Secondary Amends to: Strike Out Paragraph vs. Strike Out and Insert Paragraph (AKA Substitute)

[jstackpo]

Given a main motion of some length and complexity, containing more than one paragraph...

If an amendment to Strike Out a paragraph is offered, it is clear - p. 147, l. 29 (11th) - that the paragraph to be struck is subject to "secondary amendment in any of the three forms relating to words", before voting on the actual amendment to Strike Out the paragraph. Fine, no problem there.

However...

If an amendment to Strike Out and Insert ("Substitute") a paragraph, or paragraphs (such as the entire main motion), is offered, p. 154, l. 17 states that the paragraph(s) to be struck is(are) subject to "secondary amendment in any of the three basic forms". I note the absence of the words "relating to words" in the second case.

Am I to take it that "the three basic forms" may be properly applied to any of the paragraph(s) proposed to be struck from the main motion, rather than just some of the words within those paragraph(s)?

I am speaking here only to the paragraph(s) to be struck out, not to what can be done by amendment to the (different) paragraph(s) proposed for insertion as the "substitute". There seems no question that the paragraph(s) up for insertion can indeed be amended by the three forms as applied to both their words and paragraph(s). (The latter gives rise to the wondrous, or dreaded, "substitute for the substitute".)

But can the paragraphs to be struck be similarly amended?

[Rob Elsman]

Given a main motion of some length and complexity, containing more than one paragraph...

If an amendment to Strike Out a paragraph is offered, it is clear - p. 147, l. 29 (11th) - that the paragraph to be struck is subject to "secondary amendment in any of the three forms relating to words", before voting on the actual amendment to Strike Out the paragraph. Fine, no problem there.

However...

If an amendment to Strike Out and Insert ("Substitute") a paragraph, or paragraphs (such as the entire main motion), is offered, p. 154, l. 17 states that the paragraph(s) to be struck is(are) subject to "secondary amendment in any of the three basic forms". I note the absence of the words "relating to words" in the second case.

Am I to take it that "the three basic forms" may be properly applied to any of the paragraph(s) proposed to be struck from the main motion, rather than just some of the words within those paragraph(s)?

I am speaking here only to the paragraph(s) to be struck out, not to what can be done by amendment to the (different) paragraph(s) proposed for insertion as the "substitute". There seems no question that the paragraph(s) up for insertion can indeed be amended by the three forms as applied to both their words and paragraph(s). (The latter gives rise to the wondrous, or dreaded, "substitute for the substitute".)

But can the paragraphs to be struck be similarly amended?

In either case, where the matter to be struck out consists of multiple paragraphs or larger units of text, any of the six forms of secondary amendments can be applied to the primary amendment, observandis observanda. It should be noted that what is said in RONR (11th ed.), pp. 140, 141; 146-150, assumes that only one paragraph is involved in the striking. Where larger amounts of text are involved, what is said there must be accomodated in a way that makes sense, to permit the assembly the greatest possible flexibility in perfecting the matter before it is voted on to be struck out.

[Dan Honemann]

Given a main motion of some length and complexity, containing more than one paragraph...

If an amendment to Strike Out a paragraph is offered, it is clear - p. 147, l. 29 (11th) - that the paragraph to be struck is subject to "secondary amendment in any of the three forms relating to words", before voting on the actual amendment to Strike Out the paragraph. Fine, no problem there.

However...

If an amendment to Strike Out and Insert ("Substitute") a paragraph, or paragraphs (such as the entire main motion), is offered, p. 154, l. 17 states that the paragraph(s) to be struck is(are) subject to "secondary amendment in any of the three basic forms". I note the absence of the words "relating to words" in the second case.

Am I to take it that "the three basic forms" may be properly applied to any of the paragraph(s) proposed to be struck from the main motion, rather than just some of the words within those paragraph(s)?

I am speaking here only to the paragraph(s) to be struck out, not to what can be done by amendment to the (different) paragraph(s) proposed for insertion as the "substitute". There seems no question that the paragraph(s) up for insertion can indeed be amended by the three forms as applied to both their words and paragraph(s). (The latter gives rise to the wondrous, or dreaded, "substitute for the substitute".)

But can the paragraphs to be struck be similarly amended?

I think you need to read the sentence on page 154, lines 13-20, all the way to its end.

[jstackpo]

I think you need to read the sentence on page 154, lines 13-20, all the way to its end.

I did, which is what engendered my confusion. The tail of that sentence implies that the same procedure is used with the "separate motions to insert or to strike out" but the detail text instructions relating to "Strike Out" includes the words "relating to words" while the detail text instructions relating to "Substitute" does not.

I am not asking anything about the allowable secondary amendments to the matter to be inserted.

[Dan Honemann]

I did, which is what engendered my confusion. The tail of that sentence implies that the same procedure is used with the "separate motions to insert or to strike out" but the detail text instructions relating to "Strike Out" includes the words "relating to words" while the detail text instructions relating to "Substitute" does not.

I am not asking anything about the allowable secondary amendments to the matter to be inserted.

The rules relating to amendment of the motion paragraph to be struck out are the same in both instances, and are set forth on page 147, lines 27-32.

[jstackpo]

OK. Settled. Thank you.

One could insert the words "relating to words" after the words "three basic forms" on p. 154, line 17 and all would be crystal clear.

[Burke Balch]

I would only observe that on page 154, lines 17-18, what follows "any of the three basic forms" is a parenthetical phrase containing (only) a list of the three forms that relate to words. (While "inserting or adding" and "striking out" are terms used both with reference to words and to paragraphs, "striking out and inserting" is used only with reference to words -- the parallel amendment relating to paragraphs being "substituting".)

[jstackpo]

Oh... Kay ...

That is a level of Talmudic midrash to which I don't think we need to descend ( or elevate, depending).

So much simpler - and correct, I gather - just to insert "relating to words" in the right (see above) place. All ambiguity instantly resolved.

[jstackpo]

"All ambiguity instantly resolved."

Or maybe not....

The sentence starting on p. 154, line 13: "In contrast to ... ", is a compound one which needs, it seems, to be carefully unpacked. It pushes together the two parts of Strike Out and Insert Paragraphs (Substitute) which the remainder of sub-section 3b goes to considerable lengths to separate.

Breaking the sentence into parts gives me this...

The portion of the original main motion that is proposed to be struck out is amendable by "the three basic forms" relating to words, only.

The portion of the amendment that is proposed for insertion is itself amendable by those same "three basic forms" relating to both words and paragraphs.

I'll let the authorship team consider how to do the separation of parts (in RONR/12?), if indeed I have correctly stated what the compound sentence really says.