The Ironies of the Venezuelan Opposition, part 21 - pre-planned violence in the National Assembly

[reorg]

36. Your "presumption" is just that

Please explain how, according to the law in Venezuela, the President of the Assembly doesn't have the right to cut off a disruptive speaker or deny them the floor.

YOU said Cabello did something illegal, YOU prove it.


Asking a member of parliament whether or not he accepts the democratic legitimacy of an elected president is not a "political test". It is a test whether he intends to insult the head of government as well as the people who voted for him and the institution that was carrying out the election.

I don't know how they do it in the US, but in Germany, the Bundestagspräsident appears to have these rights:

... the President ensures the maintenance of parliamentary order during sittings. For example, he or she may warn Members who have spoken too long, direct them to discontinue speaking and even exclude them from plenary sittings and committee meetings for up to 30 sitting days.

http://www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/bundestag/presidium/function.html

Typically, national, state, and other full-scale legislative assemblies have extensive internally written rules of order

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_procedure

Not recognizing the legitimate, democratically elected president in a public speech could be interpreted as agitating for the violent overthrow of the legitimate government, given the circumstances, which is an illegal act in Venezuela AFAIK. In addition, making false accusations (with fake proof) is slander. I am not familiar with the particular parliamentary rules in Venezuela, but, generally speaking, even deviating too far from the point of a certain debate, or making offensive remarks can be legitimate reasons for a President to cut a speaker off or even punish him further. If the member doesn't like it, he can always seek redress from judicial authorities ...