Mr. Speaker… Let’s imagine that, at some point in the future, some other party has a majority in the House. And that party, having seen the Democratic party claim — as it does today — that there are no limits to what can be controlled via the House Rules, decides to push through some rules like:
• No women are allowed in the House Chamber.
• No blacks are allowed in the House Chamber.
• No Jews or Muslims are allowed in the House Chamber.
• No retired school teachers are allowed in the House Chamber.
• No registered Democrats are allowed in the House Chamber.
Now, if this were to happen, what would the response be? Well, all those groups would start complaining pretty loudly that there are, in fact, limits to what can be controlled via the House Rules. And those complaints would all take a particular form: That people have rights, protected by the state and federal constitutions, and the Rules of the House — which are actually limited in scope to how bills will be submitted, considered, and voted on — do not give any temporary majority the power to turn the House Chamber into some kind of ‘constitution-free zone’.
And everyone here knows this, because they know that the kinds of rules I’ve listed above cannot possibly be within the scope of the power granted to each House to ‘settle the rules of proceedings in their own House’. To claim that these rules would be within that scope is absurd. There must be some limits. And if there are limits, there must be a source for those limits. In this case, the sources are the Bills of Rights of the state and federal constitutions.
So what I’m asking today, Mr. Speaker, is for those members of the House who would make the claim that a majority in the House can make any rules it wants, stripping citizens of any rights that it doesn’t happen to like, to consider that today’s majority will be tomorrow’s minority; and to keep in mind the old saying that what goes around comes around.
What I’m asking, Mr. Speaker, is for the members of the House to consider what arguments they would make in opposition to the imaginary rules I’ve mentioned; and to recognize that those same arguments apply to the real rule that is being considered today.
