Dan Honemann Posted December 19, 2011 at 04:42 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 at 04:42 PM Ok makes sense. I agree, and most certainly with your last sentence.George, I would appreciate it if you (and anyone else who is interested) would take a look at Question 1 as originally asked and answered. It's a good question, and I am not at all satisfied with my response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted December 19, 2011 at 05:28 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 at 05:28 PM I can't find a thing to argue with on post #9 unless seriatim consideration is being used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted December 19, 2011 at 05:56 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 at 05:56 PM Regarding question 1 and Dan's response -When the preamble is opened for debate, the resolving section will already have been perfected through amendment to the assembly's satisfaction. I can't think of very much, if anything, that would then be debateable about the preamble itself except via the amendment process or another subsidiary motion, which, as Dan has stated, would then reset the speaking limits relative to these motions. So having exhausted one's debate time before the preamble is pending doesn't seem, to me, as if it would seriously impede a member's ability to fully debate the resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 19, 2011 at 08:10 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 at 08:10 PM Question 6.If multiple main motions are pending (through interruption of a special order, a Question of Privilege, or a motion to Suspend the Rules), can the Previous Question be moved on the entire series of main motions and subsidiary motions?Question 7.Does the above apply even if the more immediately pending main motion has a preamble? If so, what happens when the Previous Question is ordered on the entire series of motions when one of the motions has a preamble?Question 8.If one can move the Previous Question on multiple pending main motions at once, can one move the Previous Question on a special order for which the time for consideration has passed, but when higher-ranking special order is under consideration?Response to Questions 6, 7, and 8.As used in RONR, “pending” is a term of art, and there cannot be more than one main motion “pending” at a time. As a consequence, under the rules in Standard Characteristic 2 of the motion for the Previous Question, there can never be more than one main motion pending in any “series of pending debatable or amendable motions” on which the Previous Question may be ordered.If consideration of a main motion is interrupted by a question of privilege or special order, it is no longer pending, and no subsidiary motion can be applied to it until it becomes pending once again following disposition of the question of privilege or special order. If, during consideration of the question of privilege or special order, the Previous Question is ordered on all pending questions, the order will not apply to the motion which was interrupted.A main motion can be divided after the Previous Question has been ordered on it (in which event the Previous Question will continue to be applicable to each of the divided parts), but the Previous Question cannot be ordered on any part of a main motion after it has been divided other than on that part of the motion which is pending at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 19, 2011 at 08:52 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 at 08:52 PM I can't find a thing to argue with on post #9 unless seriatim consideration is being used.Let's suppose that you have twice spoken today in favor of adoption of the resolution which appears on page 107, lines 21-31 (not counting any time that you may have spoken on any amendment proposed to it), When the preamble subsequently becomes open to amendment, may you speak (it's still the same day) in favor of or against its adoption when no proposed amendment is pending, or are you limited to speaking only for or against any proposed amendment to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted December 19, 2011 at 09:24 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 at 09:24 PM Dan - when you say "may you speak (it's still the same day) in favor of or against its adoption", is the 'its' you are referring to the preamble specifically? I can't imagine that you can adopt a preamble by itself without the rest of the resolution, but can you reject the preamble separately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 19, 2011 at 09:39 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 at 09:39 PM Dan - when you say "may you speak (it's still the same day) in favor of or against its adoption", is the 'its' you are referring to the preamble specifically? I can't imagine that you can adopt a preamble by itself without the rest of the resolution, but can you reject the preamble separately?Yes, the "it" is the preamble. No, it cannot be adopted by itself, but I would think that one could speak to its merits without there being any motion pending for its amendment, and the question is whether or not George can do so under the circumstances I described. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted December 19, 2011 at 11:11 PM Author Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 at 11:11 PM I don't think you can really speak for or against a preamble directly, but (at least in the assemblies I've participated in), it's not uncommon for there to be lead-up debate before amendments are offered, and it often makes things easier as members may often have some discomfort with portions of the resolution, and can express that and another member may follow up with a suggested amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 19, 2011 at 11:46 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 at 11:46 PM Yes, the "it" is the preamble. No, it cannot be adopted by itself, but I would think that one could speak to its merits without there being any motion pending for its amendment, and the question is whether or not George can do so under the circumstances I described.Since members cannot discuss the preamble prior to its consideration, It does seem that the preamble is considered to be a separate question in some regard, to the extent that it may be debated and amended separately from the main text of the resolution (although since the preamble is meaningless without the resolution, it cannot be adopted separately). It's sort of like a special case of the rules for seriatim consideration, except that there are only two sections to be considered - the main text of the resolution and the preamble.Let's say I had spoken only once on the resolution. Given these facts, it doesn't seem reasonable to suggest that I can speak