not properly ruled upon.





At this point order falls apart.



[34:40]

Schakowsky:

Every man has had a chance to speak on the point of order regarding abortion.

She has not been given said chance.



Chair bill moves forward.

Weiner: bill still not fully proposed, procedure not properly followed.

Upton (R-MI):

Rules committee states that constitutional statement can be used to determine individual support, but not point of order in committee.



Weiner:

Statement comes from Republican controlled rules committee.



Though this is a bit of an ad hominem, it is true that unless the rules committee brings a house rule to motion, his point still stands.

The question now is each individual’s right to debate the legislature.

Chair is refusing to hear each individual.





Premises and conclusions have obviously become difficult to interpret and seem to continue to do so as procedure further devolves. Weiner continues to make points as to improper procedure.



[42:00]

Schakowsky:

If rule proposed can be so blatantly violated, the chair can do anything they want.

The chair is doing anything they want.

Proper citation of constitution still required.

Furthering refuting of court’s opinion.

Women of America deserve rights.



Opposition chair:

Republicans made a big to-do of following the rules.

Proceeded to not follow rules.

Rules committee assertion not precedent.

Constitution read on floor.



An ad-hominem point.

Rule complied with, but rule mocked.



Schakowsky:

Sweeping rule under a mockery of women.

Going back to square one required.



Baldwin (D-WI)

Bill violation of women’s constitutional rights.

Improperly drafted statement of constitutionality of bill a problem.

Not hard to submit a bill and cite the constitution.

Appropriate statement needed.





[47:40]

Chair asks for unanimous consent that bill be ordered as read.

Chair offers an amendment, and offers support already heard.

Pallone offers opinions already stated.



The video ends with debate of the bill itself going forward, with Weiner’s point unheard and ignored.