DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS - Ch. 11 - § 23.3 - Personal Privilege Debate Rules

Sep 4, 2026

Uploaded by Adam

Defines and applies rules for Members raising questions of personal privilege during House proceedings, including limits when another Member controls debate time. Uses historical debate excerpts to explain when privilege claims are improper, such as attempts to discuss time-allocation disputes through personal privilege. Clarifies that general criticism of voting records or positions is insufficient unless it directly attacks a Member’s integrity, reputation, or conduct. Provides related examples distinguishing improper collateral attacks of House orders and criticism of legislative activity.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages6

Reading Time15 min

AccessFree to download

Ch. 11 § 23 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

§ 23.3 Time control and personal privilege

E. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE

§ 24 Introductory; General Opinion or Criticism

Criticism of Member’s Legislative Activity or Position

Related procedural rulings and examples

Ch. 11 § 23 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS § 23.3 A Member may not rise to a question of personal privilege while another Member controls the time for debate even though the Member in control of the time may yield him time for debate on the merits of the proposition then pending. On Apr. 8, 1937,(13) during House debate on House Resolution 162, concerning an investigation of sitdown strikes, the following proceedings transpired: MR. [EDWARD E.] COX [of Georgia]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.(Frank E.) Hook]. MR. HOOK: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of personal privilege based on the remarks of the last speaker, and ask for 1 hour. MR. COX: Mr. Speaker, I did not yield to the gentleman for that purpose. MR. HOOK: Then, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for 5 minutes. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:(14) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? MR. [CHARLES A. ] PLUMLEY [of Vermont]: Mr. Speaker, I object. MR. HOOK: Mr. Speaker, I then insist upon my right to rise to a question of personal privilege. The gentleman threatened us. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Michigan cannot take the gentleman from Georgia off the floor by raising a question of personal privilege. E. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE § 24. Introductory; General Opinion or Criticism Rule IX defines questions of personal privilege as those that affect the ‘‘rights, reputation, and conduct’’ of individual Members in their representative capacity.(15) To give rise to a question of per- 13. 81 CONG. REC. 3295, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. 14. Fred M. Vinson (Ky.). sonal privilege, a criticism must reflect directly on the Member’s integrity or reputation.(16) Mere statements of opinion about or general criticism of his voting record or views do not constitute adequate grounds for a question of personal privilege.(17) It is not in order by way of a point of personal privilege or by raising a question of the privilege 15. House Rules and Manual § 661 (1973). 16. § 24. 1, infra. 17. § 24. 2, infra. QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE Ch. 11 § 24 of the House to collaterally attack an order previously adopted by the House.(18) Similarly, the refusal of Members in charge of time for general debate on a bill to allot time therefor to a Member does not give such Member grounds for a question of personal privilege. Thus, in one instance,(19) a Member claimed the floor for a question of personal privilege and proceeded to discuss the fact that the Member incharge of time for general debate on a bill had refused to assign him any time for that purpose. However, the Speaker (20) ruled that the Member’s request for time could not be brought up byway of a question of personal privilege. Said the Speaker: The rules provide that a Member may rise to a question of personal privilege where his rights, reputation, and conduct individually, in his representative capacity, is assailed or reflected upon. The Chair fails to see where the gentleman has presented a question of personal privilege which will bring himself within that rule. The rules provide for the conduct of the business of the House. . . . . . . They provide the method of procedure. If this rule is adopted the gen- 18. 114 CONG. REC. 30214, 30215, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. See § 3.2, supra, for a detailed discussion of this precedent. 19. 79 CONG. REC. 5454, 5455, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 11, 1935. 20. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.). tleman may, of course, appeal to those who have charge of the time for time, but there are 435 Members of the House, and the gentleman must appreciate, as the Chair does, that it is impossible for those gentlemen to yield to everyone. However, the Chair is very sure that opportunity will be afforded the gentleman sometime during the discussion of the bill to express his views. The Chair fails to see where the gentleman has been denied any right that has not bee

FAQs

Can a Member raise a question of personal privilege while another Member controls debate time?

A Member may not raise such a question while another Member controls the time for debate. Even then, the controlling Member may yield time for the merits of the pending proposition.

When does criticism support a question of personal privilege?

Criticism must reflect directly on the Member’s integrity or reputation. Mere statements of opinion about or general criticism of voting record or views do not provide adequate grounds.

Why is a dispute over debate time generally not a personal privilege question?

A refusal to assign time for general debate does not give grounds for personal privilege. The Speaker explains that the rules govern House business and procedure, and the Member’s remedy lies in appeal for time under the applicable rules.

Sep 4, 2026

Uploaded by Adam