By now, you probably have seen the video of Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) excoriating the GOP for "suspending democracy" with their craven changes to House rules. That's only half the story.

The rule change Rep. Van Hollen focused on, H. Resolution 368, was introduced in the wee hours of the night on Sept. 30th, 2013 and voted on at 1:10 AM on Oct. 1st, 2013. As you probably know, the pernicious aspect of this rule is that it prevents EVERY member of the House from putting the shutdown to a vote because it reserves that right solely to John Boehner or someone of his choosing.

While Van Hollen makes it clear what happened, that raises another question. How could this have happened, in the first place? It's never happened before, why now? There's a reason this hasn't happened before. There is another rule in the House, specifically, clause 6(a) of Rule XIII. That clause is a rule REQUIRING A TWO-THIRDS VOTE TO CONSIDER A RULE CHANGE ON THAT SAME DAY IT IS REPORTED FROM THE RULES COMMITTE

On it's face, clause 6(a) of Rule XIII makes sense. If you are going to change the rules of the House, you have to give people a chance to think about it, otherwise you get Calvinball. Of course, there may be times when speed is of the essence. However, speed and haste are not the same thing. If some rule change needs to be done with alacrity, it should be easy to achieve overwhelming support. After all, everyone agrees swift action to avoid a clear and present danger is in everyone's interest.

But the rule change that Van Hollen highlights clearly failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority, even with the near party-line vote (I leave the matter of the seven Quisling Democrats who supported this for others to discuss). Furthermore, it was not allowed to lay over for a full day. How could such a breach of protocol happen? It was no accident. It was premeditated.

