Guest Randy Posted October 1, 2016 at 12:11 AM Report Share Posted October 1, 2016 at 12:11 AM If a question has been divided does a motion to lay on the table act in an omnibus fashion on all of the questions that have not been dealt with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted October 1, 2016 at 12:38 AM Report Share Posted October 1, 2016 at 12:38 AM See FAQ #12 and #13 regarding misuses of this motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Randy Posted October 1, 2016 at 01:51 AM Report Share Posted October 1, 2016 at 01:51 AM 1 hour ago, Hieu H. Huynh said: See FAQ #12 and #13 regarding misuses of this motion. Please assume the motion to lay on the table was raised to deal with a matter of urgency but has interrupted consideration of a series of matters arising from division of a main motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted October 1, 2016 at 02:03 AM Report Share Posted October 1, 2016 at 02:03 AM "Since the motion to Lay on the Table can be applied only to a question that is actually pending, a class or group of main questions such as orders of the day, unfinished business, or committee reports cannot be laid on the table as a unit." RONR 11th ed., p. 211, ll. 21-25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted October 1, 2016 at 10:59 AM Report Share Posted October 1, 2016 at 10:59 AM 9 hours ago, Guest Randy said: If a question has been divided does a motion to lay on the table act in an omnibus fashion on all of the questions that have not been dealt with? I think this is an excellent question, and as best I have been able to determine, there is nothing in RONR which directly addresses it. However, a careful reading of SDC 2 of the motion to Lay on the Table (RONR, 11th ed., pp. 210-211) leads me to believe that a motion to Lay on the Table is applicable only to the immediately pending part of a question which has been divided, and its adoption will have no effect on the part or parts not yet dealt with. The several parts into which a divisible motion has been divided do not adhere to each other in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted October 1, 2016 at 11:16 AM Report Share Posted October 1, 2016 at 11:16 AM Matthew 19:6 (sorta): What therefore Robert hath put asunder, let not Table join together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 3, 2016 at 09:10 AM Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 at 09:10 AM On 10/1/2016 at 6:16 AM, jstackpo said: Matthew 19:6 (sorta): What therefore Robert hath put asunder, let not Table join together. Thanks for the smile! And it actually helps! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted October 5, 2016 at 04:05 AM Report Share Posted October 5, 2016 at 04:05 AM On 10/1/2016 at 6:59 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said: I think this is an excellent question, and as best I have been able to determine, there is nothing in RONR which directly addresses it. However, a careful reading of SDC 2 of the motion to Lay on the Table (RONR, 11th ed., pp. 210-211) leads me to believe that a motion to Lay on the Table is applicable only to the immediately pending part of a question which has been divided, and its adoption will have no effect on the part or parts not yet dealt with. The several parts into which a divisible motion has been divided do not adhere to each other in any way. And as a practical matter, this makes sense because the motion may have been divided for the very purpose of laying some parts on the table in order to deal with the more urgent parts and other urgent matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.