Idle Thoughts re Fundamental Principles

[Dan Honemann]

16 hours ago, J. J. said:

It would be a small window, perhaps even smaller than that.  I would distinguish between when debate is exhausted, via some order and when a vote was taken under an order that also closed debate. 

I'm afraid you've lost me here. Perhaps it would help if you could provide an example of what you mean by "when debate is exhausted, via some order" and "when a vote was taken under an order that also closed debate", and why you wish to distinguish between them. 

We are not here concerned, of course, with the time when debate is exhausted, but rather with the time when an order suppressing debate is exhausted. As to the latter, see RONR, 11th ed., pages 195-96 and pages 204-205. The example which I previously provided was as follows:

"Suppose, however, on the first day of the convention a motion to order the previous question on all pending questions is improperly declared to have been adopted by less than a two-thirds vote at a time when a motion to postpone the main motion to day three is immediately pending, and this motion to postpone to day three is adopted. I have also suggested that, on day three when the main motion comes back before the assembly, it will not be too late for a member to raise a point of order that the motion for the previous question was improperly declared to have been adopted."

[J. J.]

On 9/6/2016 at 6:05 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I'm afraid you've lost me here. Perhaps it would help if you could provide an example of what you mean by "when debate is exhausted, via some order" and "when a vote was taken under an order that also closed debate", and why you wish to distinguish between them. 

We are not here concerned, of course, with the time when debate is exhausted, but rather with the time when an order suppressing debate is exhausted. As to the latter, see RONR, 11th ed., pages 195-96 and pages 204-205. The example which I previously provided was as follows:

"Suppose, however, on the first day of the convention a motion to order the previous question on all pending questions is improperly declared to have been adopted by less than a two-thirds vote at a time when a motion to postpone the main motion to day three is immediately pending, and this motion to postpone to day three is adopted. I have also suggested that, on day three when the main motion comes back before the assembly, it will not be too late for a member to raise a point of order that the motion for the previous question was improperly declared to have been adopted."

 

First, just for the record, I do not believe that, at this time, this would be a fundamental principle.  That is just for the record.  For the purposes of this thread, I will suspend my disbelief. 

I think that the "breach" would not necessarily have to be corrected instantly, but would have to be correct before the motion where the breach has occurred has been finally disposed of by the assembly.

To add some flesh to your example, assume that on the first day of the convention, these motions were pending at the time  the previous question was adopted.

A.  An appeal of the decision of the chair that an amendment to set the limits of debate on the main motion only was out of order.

B. The amendment to the motion to set the limits of debate on the main motion only.

C. The motion to set the limits of debate.

D. The motion to postpone the question until the third day.

E.  A secondary amendment to an amendment of the main motion.

F.  An amendment to the main motion.

G.  Postpone Indefinitely.

H.  The main motion. 

At this point, the Previous Question on all pending motions is adopted by a vote of 187 to 169, which was counted at the chair's initiative. 

This is what happens to these motions:

A.   The decision of the chair is overruled.

B.  The amendment to the motion to set the limits of debate  is adopted.

C.  The motion is defeated.

D.  The motion to postpone is adopted by a less than 2/3 vote.

At this point, no further votes are taken and the chair announces the result of D.

The chair recognizes a member, who raises a question of privilege regarding the air conditioner, which is treated as a request..

I would submit that, at this point, it is too late to raise a point of order in regard to A, B, C, and D.  Why?  As those motions were disposed of, there is no longer any debate there that could occur in regard to them.  Even if a point of order was raised just after the  question of privilege was raised it is too late.  Even if the there was a violation of a fundamental principle regarding limiting debate, there is no fundamental principle that it applies to votes taken to adopt motions.  A vote is fundamentally different  than debating a motion.  Even a debatable motion can be properly adopted without debate so debate is not an integral part of adopting a motion, even if there would be a fundamental principle that debate can only be closed by a 2/3 vote.

E through H could still be debated by the assembly when they become pending, so at that point of order could be raised when motion E becomes pending.  Even if no point of order raised when motion E is disposed of, singularly, a point of order could still be raised in regard to F-H.   This would continue as each motion until motion     When motion G is finally adopted and the assembly takes the next of business, there is no continuing breach in existence.

I would also note that a point of order regard this could be raise when nothing else is pending in the remainder of the meeting on Day 1, on Day 2, and on Day  3 until the motion is before the assembly. 

While I absolutely do not believe that there is a fundamental principle requiring a 2/3 vote to close debate, I believe that there is currently a breach of continuing nature fundamental principle that would have a characteristics as demonstrated here, where a breach of continuing nature would exist only until a pending motion was disposed of by the assembly.  Would you like to identify it? 

A fairly long time ago, I said that a continuing breach is not necessary an eternal breach.  I have not changed my opinion.

[Guest Gary c Tesser]

30 minutes ago, J. J. said:

..., I believe that there is currently a breach of continuing nature fundamental principle that would have a characteristics as demonstrated here, where a breach of continuing nature would exist only until a pending motion was disposed of by the assembly.  Would you like to identify it?    ...

JJ, I certainly don't , and I doubt I'm the only one.  Please stop playing and just tell us what you think it is.

[J. J.]

