Tim Wynn Posted June 17, 2021 at 01:40 PM Report Share Posted June 17, 2021 at 01:40 PM The main motion is "That the Southern Historical Society commends the following Florida-native staff members for their hard work on this year's annual Florida Day parade: . . . [names of hard working staff members]" A motion to amend by striking out "Florida-native" and inserting "Floridian" is adopted. Does a motion to strike out "Floridian" present a new question (in relation to the one decided by the adoption of the amendment) since a) those who oppose any Florida reference altogether might have only preferred "Floridian" to "Florida-native" as opposed to actually wanting it in the motion, and b) the motion to strike out and insert did not present the question of removing it altogether? My question is not whether the motion is in order, but whether it would present a new question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 17, 2021 at 02:22 PM Report Share Posted June 17, 2021 at 02:22 PM 36 minutes ago, Tim Wynn said: The main motion is "That the Southern Historical Society commends the following Florida-native staff members for their hard work on this year's annual Florida Day parade: . . . [names of hard working staff members]" A motion to amend by striking out "Florida-native" and inserting "Floridian" is adopted. Does a motion to strike out "Floridian" present a new question (in relation to the one decided by the adoption of the amendment) since a) those who oppose any Florida reference altogether might have only preferred "Floridian" to "Florida-native" as opposed to actually wanting it in the motion, and b) the motion to strike out and insert did not present the question of removing it altogether? My question is not whether the motion is in order, but whether it would present a new question. It does not present a new question in the form of any of the motions described in RONR, 12th ed., 12:28, so why do you ask? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted June 17, 2021 at 02:42 PM Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2021 at 02:42 PM 6 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: It does not present a new question in the form of any of the motions described in RONR, 12th ed., 12:28, so why do you ask? I'm trying to understand whether any of its being out of order is based on a perception that it does not present a new question. I'm trying to fully understand the underlying principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted June 17, 2021 at 05:31 PM Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2021 at 05:31 PM 3 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: It does not present a new question in the form of any of the motions described in RONR, 12th ed., 12:28, so why do you ask? If a motion to strike out inserted words can present a new question (even though it is not a question that is in order), then the reason for its being out of order must be based in some principle other than the principle that an assembly cannot be asked to decide the same, or substantially the same, question twice during one session. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted June 17, 2021 at 05:36 PM Report Share Posted June 17, 2021 at 05:36 PM 2 hours ago, Tim Wynn said: I'm trying to understand whether any of its being out of order is based on a perception that it does not present a new question. I'm trying to fully understand the underlying principle. I think you've raised a very interesting question that points to a practical anomaly in the making of amendments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 17, 2021 at 05:46 PM Report Share Posted June 17, 2021 at 05:46 PM The underlying principle is set forth in 12:25. The assembly has decided that the word "Floridian" shall form a part of the pending motion. It seems to me that a motion to strike it out raises the same question that the assembly has just decided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted June 17, 2021 at 06:12 PM Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2021 at 06:12 PM 14 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: The underlying principle is set forth in 12:25. The assembly has decided that the word "Floridian" shall form a part of the pending motion. It seems to me that a motion to strike it out raises the same question that the assembly has just decided. Thank you, sir. What is said in 12:25 does give me comfort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts