congressional precedents
The rules of the House and Senate are relatively few in number, but each time that either body interprets those rules, it establishes a precedent, or guide to future behavior. Senate and House precedents number in the thousands. A member who objects to some procedural action on the floor will rise to make a point of order. The presiding officer will then rule on the point of order, based on the parliamentarian's reading of the rules and precedents. If no one appeals the ruling, then it becomes a new precedent. If members object to the chair's ruling, they can vote by a simple majority to overturn the ruling—and in their own way set a precedent. Precedents established by a vote carry the greatest weight in future actions. However, a different majority voting at a different time can reverse an earlier precedent.
For instance, the rules of the Senate prohibit a senator from making more than two speeches on the same subject in a single day. In 1935 the presiding officer ruled that if a senator made a motion to suggest the absence of a quorum (that not enough members were present to conduct business), the motion counted as a “speech.” Over the next 50 years that precedent was rarely applied, but in 1986 one senator objected that another senator had spoken twice against a bill—including suggesting the absence of a quorum—and should not speak again. Citing the 1935 precedent, the presiding officer agreed. A heated debate followed, and by a vote of 92 to 5 the senators overturned the chair's ruling, voided the 1935 precedent, and thereby set a new precedent for the future.
Those involved in planning legislative strategy must know the precedents as well as the rules. Because there are so many precedents, the House and Senate parliamentarians from time to time publish volumes of the precedents, arranged by subject. Computer programs have also compiled precedents for the parliamentarians' ready access during debate.
See also Parliamentarian; Parliamentary procedure; Rules of the House and Senate