On 8/21/2016 at 6:48 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Scenario B: The maker of the main motion does not wish to speak first, and the first member who obtains the floor immediately moves "to suspend the rules and agree that the pending motion be postponed indefinitely." This motion attains a majority vote (but not a two-thirds vote) and the chair (erroneously) declares that this motion is adopted and the main motion is postponed indefinitely.

Of your entire post, I only  disagree with this point.  A motion, even a fully debatable one, can be legitimately disposed of without debate.  I draw a distinction between the act of debating a motion and the act of actually voting on a motion.

For me, I cannot equate the act of debating a motion with the act of disposing of a motion.  The majority clearly has the ability to adopted or reject the motion to postpone indefinitely.  The majority is not required to debate it to reach that decision. 

I can, very easily, see a situation where minority is greater than one third, but would be less than a quorum.  The majority, and the quorum, could simply decide to walk out when a member of the minority is speaking and return when the minority member stops.  While I would regard that as rude and possibly arrogant, I do not see it violating any rule.  I don't see any method that could compel the majority to physically hear debate, much less pay attention to it. 

[J. J.]

Think we can all agree that it a fundamental principle that only one main motion may be by the assembly at one time (p. 59, ll. 18-23).

 

On 9/7/2016 at 3:33 AM, Guest Gary c Tesser said:

JJ, I certainly don't , and I doubt I'm the only one.  Please stop playing and just tell us what you think it is.

  Okay, the following things happen in the assembly:

1:00 PM  Main Motion A is made, and is before the assembly. 

1:30 PM  Main Motion B is made, but A is still pending.

1:45 PM  Main Motion C is made, A and B are still pending.

2:00 PM  Main Motion D is made, A, B, and C are still pending

2:05 PM  B is withdrawn by the mover with unanimous consent.

2:30 PM  C is postponed to next week's meeting as a special order.

3:25 PM  D is adopted.

3:50 PM  A is defeated.

Between 1:00 PM and 4:00 PM no point of order was made.

1. At 3:40 PM  Should a point of order that there are two or more main motions pending at one time be found well taken?

2.  At 5:00 PM Should a point of order that there are two or more main motions pending at one time be found well taken?

3.  At next week's meeting should a point of order that D is null and void on the ground that there is an ongoing breach that fundamental principle and D and another motion are currently before the assembly?

 

My answer is no to all and that as of 3:25 PM there is no violation of this fundamental principle.

[Dan Honemann]

J.J. offers a tortuous scenario (the first one, I haven't read his second one as yet) in which a motion for the previous question is made and declared adopted by less than a two-thirds vote at a time when such a motion was not in order in the first place because the immediately pending motion (the appeal) was not debatable, and then tells us that:

The chair's ruling (which appears to have been correct, although the facts provided are very fuzzy as to what, exactly, motions C and B were) is overruled, the motion to amend the motion to limit debate is adopted, the motion to limit debate, as amended, is rejected, and then the motion to postpone is adopted (for some reason or other we're told that this is by less than a two-thirds vote).

He then submits that it is now too late to raise a point of order concerning the overruling of the decision of the chair on appeal, the adoption of the motion to amend the motion to limit debate, the rejection of the motion to limit debate (as amended), and the adoption of the motion to postpone. I agree. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with anything previously discussed in this thread, and anyone who thinks that it does has simply failed to understand that discussion.

He then goes on to note that, when the secondary and primary motions to amend, and the motion to postpone, again come before the assembly (and even before then), points of order can be raised concerning the debateability of those motions up until the time when they are voted on, and I again agree. This is because it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that debate cannot be suppressed by less than a two-thirds vote, and a point of order concerning a violation of the rule requiring a two-thirds vote to suppress debate can be raised at any time up until the order suppressing debate is exhausted, after which it will be too late. Once a motion has been voted on, any order suppressing debate on that motion has, of course, been exhausted.

J.J. then goes on to say something about not equating the act of debating a motion with the act of disposing of a motion, but no one, to the best of my knowledge, has been doing anything of the sort.

[J. J.]

On 9/7/2016 at 7:46 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

J.J. offers a tortuous scenario (the first one, I haven't read his second one as yet) in which a motion for the previous question is made and declared adopted by less than a two-thirds vote at a time when such a motion was not in order in the first place because the immediately pending motion (the appeal) was not debatable, and then tells us that:

The chair's ruling (which appears to have been correct, although the facts provided are very fuzzy as to what, exactly, motions C and B were) is overruled, the motion to amend the motion to limit debate is adopted, the motion to limit debate, as amended, is rejected, and then the motion to postpone is adopted (for some reason or other we're told that this is by less than a two-thirds vote).

He then submits that it is now too late to raise a point of order concerning the overruling of the decision of the chair on appeal, the adoption of the motion to amend the motion to limit debate, the rejection of the motion to limit debate (as amended), and the adoption of the motion to postpone. I agree. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with anything previously discussed in this thread, and anyone who thinks that it does has simply failed to understand that discussion.

