prior Subcommittee rules that could be used for comparison don’t immediately pop up on my search of government archives.
For your reference, here is a link to the H. Res. 8—Adopting rules for the 117th Congress (1/3/21 - 1/3/23).
Note that the first paragraph says:
Resolved,Here is a link to House Rules for the 117th Congress. See Rule I Section 11 (Committee appointment).SECTION 1. ADOPTION OF THE RULES OF THE ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS.
The Rules of the House of Representatives of the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress, including applicable provisions of law or concurrent resolution that constituted rules of the House at the end of the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress, are adopted as the Rules of the House of Representatives of the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, with amendments to the standing rules as provided in section 2, and with other orders as provided in this resolution.
Also, here is a link to an archive of historical House Rules. You can find the 116th (and earlier) House rules here.
Instead of using “altered”, I should have used “intentionally and patently misused”, but it was a busy weekend.
If you had said that, I wouldn't have called you out on it. Like I said, I hate to have been put in the position of defending Pelosi, but she didn't alter the rules -- she just ruthlessly used them to her advantage -- which is something that Republican Speakers never do. In fact, Pelosi, Hoyer, Jeffries, and all the rest are also experts at using the minority powers against Republicans when the roles are reversed -- another thing that Republicans don't know how to do.
-PJ
Good, and thank you for the links. But think of it more as an "ethical" concession pending my opportunity to review the literature. There is a difference, of course, between modifying the text of a writing and altering the terms of an agreement by one's actions.
In any event, we have reached a stable plateau for a time and it remains an enjoyable exchange. [:^)