Parliamentary Rules Quotes

I don't think anybody, regardless of tragic circumstances, can expect to come to a congressional hearing and take it over with a series of interruptions.

We're allowed to say wonderful things about the Royal Family in the House of Commons. What you're not allowed to say is: anything that might be truthful, but that might upset them. So from time to time I've been pulled up because I've said things which I think are important.

I read where they are going to limit debate in the Senate. It used to be that a man could talk all day, but now, as soon as he tells all he knows, he has to sit down. Most of these birds will just be getting up and nodding now. Why, some of them won't be able to answer roll call.

The House of Representatives eliminated the filibuster way back in the 19th century, and somehow it managed to survive.

There is no Senate rule governing the proper uses of the filibuster.

I wish to make a unanimous-consent request, the necessity of which I find incredible. I ask unanimous consent to use hand calculators on the Senate floor.... I understand that the rules are so ancient that the ability to use these calculators except by unanimous consent seems to be in doubt.

There's a learning curve to understanding how the Senate operates.

The automobile industry was made up of men, primarily who had never been in any union before, and who were completely inexperienced, not knowing even how to make a motion on the floor …. But the members of the Communist Party know how to speak; some of them had extensive soap-box experience …. It is very simple for a man who understands public speaking and parliamentary rules to control a meeting of unitiated people….By preparing motions ahead of time, having discussion ahead of time, and then by dividing up in various sections of the hall, the Communists would give the impression that the particular policy they were trying to have the meeting adopt was generally supported throughout the membership.

The history of Congress shows that once parliamentary tools become big enough obstacles for the majority party, they are abolished or reformed.

Anyone who has ever spent time listening to a legislature knows the astonishing speed at which all presiding officers and reading clerks can spit out the formulaic incantations of parliamentary procedure.

I am aware that people at large are constantly angry with the Congress because they feel we are shouting. We are making noise, but there is a very serious reason for it. Parliamentary rules are not being followed.

People do not use foul language in the House of Commons chamber. They just don't do it, and I don't, either.

I don't like the idea of being chucked out of parliament, chucked out of the party, for basically doing the bleeding obvious: trying to stop an absolutely damaging policy, that a responsible political party should be opposing vigorously.

A motion to adjourn is always in order.

The standing orders of the Parliamentary Party, however, apply to me, apply to every other Member of the Parliamentary Labour Party and they put into a context the way in which those rights to freedom of speech should be exercised.

At first I intended to become a student of the Senate rules and I did learn much about them, but I soon found that the Senate hadbut one fixed rule, subject to exceptions of course, which was to the effect that the Senate would do anything it wanted to do whenever it wanted to do it.

I have this fear that one day there's going to be a fire in the Senate and there are only going to be 57 senators there and they’ll all die because they won't have 60 votes to allow themselves to leave the building.