He then goes on to note that, when the secondary and primary motions to amend, and the motion to postpone, again come before the assembly (and even before then), points of order can be raised concerning the debateability of those motions up until the time when they are voted on, and I again agree. This is because it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that debate cannot be suppressed by less than a two-thirds vote, and a point of order concerning a violation of the rule requiring a two-thirds vote to suppress debate can be raised at any time up until the order suppressing debate is exhausted, after which it will be too late. Once a motion has been voted on, any order suppressing debate on that motion has, of course, been exhausted.

J.J. then goes on to say something about not equating the act of debating a motion with the act of disposing of a motion, but no one, to the best of my knowledge, has been doing anything of the sort.

Dan, I am afraid that you are wrong in both substance and characterization.

First,this is your scenario, with several motions used as examples.  You did not specify if there were additional secondary motions motions.  You would be free to to have one with less.  This, however, is a good exemplar for the rules. 

Second, the appeal is vague because this in not the issue.  You would be free to change the the result of the appeal being well taken.  In this example, it is not relevant because the motion to set limits to debate is defeated.  There are a minimum of number of motions that have a precedence higher than that of a motion to limits of debate, but lower than the previous question and that are debatable.  You are free  to change that to some other motion that would have the same precedence and is debatable in the circumstance if that helps you with the example.  

I do agree that, even if the previous question was not made, it would be too late to raise a point of order regarding the appeal.

Now, again using your scenario, I think we agree that a point of order regarding the lack of a 2/3 vote to close debate on those motions with a lower precedence than postpone could be subject to a untimely point of order. 

This leaves only the secondary motions postpone and those of higher precedence than postpone.  So, I ask you Dan, do you feel that an untimely point of could be raised regarding those motions, i.e. these motions listed below:

A.  An appeal of the decision of the chair that an amendment to set the limits of debate on the main motion only was out of order.

B. The amendment to the motion to set the limits of debate on the main motion only.

C. The motion to set the limits of debate.

D. The motion to postpone the question until the third day.

[Dan Honemann]

On 9/7/2016 at 9:24 AM, J. J. said:

Dan, I am afraid that you are wrong in both substance and characterization.

First,this is your scenario, with several motions used as examples.  You did not specify if there were additional secondary motions motions.  You would be free to to have one with less.  This, however, is a good exemplar for the rules. 

Second, the appeal is vague because this in not the issue.  You would be free to change the the result of the appeal being well taken.  In this example, it is not relevant because the motion to set limits to debate is defeated.  There are a minimum of number of motions that have a precedence higher than that of a motion to limits of debate, but lower than the previous question and that are debatable.  You are free  to change that to some other motion that would have the same precedence and is debatable in the circumstance if that helps you with the example.  

I do agree that, even if the previous question was not made, it would be too late to raise a point of order regarding the appeal.

Now, again using your scenario, I think we agree that a point of order regarding the lack of a 2/3 vote to close debate on those motions with a lower precedence than postpone could be subject to a untimely point of order. 

This leaves only the secondary motions postpone and those of higher precedence than postpone.  So, I ask you Dan, do you feel that an untimely point of could be raised regarding those motions, i.e. these motions listed below:

A.  An appeal of the decision of the chair that an amendment to set the limits of debate on the main motion only was out of order.

B. The amendment to the motion to set the limits of debate on the main motion only.

C. The motion to set the limits of debate.

D. The motion to postpone the question until the third day.

As I have previously mentioned, all points of order must be timely, but yes, the lack of a 2/3 vote to order the previous question means that a point of order can be raised (and will be timely) with respect to the debatability of any of the motions which you listed and which were not disposed of (adopted or rejected), and I think I very clearly said as much.

And as I also said (I thought rather clearly) in my previous response, it is now too late to raise a point of order concerning (A) the overruling of the decision of the chair on the appeal, (B) the adoption of the motion to amend the motion to limit debate, (C) the rejection of the motion to limit debate (as amended), and (D) the adoption of the motion to postpone. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with anything previously discussed in this thread, and anyone who thinks that it does has simply failed to understand that discussion.

[J. J.]

20 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

As I have previously mentioned, all points of order must be timely, but yes, the lack of a 2/3 vote to order the previous question means that a point of order can be raised (and will be timely) with respect to the debatability of any of the motions which you listed and which were not disposed of (adopted or rejected), and I think I very clearly said as much.

And as I also said (I thought rather clearly) in my previous response, it is now too late to raise a point of order concerning (A) the overruling of the decision of the chair on the appeal, (B) the adoption of the motion to amend the motion to limit debate, (C) the rejection of the motion to limit debate (as amended), and (D) the adoption of the motion to postpone. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with anything previously discussed in this thread, and anyone who thinks that it does has simply failed to understand that discussion.

It was my understanding that this was the question.  I know that it would involve a main motion (obviously by implication),  postpone (until the third day), and previous question (which was improper declared adopted).  You have also added that there is fundamental principle that debate may only a two thirds vote.  I think I do understand the parliamentary situation that you have created, I really do not understand what you are asking about that situation.  I  would welcome clarification.

I use the word "timely" as referred to in context, i.e. that a point of order "must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs (p. 255, ii. 18-19)."  There are exceptions to "the rule that a point of order must be at the time of the breach (p. 251, ll. 3-4)."  While it is possible to have legitimate points of order regarding something that has not just happen, those points of order would not be timely.

