Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'agreed to'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • RONR Message Board – Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised
    • General Discussion
    • Advanced Discussion
    • The Robert’s Rules Website
  • About the Message Board
    • Questions or Comments about the Message Board

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Categories

There are no results to display.


Found 1 result

  1. Apparently I have stumbled (if I were a college graduate, I would say "researched") upon early historian Jonathan Elliot's narrative of the proceedings of the US Constitutional Convention of 1787 ( http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol5/0601_1787/ ). In the recounting (not counting again, college graduates!) of the events of Friday, June 1st 1787, the following appears (quoted material in italics, if I can get it to work): Mr. WILSON moved that the executive consist of a single person. Mr. C. PINCKNEY seconded the motion, so as to read “that a national executive, to consist of a single person, be instituted.”... Mr. Wilson’s motion for a single magistrate was postponed by common consent, the committee seeming unprepared for any decision on it, and the first part of the clause agreed to, viz., “that a national executive be instituted.” 84 Is this a description of current parliamentary procedure, as codified in RONR, or somewhat different, please?