The only thing close to precedent ...
As Karen Brooks wrote here last week, such a battle over the speaker's chair has happened only once before -- waaaay back in 1871.
Here's the House Journal entry that documented that successful effort to remove a speaker.
Comments
I am not an attorney, but I have taken the time to read the Texas and United States House Rules and Precedents. I make the following two suggestions:
1. A resolution verses a motion should be filed to vacate the office of Speaker. This would be a privileged resolution regarding the House's officers. Under Rule 10, Section 4, the Resolution would be exempt from Rule 6, Section 7. A Question of order would be raised as to further consideration of any other business until the resolution had been acted upon by the House. The Speaker would rule on the Question of Order Under Rule 9. An appeal is provided in Rule 9 to the Speaker's ruling on Questions of Order. The members wishing to presue the matter may also invoke Rule 33 and appeal the Speaker's ruling (if he says they in making the Question of Order objection are out of order). Take a vote. Maybe Craddick has the votes, who knows?
Posted by: JAMES TAYLOR | May 27, 2007 9:16 AM
The Speaker in name only and his cohorts are so misconstruing the Texas Constitution. The Constitution does not address the removal of the Speaker because the Speaker is subject to serving at the will of the House. Craddick is not going to be removed from office but just removed from the privilege of serving as the Chair of the House. Craddick surrounds himself with "yes-men" with no backbone -- no wonder the House is in such turmoil with a dictator clinging against the law and rules to hold onto his power. We are a nation and state of laws not of men. But then Craddick is not being a man nor a true leader but just a despot. He needs to be a statesman and step down now.
Posted by: Janet | May 27, 2007 10:59 AM