Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Limit Debate: Subsequent Motion to Fix Time to Which to Adjourn


Rob Elsman

Recommended Posts

With the new text in RONR (11th ed.), p. 194, l. 28, through p. 195, l. 5, am I correct to understand that a priviledged motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn, made after the hour has arrived to close debate and put the questions affected by the order limiting debate to a vote and before the order limiting debate is exhausted, is not amendable, even though Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn is not one of the motions mentioned in RONR (11th ed.), p. 193, ll. 31-35?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the new text in RONR (11th ed.), p. 194, l. 28, through p. 195, l. 5, am I correct to understand that a priviledged motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn, made after the hour has arrived to close debate and put the questions affected by the order limiting debate to a vote and before the order limiting debate is exhausted, is not amendable, even though Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn is not one of the motions mentioned in RONR (11th ed.), p. 193, ll. 31-35?

If I understand your question (and I'm not sure that I do), I think what you really want to know is whether a privileged motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn is amendable if it is made while an order for the Previous Question on the main motion is in effect. In my opinion, the answer is yes, it is. The "amendments" referred to in the cited passage ("... no further amendments may be offered ...") are amendments to the main motion or any subsidiary motions (or to any primary amendments to such motions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Shmuel, based on the fact that the Previous Question (or Limit or Extend Limits of Debate in the case where it calls for an immediate vote) only stop motions over which they take precedence. A motion to Amend a motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn takes precedence over the privileged motion which in turn takes precedence over the lower-ranking motion limiting the debate, and thus is in order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that a change from the 10th Mr. Gerber?

The changes made in section 15 were intended to clarify the existing rules, not to change any of them. Whether the specific new language employed can be interpreted so as to imply any strange unintended consequences is a different question. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The changes made in section 15 were intended to clarify the existing rules, not to change any of them. Whether the specific new language employed can be interpreted so as to imply any strange unintended consequences is a different question. :)

Fair enough :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand your question (and I'm not sure that I do), I think what you really want to know is whether a privileged motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn is amendable if it is made while an order for the Previous Question on the main motion is in effect. In my opinion, the answer is yes, it is. The "amendments" referred to in the cited passage ("... no further amendments may be offered ...") are amendments to the main motion or any subsidiary motions (or to any primary amendments to such motions).

is whether a privileged motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn is amendable if it is made while an order for the Previous Question on the main motion is in effect. In my opinion, the answer is yes, it is.

My reading of RONR (11th ed.), p. 206, l. 34, through p. 207, l. 4, leads me to opine that, no, it is not. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My reading of RONR (11th ed.), p. 206, l. 34, through p. 207, l. 4, leads me to opine that, no, it is not. :)

I think it depends on when Fix a Time to Which to Adjourn is made.

If a privileged motion to Fix a Time to Which to Adjourn is made after the Previous Question is ordered, it becomes the pending motion, independent of the motions subject to the Previous Question. In such a case, it would be amendable.

Conversely, the motion to Fix a Time to Which to Adjourn could have been made first and the Previous Question ordered on it and possibly all other pending questions.

That would be my reading of the page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Since the privileged motions don't deal with the pending question(s) for which the previous question was already ordered, it doesn't make sense that they're not amendable, with the timing exception that J.J. noted.

Mr. Elsman, do you think the 11th edition changes something from the 10th or was it your same belief under the 10th?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The changes made in section 15 were intended to clarify the existing rules, not to change any of them. Whether the specific new language employed can be interpreted so as to imply any strange unintended consequences is a different question. :)

I agree with Shmuel that no change in this regard is intended, and no change in substance has been made. The answer to the question posed by Rob is that his understanding (as he states it) is not correct. The privileged motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn, made in the circumstances he describes, is amendable.

As noted on page 194, lines 6-10, after a limitation on debate has been ordered, its effect on which subsidiary motions can be made “depends on whether the order provides for closing debate, and, if so, whether it also specifies the hour at which the vote shall be taken.” The following paragraphs (including the second paragraph beginning on p. 194, l. 24, and ending on p. 195, l. 5, which includes the statement that, if the order specifies the hour at which the vote shall be taken, “the main motion is treated as if the Previous Question had been ordered”) are dealing with this question as to which subsidiary motions can be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Shmuel that no change in this regard is intended, and no change in substance has been made. The answer to the question posed by Rob is that his understanding (as he states it) is not correct. The privileged motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn, made in the circumstances he describes, is amendable.

As noted on page 194, lines 6-10, after a limitation on debate has been ordered, its effect on which subsidiary motions can be made “depends on whether the order provides for closing debate, and, if so, whether it also specifies the hour at which the vote shall be taken.” The following paragraphs (including the second paragraph beginning on p. 194, l. 24, and ending on p. 195, l. 5, which includes the statement that, if the order specifies the hour at which the vote shall be taken, “the main motion is treated as if the Previous Question had been ordered”) are dealing with this question as to which subsidiary motions can be made.

I thank all who answered my question. I appreciate your help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is the case, I would encourage the authorship team to review, in particular, the citation Rob Elsman noted, which does, I think, imply that the motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn is subject to the Previous Question and hence be unamendable. In fact, I would question the need for that clause at all, since privileged motions are already undebateable, and multiple members of the authorship team have expressed that they are amendable even when a Previous Question has been ordered on a motion of lower precedence before they became pending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is the case, I would encourage the authorship team to review, in particular, the citation Rob Elsman noted, which does, I think, imply that the motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn is subject to the Previous Question and hence be unamendable. In fact, I would question the need for that clause at all, since privileged motions are already undebateable, and multiple members of the authorship team have expressed that they are amendable even when a Previous Question has been ordered on a motion of lower precedence before they became pending.

This thread is not about a motion for the Previous Question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is the case, I would encourage the authorship team to review, in particular, the citation Rob Elsman noted, which does, I think, imply that the motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn is subject to the Previous Question and hence be unamendable. In fact, I would question the need for that clause at all, since privileged motions are already undebateable, and multiple members of the authorship team have expressed that they are amendable even when a Previous Question has been ordered on a motion of lower precedence before they became pending.

I have never seen any indication that the authors think that a motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn is amendable when adopted subsequently to the adoption of an order for the Previous Question affecting one or more lower-ranking motions and before the order has been exhausted. Despite what seems to be Mr. Gerber's assertion to the contrary, I think RONR (11th ed.), p. 206, l. 34, through p. 207, l. 4, is quite clear that Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn of one of the "...other motions that may take precedence over these pending questions" to which the order also applies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never seen any indication that the authors think that a motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn is amendable when adopted subsequently to the adoption of an order for the Previous Question affecting one or more lower-ranking motions and before the order has been exhausted. Despite what seems to be Mr. Gerber's assertion to the contrary, I think RONR (11th ed.), p. 206, l. 34, through p. 207, l. 4, is quite clear that Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn of one of the "...other motions that may take precedence over these pending questions" to which the order also applies.

Yes, and that was what I was referring to, in conjunction with p. 195 ll. 1-3. Those lines make it hard for me to believe there is a distinction between an order to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate that calls for a vote and has reached the appointed hour, and an order for the Previous Question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and that was what I was referring to, in conjunction with p. 195 ll. 1-3. Those lines make it hard for me to believe there is a distinction between an order to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate that calls for a vote and has reached the appointed hour, and an order for the Previous Question.

I understand, and that's why I asked my question. Mr. Honemann and I had previously discussed this distinction between the two motions (in the old forum, I think) with respect to the 10th edition, and I was unsure whether the new text in the 11th edition was intended to change the rule. Mr. Honemann has, it seems to me, definitively opined that no change was intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand, and that's why I asked my question. Mr. Honemann and I had previously discussed this distinction between the two motions (in the old forum, I think) with respect to the 10th edition, and I was unsure whether the new text in the 11th edition was intended to change the rule. Mr. Honemann has, it seems to me, definitively opined that no change was intended.

I remember that discussion, and I think it was in this New forum (well, I mean it was not in the old old forum but in the new forum before it was cosmetically upgraded to the brand new forum).

I had (until then) never really understood the reason for the two distinct motions, believing (incorrectly) that the PQ could be thought of as merely a special case of Limit/Extend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you provide a link?

I think the discussion was so old that it got purged somewhere along the way. If you understand the gist of this topic, then I think you have the focus of the earlier discussion, as well. I wouldn't sweat it. The parliamentary situation that I describe in this topic will only rarely occur in the ordinary society, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember that discussion, and I think it was in this New forum (well, I mean it was not in the old old forum but in the new forum before it was cosmetically upgraded to the brand new forum).

Just to hone my search skills, and at the risk of resurrecting a dead horse, I think it might have been this thread, with 49 -- count 'em! -- 49 posts, featuring all the usual suspects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Just to hone my search skills, and at the risk of resurrecting a dead horse, I think it might have been this thread, with 49 -- count 'em! -- 49 posts, featuring all the usual suspects.

Actually, I think that is the thread I was recalling.

Unfortunately, however, I see that the forum software has retroactively applied our new signatures (many of which refer explicitly to the 11th edition) to this now archival discussion, which is filled with citations of the 10th edition, and signatures claiming they refer to the 11th.

That's pretty confusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I think that is the thread I was recalling.

Unfortunately, however, I see that the forum software has retroactively applied our new signatures (many of which refer explicitly to the 11th edition) to this now archival discussion, which is filled with citations of the 10th edition, and signatures claiming they refer to the 11th.

That's pretty confusing.

The thread to which reference is made dealt with the question as to whether or not, if a motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate is the immediately pending question when a motion ordering the Previous Question on all pending questions is adopted, the motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate is to be skipped over and ignored. I think the answer is "no".

This thread deals with an entirely different question. The question here is whether or not a privileged motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn, made after the hour has arrived to close debate and put the questions affected by the order limiting debate to a vote and before the order limiting debate is exhausted, is amendable. I think the answer is "yes".

On page 194, lines 6-10, we are told that, after a limitation on debate has been ordered, its effect on which subsidiary motions can be made “depends on whether the order provides for closing debate, and, if so, whether it also specifies the hour at which the vote shall be taken." I think the reference here to “subsidiary motions” is to motions which are subsidiary to the motion(s) to which the order limiting debate is being applied, and that this must be kept in mind when reading the ensuing explanation as to the differing effects which the adoption of the order limiting debate has on such subsidiary motions.

Unlike the motion for the Previous Question, a motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate is never applied to an undebatable motion. As a consequence, the discussion on pages 194-195 has nothing to do with a subsidiary motion to amend a privileged motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn (in my humble opinion). :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, however, I see that the forum software has retroactively applied our new signatures . . .

Well, that's not technically accurate. The signature, like the "avatar", is not attached to a particular post. So the only signature that appears (on all posts) is the current signature. Kinda like we're always telling people about old bylaws and new bylaws. Or old boards and new boards.

Though I agree that it can be confusing.

Thanks for confirming my search results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...