Previous Question Ordered on Series Including Both Limit or Extend Debate and the Main Motion

[Rob Elsman]

Mr. Honemann seems to be saying that the adoption of Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, in this scenario, results in the elimination of all effects of the previously adopted order for the Previous Question.  I disagree—if that is what he is, indeed, saying.

The proper procedure to eliminate the effects of the adoption of the order for the Previous Question is to reject it upon reconsideration.  The order for the Previous Question is not exhausted when a subsequent motion, