Making a motion

[snvnick]

Can a motion be made that prohibits any amendments to it ?

[Sean Hunt]

Some secondary motions (basically motions relating to business or the assembly), such as the motion to Adjourn are usually unamendable by nature, but I assume you mean a main motion like a motion to allocate money.

The short answer is no, a motion cannot be made in such a way as to prohibit any amendments. There are several ways that amendments can be prevented, however. The motion for the Previous Question prohibits debate and amendments, and the motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate does the same if it calls for an immediate vote at a certain time. Additionally, through the use of a motion to Suspend the Rules, you could make any rule you would like; you could move a motion and then move to Suspend the Rules and prohibit any amendments, or you could move to Suspend the Rules to allow you to make your motion and also make it unamendable at the same time.

I'd question the wisdom of any of this, however. Making a motion unamendable seems like an exercise in futility since the majority, in a situation where it couldn't amend the motion at hand, could simply defeat it and pass an alternative version.

[Tim Wynn]

Some secondary motions (basically motions relating to business or the assembly), such as the motion to Adjourn are usually unamendable by nature, but I assume you mean a main motion like a motion to allocate money.

The short answer is no, a motion cannot be made in such a way as to prohibit any amendments. There are several ways that amendments can be prevented, however. The motion for the Previous Question prohibits debate and amendments, and the motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate does the same if it calls for an immediate vote at a certain time. Additionally, through the use of a motion to Suspend the Rules, you could make any rule you would like; you could move a motion and then move to Suspend the Rules and prohibit any amendments, or you could move to Suspend the Rules to allow you to make your motion and also make it unamendable at the same time.

I'd question the wisdom of any of this, however. Making a motion unamendable seems like an exercise in futility since the majority, in a situation where it couldn't amend the motion at hand, could simply defeat it and pass an alternative version.

Suspending the Rules does not create a rule.

Suspending the Rules, however, is the motion to use to accomplish the original poster's purpose. He would move to suspend the rules and adopt the motion. If it receives the required two-thirds vote, the motion is adopted without debate, amendment, or any other subsidiary motions being considered.

In any event, if the main motion comes before the assembly and is voted down, the assembly, in the same session, will not have the option of considering an alternative version, if it presents substantially the same question.

[Dan Honemann]

And to pick at another nit, a motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate which specifies the hour at which the vote is to be taken on a motion will prevent the making of any (further) motions to amend it, but only after the designated hour for voting has arrived.

[Gary Novosielski]

Suspending the Rules does not create a rule.

Suspending the Rules, however, is the motion to use to accomplish the original poster's purpose. He would move to suspend the rules and adopt the motion. If it receives the required two-thirds vote, the motion is adopted without debate, amendment, or any other subsidiary motions being considered.

In any event, if the main motion comes before the assembly and is voted down, the assembly, in the same session, will not have the option of considering an alternative version, if it presents substantially the same question.

That raises a question:

If a motion is made "to Suspend the Rules and agree to the resolution: RESOLVED that....", and (without debate or amendment of course) this motion is voted down, did the question presented by the resolution come before the assembly, or was it only the suspension of the rules that interfered with its adoption that was rejected?

In other words, having decided not to suspend the rules, could the assembly not then take up substantially the same question in regular order, and in so doing debate or amend it as they wished?

[Sean Hunt]

I would say that it is perfectly in order, since they decided on the question of suspending the rules and not on the motion itself. Else opponents of a motion, having advance knowledge, could move that suspension of the rules in hopes that they achieve the necessary one-third to defeat the motion and prevent the motion from being brought up.

EDIT: Also, if your interpretation is that a motion to suspend the rules to preclude amendment is out of order, then one could accomplish the same by re-framing it to a motion to suspend the rules and order the previous question except that, the previous question notwithstanding, members are allowed to debate as usual.

[Tim Wynn]

I would say that it is perfectly in order, since they decided on the question of suspending the rules and not on the motion itself. Else opponents of a motion, having advance knowledge, could move that suspension of the rules in hopes that they achieve the necessary one-third to defeat the motion and prevent the motion from being brought up.

EDIT: Also, if your interpretation is that a motion to suspend the rules to preclude amendment is out of order, then one could accomplish the same by re-framing it to a motion to suspend the rules and order the previous question except that, the previous question notwithstanding, members are allowed to debate as usual.

Your first paragraph is correct, except that one third in the negative is not enough to reject a two-thirds vote.

As for the second paragraph, it is in order to suspend the rules to adopt a motion, and in an alternate universe where it wasn't, the maker of the motion, having preference in recognition, could immediately move the previous question before any amendment was possible, making a suspension of the rules for that purpose inapplicable. If he wanted to debate, he could move the previous question at the end of his speech.

[Shmuel Gerber]

That raises a question:

If a motion is made "to Suspend the Rules and agree to the resolution: RESOLVED that....", and (without debate or amendment of course) this motion is voted down, did the question presented by the resolution come before the assembly, or was it only the suspension of the rules that interfered with its adoption that was rejected?

In other words, having decided not to suspend the rules, could the assembly not then take up substantially the same question in regular order, and in so doing debate or amend it as they wished?

RONR (11th ed.), pp. 266-267:

"When the object is to adopt a motion without debate or

amendment, the form is:

MEMBER A (obtaining the floor): I move to suspend the rules and adopt [or “agree to”] the following resolution: “Resolved, That …” (Second.)

If such a motion does not receive the required two-thirds

vote, the main motion can be taken up only in the normal

way."