to the merits of the preamble but that George cannot. After all, if the preamble is indeed the same question as the resolution, why go so far as to treat it separately that it can be debated even after the Previous Question has been ordered? The sensible conclusion is that the unusual rules for the preamble are a recognition of the fact that, for purposes of debate and amendment, the preamble is treated as a separate question. Thus, George has as much right to speak to it as I do.As a practical matter, it is also worth noting that if this were not the case it would mean that members would either "use up" their debate on the main text of the resolution, or they would need to "reserve" their debate for the preamble, which would be to the detriment of full consideration of the main text of the resolution and the preamble. While it is certainly true that members could still offer amendments, debate on the general merits of a resolution often aids members in formulating amendments. To deprive the members who had been most active in the debate of the resolution of the ability to provide similar aid in the perfecting of the preamble seems detrimental to the goal of perfecting the preamble.EDIT: Edited to conform with the rules of RONR. Slightly undermines my argument, but I'll stick with it for now because the rest of it still seems valid, and because I would like to avoid more typing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted December 20, 2011 at 12:56 AM Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 at 12:56 AM I don't know in all honesty if Josh's reply properly relfects the rule in RONR, but I certainly agree with it. It seems by it's very nature that a resolution with a preamble, being considered in its separate parts though not necessarily by each paragraph, is eerily similar to seriatim consideration. That's just my view of it. I have nothing to back it up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted December 20, 2011 at 03:56 AM Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 at 03:56 AM Since members cannot discuss the preamble prior to its consideration, it does seem that the preamble is considered to be a separate question in some regard, to the extent that it may be debated and amended separately from the main text of the resolution (although since the preamble is meaningless without the resolution, it cannot be adopted separately). It's sort of like a special case of the rules for seriatim consideration, except that there are only two sections to be considered - the main text of the resolution and the preamble.Assuming the resolution with a preamble is not being considered seriatim, and debate has not been closed, why can't the preamble be discussed (i.e., debated, rather than amended) at any time that the motion to adopt the resolution is immediately pending? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 20, 2011 at 04:47 AM Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 at 04:47 AM Assuming the resolution with a preamble is not being considered seriatim, and debate has not been closed, why can't the preamble be discussed (i.e., debated, rather than amended) at any time that the motion to adopt the resolution is immediately pending?My mistake. After checking the actual rules on this subject, it appears there is nothing which would prevent this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted December 20, 2011 at 01:42 PM Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 at 01:42 PM Assuming the resolution with a preamble is not being considered seriatim, and debate has not been closed, why can't the preamble be discussed (i.e., debated, rather than amended) at any time that the motion to adopt the resolution is immediately pending?My mistake. After checking the actual rules on this subject, it appears there is nothing which would prevent this.Guest guest picked this point up in post #6 but I lost track of it too. So, Dan, do you still have a problem with your post #9? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted December 20, 2011 at 04:07 PM Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 at 04:07 PM Well, I think my response in that post is correct (my responses are always correct ), but I’m still not all that happy with it.Perhaps more on this later.Right, always correct, unless SG says otherwise Thanks again, and thanks to Sean Hunt...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 20, 2011 at 04:15 PM Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 at 04:15 PM Right, always correct, unless SG says otherwise Thanks again, and thanks to Sean Hunt......I pulled the rug out from under you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted December 20, 2011 at 08:04 PM Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 at 08:04 PM I would follow up on the responses to questions 6, 7, and 8, but I fear it would amount to revisiting this topic. Thank you guys very much for the responses, and more generally for indulging my apparently-insatiable questioning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 20, 2011 at 08:13 PM Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 at 08:13 PM Right, always correct, unless SG says otherwise Thanks again, and thanks to Sean Hunt......Well, in post #9 I should have made it clear (or clearer) that my response assumed that whatever it was that was being considered was not being considered seriatim.Which reminds me, I've been hoping that the RLK will show us where in the book we will find the rule that tells us when it is that a member "exhausts his right to debate under the usual rules on one part" (p. 277, ll. 22-26) while something is being considered seriatim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted December 20, 2011 at 08:45 PM Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 at 08:45 PM Well, in post #9 I should have made it clear (or clearer) that my response assumed that whatever it was that was being considered was not being considered seriatim.Which reminds me, I've been hoping that the RLK will show us where in the book we will find the rule that tells us when it is that a member "exhausts his right to debate under the usual rules on one part" (p. 277, ll. 22-26) while something is being considered seriatim.I was about to look up "RLK" at acronymfinder.com when it dawned on me that it's probably some type of lawyer joke. Anyway, wouldn't that be in RONR 11th ed., p. 391, ll. 24-31? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 20, 2011 at 10:00 PM Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 at 10:00 PM I was about to look up "RLK" at acronymfinder.com when it dawned on me that it's probably some type of lawyer joke. Anyway, wouldn't that be in RONR 11th ed., p. 391, ll. 24-31?Probably. Is that in the Deluxe edition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.