I suspect that you are using the word "timely" differently than it is used in those citations. 

[Dan Honemann]

17 hours ago, J. J. said:

It was my understanding that this was the question.  I know that it would involve a main motion (obviously by implication),  postpone (until the third day), and previous question (which was improper declared adopted).  You have also added that there is fundamental principle that debate may only a two thirds vote.  I think I do understand the parliamentary situation that you have created, I really do not understand what you are asking about that situation.  I  would welcome clarification.

I use the word "timely" as referred to in context, i.e. that a point of order "must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs (p. 255, ii. 18-19)."  There are exceptions to "the rule that a point of order must be at the time of the breach (p. 251, ll. 3-4)."  While it is possible to have legitimate points of order regarding something that has not just happen, those points of order would not be timely.

I suspect that you are using the word "timely" differently than it is used in those citations. 

I don't think that I'm asking anything, but I am certainly willing to acknowledge that I probably have failed to make myself clear.

As I have said, it is my opinion that the requirement of a two-thirds vote to suppress debate is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, which means that whenever debate has erroneously been declared to have been suppressed by a vote which was, in fact, less than a two-thirds vote, a point of order concerning this violation of the rules can be raised at any time during the continuance of the breach. Referring to this period of "continuance of the breach" in another way, I have said that a point of order concerning a violation of the rule requiring a two-thirds vote to suppress debate can be raised at any time up until the order suppressing debate is exhausted, after which it will be too late. I'm afraid that I failed to make it clear that by this I meant that, once a motion has been voted on, or referred to a committee, or postponed indefinitely, the order suppressing debate has been exhausted with respect to that motion, and it will thereafter be too late to raise a point of order concerning the treatment of that motion.

In what I hope is an excess of caution, I will note that none of this relates to the sort of motion referred to in the first paragraph of my initial post.

And by the way, if a point of order is raised concerning the breach of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law at any time during the continuance of the breach, the point of order is timely, and nothing in RONR should be taken as indicating otherwise. What is or is not timely in this regard depends upon whether or not the breach involved is one of a continuing nature, as described on page 251.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 9/5/2016 at 6:28 PM, J. J. said:

I would distinguish between when debate is exhausted, via some order and when a vote was taken under an order that also closed debate. 

 

On 9/6/2016 at 6:05 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I'm afraid you've lost me here. Perhaps it would help if you could provide an example of what you mean by "when debate is exhausted, via some order" and "when a vote was taken under an order that also closed debate", and why you wish to distinguish between them.

I think J. J. may have a valid point here, and it relates to why I am uncomfortable with allowing that there are different outcomes in the three scenarios that I posited toward of the beginning of this topic (here). To recap scenario B:

'It is now the third day of a three-day convention. On the first day of the convention, . . . with regard to a particular main motion (M) that has just been moved and seconded. . . . The maker of the main motion does not wish to speak first, and the first member who obtains the floor immediately moves "to suspend the rules and agree that the pending motion be postponed indefinitely." This motion attains a majority vote (but not a two-thirds vote) and the chair (erroneously) declares that this motion is adopted and the main motion is postponed indefinitely.'

Dan, you have said, "In Scenario B, a member can validly raise a point of order that the motion to suspend the rules was improperly declared to have been adopted." I think what J. J. might say (and if he doesn't agree, then I will offer this rationale myself) is that the only respect in which the rules were suspended is that no debate was allowed on the motion to Postpone Indefinitely, and that act of closing the debate is the only thing that required a two-thirds vote. The adoption of the motion to Postpone Indefinitely by a majority vote was not itself improper, and therefore the closing of debate by less than a two-thirds vote in the course of adopting that motion is now irrelevant.

It seems very odd to me that there would be a different outcome in Scenario B than in Scenario C, based simply on whether debate was closed and then the vote taken immediately to Postpone Indefinitely, or debate was closed simultaneously with adoption of the motion to Postpone Indefinitely.

[J. J.]

Perhaps this will make it clearer.

Assume that there is a fundamental principle that a 2/3 vote is needed to close debate.  If debate is improperly closed by something less than a 2/3, a breach of continuing nature.  A point of order need not be raised at the time the breach occurred (I would use the word "timely" as synonymous "at the time the breach occurred).  This breach would be a breach of a continuing nature, and "a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach (p. 251, ll. 5-7)."

The question may be this:

"When does this breach end of its own accord, heal all by itself, if the assembly does nothing further to resolve it?"

Is this a proper framing of the question?  (If it is, it is a very good question.)

[J. J.]

45 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

 

'

Dan, you have said, "In Scenario B, a member can validly raise a point of order that the motion to suspend the rules was improperly declared to have been adopted." I think what J. J. might say (and if he doesn't agree, then I will offer this rationale myself) is that the only respect in which the rules were suspended is that no debate was allowed on the motion to Postpone Indefinitely, and that act of closing the debate is the only thing that required a two-thirds vote. The adoption of the motion to Postpone Indefinitely by a majority vote was not itself improper, and therefore the closing of debate by less than a two-thirds vote in the course of adopting that motion is now irrelevant.

 

Yes, this is at least part of it.  Even if there some violation in getting to the motion, once there, the assembly could still dispose of motion.

