Talk:Standing Rules of the United States House of Representatives

	United States portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is about one (or many) Thing(s).

Getting started[edit]

NOTE: Much of this page is directly from Standing_Rules_of_the_United_States_Senate net a quick search-and-replace and removal of some of the unsalvageable parts. Errors likely.

Should this just be a redirect to United States House Committee on Rules?--Elvey (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is just "Rules_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives" a more appropriate article name?

FYI, what got me here was that I was curious about how the rules might be used to obfuscate the activities of congress.

I managed to find the rules and couldn't get past page 1; This sentence in Rule I (Section 11) was beyond my comprehension:

In appointing Members, Dele- gates, or the Resident Commissioner to conference committees, the Speaker shall appoint no less than a majority who generally supported the House po- sition as determined by the Speaker, shall name those who are primarily re- sponsible for the legislation, and shall, to the fullest extent feasible, include the principal proponents of the major provisions of the bill or resolution passed or adopted by the House.

Merger from Self-executing rule[edit]

I propose merging Self-executing rule into this article. As Self-executing rule is a controversial topic, I think it is best subsumed under a broader article. Furthermore, its scope isn't broad enough to merit its own article. I seek consensus one way or the other, and then I'll either merge or not. —Markles 16:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Merge] I support a merge. Technically, Rules Committee rules for bill consideration are not part of the standing rules, but it's as good a place as any to put it.DCmacnut <> 20:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[Oppose merge] I would say merge, but I see no other rules here. Self-executing rule would be the only rule detailed out in this article. Also, the scope of this article has greatly increased since its creation. Should we wait for some more time to pass? --→James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self-executing rule, I think now, merits its own article, as it's notable in its own right. --→James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 21:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Oppose merge] I think that it should have a separate entry, because it is its own concept within Parliamentary procedure. Further, I am very glad to find all the information about this type of rule in one place and via an obvious search. However, a link to the Standing Rules of the House is certainly welcome, as you have provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.191.129 (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger - Article can stand on it's on now, greatly expanded. - Epson291 (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please see also a proposed merger of Standing Rules of the United States House of Representatives into Procedures of the United States House of Representatives, as discussed here.—Markles 12:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]