Motion out of order-is it the vote still valid?

[Guest Confused]

Is the vote on a motion that is out of order or misused-say the motion to lay on the table-still valid?  Since the chair didn't rule as such

try to correct the member and the body voted to "table", would the action still be enforceable? 

[Chris Harrison]

As a general rule a Point of Order needs to be raised at the time of the improper action otherwise it is too late to object.  There are five cases in which the timeliness requirement doesn't apply and those are located on RONR p. 251.

[Nathan Zook]

On 2/7/2019 at 3:27 PM, Guest Confused said:

Is the vote on a motion that is out of order or misused-say the motion to lay on the table-still valid?  Since the chair didn't rule as such

try to correct the member and the body voted to "table", would the action still be enforceable? 

In this specific case, the motion, if not ruled out of order, creates a situation which would probably surprise almost everyone in the room.  You could move to "take from the table" the motion which had been tabled.  (RONR, 11th ed, sec 34).  Second required, no debate, majority carries.  Pandemonium ensues.

[Guest Zev]

And what happens if one member gains the floor and says: "Mr. Chairman, I move that the out-of-order motion that was laid on the table now taken from it and currently pending be postponed indefinitely." Would this fix things and calm be restored, perhaps?

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

And what happens if one member gains the floor and says: "Mr. Chairman, I move that the out-of-order motion that was laid on the table now taken from it and currently pending be postponed indefinitely." Would this fix things and calm be restored, perhaps?

My understanding is that it was the motion to lay on the table which was out of order (probably because it was used for the purpose of killing a motion), not the motion which was laid on the table.

5 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

In this specific case, the motion, if not ruled out of order, creates a situation which would probably surprise almost everyone in the room.  You could move to "take from the table" the motion which had been tabled.  (RONR, 11th ed, sec 34).  Second required, no debate, majority carries.  Pandemonium ensues.

Yes, this is is in order, presuming this is done before the end of the session, or before the end of the next session if it is within a quarterly interval. After that time, the original motion may simply be made anew.

[Joshua Katz]

Everyone calm down!

[Guest Zev]

...and speaking in a calm manner...

8 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

My understanding is that it was the motion to lay on the table which was out of order (probably because it was used for the purpose of killing a motion), not the motion which was laid on the table.

Yes, I must have misread the OP. Thank you. Now I understand why NZ said that pandemonium resulted. The assembly expected the issue to be dead and others "resurrected" it. The answer is that probably the members of this assembly have been watching too much CSPAN and have confused the US House of Representatives rules with Robert's. I shudder to think what would have happened when a Point Of Order was raised that the motion to Take From The Table required a two-thirds vote (US rules, not Robert's) and was therefore not adopted and the chairman then ruling the Point Of Order not well taken. Pandemonium all over again.

[Richard Brown]

On 2/7/2019 at 5:27 PM, Guest Confused said:

Is the vote on a motion that is out of order or misused-say the motion to lay on the table-still valid?  Since the chair didn't rule as such

try to correct the member and the body voted to "table", would the action still be enforceable? 

We have had a lot of discussion on this "question", but I think this statement of facts and question are so vague that I really don't know exactly what fact situation Guest Confused is referring to or exactly what his question is.  I am especially lost as to the last incomplete sentence.  I have no idea what our guest is asking.