Joshua Katz

I find 2 a little troubling. The way I see it, minorities have some crucial rights which can never be taken away, and others that can be taken away by a sufficiently large majority. The way you have it written seems to imply that all rights can be taken away by a sufficiently large majority. I'd also include in 1 the right of the majority - the right to engage in business unimpeded, subject to the limitation that this right is maximized only so long as it does not intrude on 2. I take it this list isn't supposed to be sequenced? I'm not sure how such a sequence would look, but certainly 9 would be in the "strongest" position.

Objection to consideration is not the same thing as laying on the table, and using the motion to lay on the table when you intend to kill the question is out of order. The motion to lay on the table is used when something urgent has arisen requiring that present business be set aside. Objection to consideration of the question is used if it is believed it would be destructive to the organization for the motion even to be debated.