Here might be the simplest example:

A main motion, that requires a majority vote, is pending.  A member moves the previous question.  The chair errors in the handling previous question, and permits the previous question to be adopted by something less than a 2/3 vote.  The main motion receives a majority and is declared adopted.

A point of order is now raised that the main motion was not properly adopted because a 2/3 vote is needed to close debate.  How should the chair rule?

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

 

I think J. J. may have a valid point here, and it relates to why I am uncomfortable with allowing that there are different outcomes in the three scenarios that I posited toward of the beginning of this topic (here). To recap scenario B:

'It is now the third day of a three-day convention. On the first day of the convention, . . . with regard to a particular main motion (M) that has just been moved and seconded. . . . The maker of the main motion does not wish to speak first, and the first member who obtains the floor immediately moves "to suspend the rules and agree that the pending motion be postponed indefinitely." This motion attains a majority vote (but not a two-thirds vote) and the chair (erroneously) declares that this motion is adopted and the main motion is postponed indefinitely.'

Dan, you have said, "In Scenario B, a member can validly raise a point of order that the motion to suspend the rules was improperly declared to have been adopted." I think what J. J. might say (and if he doesn't agree, then I will offer this rationale myself) is that the only respect in which the rules were suspended is that no debate was allowed on the motion to Postpone Indefinitely, and that act of closing the debate is the only thing that required a two-thirds vote. The adoption of the motion to Postpone Indefinitely by a majority vote was not itself improper, and therefore the closing of debate by less than a two-thirds vote in the course of adopting that motion is now irrelevant.

It seems very odd to me that there would be a different outcome in Scenario B than in Scenario C, based simply on whether debate was closed and then the vote taken immediately to Postpone Indefinitely, or debate was closed simultaneously with adoption of the motion to Postpone Indefinitely.

I said what I said with respect to Scenario B because that is exactly what General Robert has told us, namely, that "fundamental principles of parliamentary law require a two-thirds vote for every motion that suppresses a main question for the session without free debate." Note that this is a rule which refers specifically to motions that suppress a main question for the session without debate, not to motions which simply suppress debate (motions to Limit Debate and motions for the Previous Question), and not the main motion itself. 

I don't think it odd at all that there is a different outcome when either (i) an Objection to Consideration of a Question is declared to have been adopted by less than a two-thirds vote, or (ii) a motion "to suspend the rules and agree that the pending motion be postponed indefinitely" is declared to have been adopted by less than a two-thirds vote, and (iii) when a motion to Limit Debate or for the Previous Question is declared to have been adopted by less than a two thirds vote. There is a substantial difference between suppressing (effectively rejecting) a main motion for the remainder of a session and simply suppressing debate without simultaneously disposing of the pending main motion. In instances (i) and (ii), the breach of the rules is the final disposition (effectively a rejection) of a main motion without debate. In instance (iii), the breach of the rules is simply the suppression of debate, without disposing of the main motion one way or the other.

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, J. J. said:

Perhaps this will make it clearer.

Assume that there is a fundamental principle that a 2/3 vote is needed to close debate.  If debate is improperly closed by something less than a 2/3, a breach of continuing nature.  A point of order need not be raised at the time the breach occurred (I would use the word "timely" as synonymous "at the time the breach occurred).  This breach would be a breach of a continuing nature, and "a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach (p. 251, ll. 5-7)."

The question may be this:

"When does this breach end of its own accord, heal all by itself, if the assembly does nothing further to resolve it?"

Is this a proper framing of the question?  (If it is, it is a very good question.)

I've discussed this question more than once already, and I don't intend doing it again.

 

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, J. J. said:

Yes, this is at least part of it.  Even if there some violation in getting to the motion, once there, the assembly could still dispose of motion.

Here might be the simplest example:

A main motion, that requires a majority vote, is pending.  A member moves the previous question.  The chair errors in the handling previous question, and permits the previous question to be adopted by something less than a 2/3 vote.  The main motion receives a majority and is declared adopted.

A point of order is now raised that the main motion was not properly adopted because a 2/3 vote is needed to close debate.  How should the chair rule?

The chair should rule that the member is correct, the announcement of the result of the vote on the motion to order the previous question was indeed in error, but that it is now too late to raise a point of order concerning the matter.

[J. J.]

18 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The chair should rule that the member is correct, the announcement of the result of the vote on the motion to order the previous question was indeed in error, but that it is now too late to raise a point of order concerning the matter.

I was using this to illustrate what Shmuel was posting, trying to give an example.  That is why I said, "Here is an example." 

 

I think this would be clearer if we were all standing around a whiteboard. 

 

(I agree that this should be ruled not well taken and that the main motion was properly adopted, but should indicate that there was an error and that it is now too late to correct it.) 

[Dan Honemann]

On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 1:21 PM, J. J. said:

Perhaps this will make it clearer.

Assume that there is a fundamental principle that a 2/3 vote is needed to close debate.  If debate is improperly closed by something less than a 2/3, a breach of continuing nature.  A point of order need not be raised at the time the breach occurred (I would use the word "timely" as synonymous "at the time the breach occurred).  This breach would be a breach of a continuing nature, and "a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach (p. 251, ll. 5-7)."

The question may be this:

"When does this breach end of its own accord, heal all by itself, if the assembly does nothing further to resolve it?"

Is this a proper framing of the question?  (If it is, it is a very good question.)

When I initially responded to this question, I said that I have already discussed it more than once, and that I didn't intend doing so again, but perhaps that was a bit too hasty because, in looking at this question again, I'm not at all sure exactly what it is intended to get at.

Let's assume, for example, that a motion for the Previous Question is erroneously declared to have been adopted by less than a two-thirds vote. If, when you say that "the assembly does nothing further to resolve it", you mean that the assembly takes no further action at all on the motion or motions on which the Previous Question was ordered, this breach of the rules will, of course, "end of its own accord" when the session is adjourned.

If, however, you have some other factual situation in mind, perhaps you might explain it in greater detail.

 

[J. J.]

3 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

When I initially responded to this question, I said that I have already discussed it more than once, and that I didn't intend doing so again, but perhaps that was a bit too hasty because, in looking at this question again, I'm not at all sure exactly what it is intended to get at.

Let's assume, for example, that a motion for the Previous Question is erroneously declared to have been adopted by less than a two-thirds vote. If, when you say that "the assembly does nothing further to resolve it", you mean that the assembly takes no further action at all on the motion or motions on which the Previous Question was ordered, this breach of the rules will, of course, "end of its own accord" when the session is adjourned.

If, however, you have some other factual situation in mind, perhaps you might explain it in greater detail.

 

I was look at the "Day 3" aspect of your postings.

 

In the example, a subsidiary motion to Postpone (until Day 3) is one of the motions applied to the main motion and subject to the Previous Question.

In other words, the Previous Question applies to these motions:

A.  A motion to Postpone until Day 3.

B.  The main motion.

The Previous Question, on all pending motions, is adopted, but by less than a 2/3 vote.  If this violates a fundamental principle, then the breach would be continuing.

The first thing that would happen is that the assembly vote on Postpone  (and the motion receives a majority vote).  Once the motion is postponed a Point of Order "that the previous question was improperly adopted in regard to the motion to Postpone and that the motion to Postpone is void," should not be well taken.  The assembly, by majority vote, had the ability to postpone this motion (or to not postpone it).  [It I were making this ruling, I would note that it was an error to close debate by less than a 2/3 vote, but it cannot be subject to a point of order at this time.].

On Day 3 the motion becomes pending.  Prior to a vote on the main motion, a point of order is raised "that the Previous Question was improperly adopted in regard to the main motion (which is immediately pending), and that the Previous Question as applied to the main motion is void." That point of order should be well taken.  It applies only to if debate on the main motion is in order.  At that point, it is not possible for the assembly correct the improper closure of debate in regard to a previously disposed of secondary motion.

 

Okay, it is the end of Day 1, nothing is pending.  A member raises a point of order, "that the Previous Question was improperly adopted in regard to the motion to Postpone and that the motion to Postpone is void," the point of order should not be well taken (though in should be noted that it was improper to close debate with less than a 2/3 vote).

The member raises a second point of order (it is still Day 1) "that the Previous Question was improperly adopted in regard to the main motion  and that the Previous Question as applied to the main motion is void."  That point of order should be well taken, and when the main motion becomes pending, on Day 3, the previous question is not in effect regarding the main motion.

Now, if there is agreement that this is how it would work, I think the answers to Shmuel's three scenarios might be found in looking looking to see when the breach ends (and he has posted a real puzzler in one) . 

[Dan Honemann]

35 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I was look at the "Day 3" aspect of your postings.

 

In the example, a subsidiary motion to Postpone (until Day 3) is one of the motions applied to the main motion and subject to the Previous Question.

In other words, the Previous Question applies to these motions:

A.  A motion to Postpone until Day 3.

B.  The main motion.

The Previous Question, on all pending motions, is adopted, but by less than a 2/3 vote.  If this violates a fundamental principle, then the breach would be continuing.

The first thing that would happen is that the assembly vote on Postpone  (and the motion receives a majority vote).  Once the motion is postponed a Point of Order "that the previous question was improperly adopted in regard to the motion to Postpone and that the motion to Postpone is void," should not be well taken.  The assembly, by majority vote, had the ability to postpone this motion (or to not postpone it).  [It I were making this ruling, I would note that it was an error to close debate by less than a 2/3 vote, but it cannot be subject to a point of order at this time.].

On Day 3 the motion becomes pending.  Prior to a vote on the main motion, a point of order is raised "that the Previous Question was improperly adopted in regard to the main motion (which is immediately pending), and that the Previous Question as applied to the main motion is void." That point of order should be well taken.  It applies only to if debate on the main motion is in order.  At that point, it is not possible for the assembly correct the improper closure of debate in regard to a previously disposed of secondary motion.

 

Okay, it is the end of Day 1, nothing is pending.  A member raises a point of order, "that the Previous Question was improperly adopted in regard to the motion to Postpone and that the motion to Postpone is void," the point of order should not be well taken (though in should be noted that it was improper to close debate with less than a 2/3 vote).

The member raises a second point of order (it is still Day 1) "that the Previous Question was improperly adopted in regard to the main motion  and that the Previous Question as applied to the main motion is void."  That point of order should be well taken, and when the main motion becomes pending, on Day 3, the previous question is not in effect regarding the main motion.

Now, if there is agreement that this is how it would work, I think the answers to Shmuel's three scenarios might be found in looking looking to see when the breach ends (and he has posted a real puzzler in one) . 

I agree that this is "how it would work", except I think that the point of order raised on Day 1 would assert that the motion to order the previous question on all pending questions was improperly declared to have been adopted by less than a two-thirds vote. The chair would then rule that the point of order was well taken, and that, although it is too late for this to affect the adoption of the motion to postpone, when the main motion again comes before the assembly at the time to which it was postponed it will be fully debatable and amendable.

Please bear in mind that Shmuel's Scenarios A and B are controlled by the rules that require a two-thirds vote for the adoption of any motion that suppresses a main question for the session without free debate (referred to in the first paragraph of my initial post). His Scenario C, and the one that I added, are governed by the rule which we are involved with here, which is the one referred to in the third paragraph of my initial post. All four of these scenarios were properly dealt with in my fourth post (back on August 22).

 

[J. J.]

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I agree that this is "how it would work", except I think that the point of order raised on Day 1 would assert that the motion to order the previous question on all pending questions was improperly declared to have been adopted by less than a two-thirds vote. The chair would then rule that the point of order was well taken, and that, although it is too late for this to affect the adoption of the motion to postpone, when the main motion again comes before the assembly at the time to which it was postponed it will be fully debatable and amendable.

Please bear in mind that Shmuel's Scenarios A and B are controlled by the rules that require a two-thirds vote for the adoption of any motion that suppresses a main question for the session without free debate (referred to in the first paragraph of my initial post). His Scenario C, and the one that I added, are governed by the rule which we are involved with here, which is the one referred to in the third paragraph of my initial post. All four of these scenarios were properly dealt with in my fourth post (back on August 22).

 

 

 

Well, under this scenario only one question has been adopted after the previous question was ordered, Postpone.  Would you say, on Day 1 but after the question has been postponed, a Point of Order "that the previous question was improperly adopted in regard to the motion to Postpone and that the motion to Postpone is void," would be in order?

I would agree that it is not necessary to raise a point of order on all questions subject to the previous question, and that there could be an "omnibus" point of order, which would be preferable.  Would this, however, apply to motion to postpone until Day 3, which was already adopted? 

[Dan Honemann]

4 minutes ago, J. J. said:

 

 

Well, under this scenario only one question has been adopted after the previous question was ordered, Postpone.  Would you say, on Day 1 but after the question has been postponed, a Point of Order "that the previous question was improperly adopted in regard to the motion to Postpone and that the motion to Postpone is void," would be in order?

I would agree that it is not necessary to raise a point of order on all questions subject to the previous question, and that there could be an "omnibus" point of order, which would be preferable.  Would this, however, apply to motion to postpone until Day 3, which was already adopted? 

I thought that I had made it abundantly clear, on more than one occasion, that once a motion has been voted on it is too late to raise a point of order that debate on that motion had been improperly suppressed due to the chair's declaration that the motion for the previous question had been adopted by less than a two-thirds vote.

[J. J.]

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I thought that I had made it abundantly clear, on more than one occasion, that once a motion has been voted on it is too late to raise a point of order that debate on that motion had been improperly suppressed due to the chair's declaration that the motion for the previous question had been adopted by less than a two-thirds vote.

Okay, then there is no disagreement; I agree as well.

 

The answer to Shmuel's three scenarios follows.  It assumes that there is a fundamental principle that a 2/3 vote is require to close debate. 

"Scenario A: Before consideration has begun, an Objection to the Consideration of the Question is made. A majority, but not two-thirds, vote against consideration, and the chair (erroneously) declares that the main motion will not be considered."

A Point of Order may be raised "that consideration of the main motion was improperly suppressed and that the main motion may be entertained."  The chair should find it well taken.

The assembly, by majority vote, does not have the authority to adopt Objection to the Consideration of the Question.  It can only do so a 2/3 vote and the rule that a 2/3's as required cannot be suspended, because it is a fundamental principle. 

"Scenario B: The maker of the main motion does not wish to speak first, and the first member who obtains the floor immediately moves "to suspend the rules and agree that the pending motion be postponed indefinitely." This motion attains a majority vote (but not a two-thirds vote) and the chair (erroneously) declares that this motion is adopted and the main motion is postponed indefinitely.

The effect of the suspension is that debate is suppressed on the motion to Postpone Indefinitely; it is not on a series of motions.  The assembly, by majority vote, has the authority to adopt Postpone Indefinitely.  Because there was the vote needed to adopt was a majority and the motion received a majority, it is too late to raise a point of order, that the motion to Postpone Indefinitely is void.  It is similar to having  the Previous Question adopted in regard Postpone Indefinitely.  Even if the Previous Question was adopted by less than a 2/3 vote and, even if, it violated the fundamental principle, that a 2/3 vote is need to close debate, once Postpone Indefinitely has been adopted, even under suspension of the rules, it's too late to raise a point of order that the Postpone Indefinitely is void. 

