for the sake of a debate, and because I can't think of any specific examples that would support e-cert laws, can someone please state a specific hypothetical example for when such an emergency process IS justifiable?
Wait a minute. What does emergency process have to do with anything? So what if a bill is not heard in a committee? So what if there is no public hearing before a subcommittee? Its not like committees and processes are necessary. Most of that is legislative mechanics, anyway.
The core process is pretty simple. The speaker decides which bills come to a debate or vote when. They get debated or voted on. End of discussion.
Read up on the constitutional convention. Very few committees. There was a commitee of style or detail that sorted through the exact language, then it was put back to the full convention for debate or vote. When the convention wanted to debate something, but didn't want to be held to their remarks (so they could change their mind if further debate or reflection caused them to change their mind), the whole convention switched over to a Committee of the Whole. Then, when a vote was to be taken, everybody switched back to the the convention. Very streamlined. No dilly-dallying around with subcommittees, committees, etc.
Legislators can't abuse processes that aren't really supposed to be there or necessary. Just tell 'em to debate on the open floor, vote on the open floor, and live with the consequences come election time. Besides, from what I can tell, griping about process-abuse seems to always come down to one party howling the other party is playing some parliamentary trick effectively and winning at it. Come the next time that out-manuvered party holds power, they just play the same tricks. That they have created a field upon which to manuver is the problem, not that one or the other is manuvering.
