Limit AND Extend the Limits of Debate

[Rob Elsman]

Is the subsidiary motion, "that _____ and _____ [the leaders of the two sides] each be allowed two speeches of fifteen minutes each, and that other members be limited to one speech of three minutes each, provided that all pending questions shall be put at 4 PM" out of order on account that the motion proposes one order that combines elements that limit debate with elements that extend the limits of debate? What is said in RONR (10th ed.), p. 186, ll. 2-8, tends to make me think that the answer is "yes", but there is also a part of me that thinks there is no reason why the combination of both kinds of elements in one motion should not be admissible if the rule on p. 186 is applied to each kind of element separately.

[David A Foulkes]

Oh, I'm sure it's me again, but isn't this effectively the example on p. 188 ll. 21-26? Or is there some difference I'm not seeing? So, why would it be out of order?

[George Mervosh]

I think it is in order.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Is the subsidiary motion,

"that _____ and _____ [the leaders of the two sides] each be allowed two speeches of fifteen minutes each, and that other members be limited to one speech of three minutes each, provided that all pending questions shall be put at 4 PM"

out of order

on account that

the motion proposes one order that combines elements that limit debate with elements that extend the limits of debate?

What is said in RONR (10th ed.), p. 186, ll. 2-8, tends to make me think that the answer is "yes", but there is also a part of me that thinks there is no reason why the combination of both kinds of elements in one motion should not be admissible if the rule on p. 186 is applied to each kind of element separately.

Yes, "in order."

I doubt RONR will have a rule akin to, "You cannot use "Limit/Extend Limits of Debate" to only one kind of limit or one kind of extension."

The fact that (a.) people; (b.) length of debate; (c.) hour of voting; is combined into one motion does not violate any Standard Descriptive Characteristic.

Indeed, most everything is combined in the example #d on page 188.

Q. If page 188 #d is in order,

then why wouldn't YOUR example be in order?

[Shmuel Gerber]

Is the subsidiary motion, "that _____ and _____ [the leaders of the two sides] each be allowed two speeches of fifteen minutes each, and that other members be limited to one speech of three minutes each, provided that all pending questions shall be put at 4 PM" out of order on account that the motion proposes one order that combines elements that limit debate with elements that extend the limits of debate? What is said in RONR (10th ed.), p. 186, ll. 2-8, tends to make me think that the answer is "yes", but there is also a part of me that thinks there is no reason why the combination of both kinds of elements in one motion should not be admissible if the rule on p. 186 is applied to each kind of element separately.

I see no reason why such a motion would be out of order, but I agree with you that how it is affected by the rule on page 186, lines 2-8, is not clearly stated.

Example (d) on page 188 is the same type of motion as the one in your example, as a limit of "twenty minutes, which may be divided between two speeches" is clearly an extension (or a combination extension/limitation) of the normal limit of two speeches, each of which may be no longer than ten minutes, because it allows a speech of 15 or 20 minutes.

[David A Foulkes]

As I read p. 186 ll. 2-8, it seems this section is explaining that an adopted motion to Limit Debate applies to most (?) subsequent motions that become pending, while Extend Debate does not apply to any subsequent motions. It doesn't seem to suggest that the motion, as noted at p. 188(d) would not be in order, but if adopted, the separate elements (limit and extend) would apply, or not, to subsequent motions according to p. 186. Am I reading that wrong?

[Rob Elsman]

As I read p. 186 ll. 2-8, it seems this section is explaining that an adopted motion to Limit Debate applies to most (?) subsequent motions that become pending, while Extend Debate does not apply to any subsequent motions. It doesn't seem to suggest that the motion, as noted at p. 188(d) would not be in order, but if adopted, the separate elements (limit and extend) would apply, or not, to subsequent motions according to p. 186. Am I reading that wrong?

It would be helpful if you all would forget the example on p. 188. I deliberately changed my question to avoid the issue whether the example on p. 188 does, or does not, extend the limits of debate, which has nothing to do with what I asked.

[Shmuel Gerber]

It would be helpful if you all would forget the example on p. 188. I deliberately changed my question to avoid the issue whether the example on p. 188 does, or does not, extend the limits of debate, which has nothing to do with what I asked.

Well you're going to have to do a better job of explaining things to us mere mortals who just can't seem to understand why an example in the book that to all appearances is demonstrating exactly the kind of motion that you are questioning the propriety of has nothing to do with what you're asking.

[Dan Honemann]

It would be helpful if you all would forget the example on p. 188. I deliberately changed my question to avoid the issue whether the example on p. 188 does, or does not, extend the limits of debate, which has nothing to do with what I asked.

Rob, I agree with those who say that the motion you have described is not out of order. I think that such a motion can combine elements that limit debate with elements that extend the limits of debate, resulting in its "limiting" elements being treated differently from its "extending" elements in accordance with the rule on page 186, lines 2-8.

[Rob Elsman]

Is the subsidiary motion, "that _____ and _____ [the leaders of the two sides] each be allowed two speeches of fifteen minutes each, and that other members be limited to one speech of three minutes each, provided that all pending questions shall be put at 4 PM" out of order on account that the motion proposes one order that combines elements that limit debate with elements that extend the limits of debate? What is said in RONR (10th ed.), p. 186, ll. 2-8, tends to make me think that the answer is "yes", but there is also a part of me that thinks there is no reason why the combination of both kinds of elements in one motion should not be admissible if the rule on p. 186 is applied to each kind of element separately.

Thanks to all for your replies.