"Scenario C: The maker of the motion does not wish to speak first, and the first member who obtains the floor immediately moves that the pending motion be postponed indefinitely. When the chair states the question, the same member immediately obtains the floor and moves the Previous Question. The Previous Question attains a majority vote (but not a two-thirds vote), and the chair (erroneously) declares that the Previous Question has been ordered on the motion to Postpone Indefinitely. The motion to Postpone Indefinitely is then voted on and adopted (by majority vote), and the chair declares that the main motion is postponed indefinitely."

Pretty much the same as B, except that the Previous Question was moved separately. 

Those are my answers to it and I think it is very interesting set of questions (though I disagree regarding if a 2/3 vote requirement is a fundamental principle).

 

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

14 hours ago, J. J. said:

"Scenario B: The maker of the main motion does not wish to speak first, and the first member who obtains the floor immediately moves "to suspend the rules and agree that the pending motion be postponed indefinitely." This motion attains a majority vote (but not a two-thirds vote) and the chair (erroneously) declares that this motion is adopted and the main motion is postponed indefinitely.

The effect of the suspension is that debate is suppressed on the motion to Postpone Indefinitely; it is not on a series of motions.  The assembly, by majority vote, has the authority to adopt Postpone Indefinitely.  Because there was the vote needed to adopt was a majority and the motion received a majority, it is too late to raise a point of order, that the motion to Postpone Indefinitely is void.  It is similar to having  the Previous Question adopted in regard Postpone Indefinitely.  Even if the Previous Question was adopted by less than a 2/3 vote and, even if, it violated the fundamental principle, that a 2/3 vote is need to close debate, once Postpone Indefinitely has been adopted, even under suspension of the rules, it's too late to raise a point of order that the Postpone Indefinitely is void. 

J.J., I'm afraid that you've got this one all wrong.

In this answer to Scenario B, you repeatedly refer to "the motion to Postpone Indefinitely", when, in fact, no motion to Postpone Indefinitely was made, and no motion to Postpone Indefinitely was ever voted on. We are well aware of the fact that a subsidiary motion to Postpone Indefinitely may be adopted by a majority vote, but this is completely irrelevant. No such motion is involved in this Scenario.

In Scenario B, an incidental motion was made "to suspend the rules and agree that the pending motion be postponed indefinitely." The object of this incidental motion is to suppress the main motion for the session without any debate, and it requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption.  As has previously been noted, "fundamental principles of parliamentary law require a two-thirds vote for every motion that suppresses a main question for the session without free debate." Since the chair erroneously declared this motion adopted by less than a two-thirds vote, the breach of a fundamental rule of parliamentary law has occurred, and a point of order with respect to this breach of the rules can be raised at any time during the continuance of the breach. As a consequence, on day three of the convention, a member can validly raise a point of order that the motion to suspend the rules and agree that the pending motion be postponed indefinitely was improperly declared to have been adopted, just the same as, in Scenario A, a member can validly raise a point of order that the objection to consideration of the main motion was improperly declared to have been sustained.

[J. J.]

3 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

J.J., I'm afraid that you've got this one all wrong.

In this answer to Scenario B, you repeatedly refer to "the motion to Postpone Indefinitely", when, in fact, no motion to Postpone Indefinitely was made, and no motion to Postpone Indefinitely was ever voted on. We are well aware of the fact that a subsidiary motion to Postpone Indefinitely may be adopted by a majority vote, but this is completely irrelevant. No such motion is involved in this Scenario.

In Scenario B, an incidental motion was made "to suspend the rules and agree that the pending motion be postponed indefinitely." The object of this incidental motion is to suppress the main motion for the session without any debate, and it requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption.  As has previously been noted, "fundamental principles of parliamentary law require a two-thirds vote for every motion that suppresses a main question for the session without free debate." Since the chair erroneously declared this motion adopted by less than a two-thirds vote, the breach of a fundamental rule of parliamentary law has occurred, and a point of order with respect to this breach of the rules can be raised at any time during the continuance of the breach. As a consequence, on day three of the convention, a member can validly raise a point of order that the motion to suspend the rules and agree that the pending motion be postponed indefinitely was improperly declared to have been adopted, just the same as, in Scenario A, a member can validly raise a point of order that the objection to consideration of the main motion was improperly declared to have been sustained.

That isn't irrelevant.  In B, the assembly specifically agreed  "that the pending motion be postponed indefinitely." That is tantamount to adopting a motion to Postpone Indefinitely.  I as I am sure that you are aware, there are many cases where motions are not made in so many words, but a none the less, adopted.

In B the assembly has said that, the result of this motion being adopted will be that the pending motion will be postponed indefinitely  It states it in so many words. 

I would also note that if Postpone Indefinitely was moved, it would be in order that the Previous Question be made immediately.  The Previous Question were adopted by less than a 2/3 vote, and Postpone Indefinitely then adopted, by a majority vote.  In such cases, the motion to Postpone Indefinitely would still be adopted. 

In this case, the rules that are being suspended are that a member needs to seek recognition to move the Previous Question, and that the members need not take a separate vote on the motions Previous Question and Postpone Indefinitely.  .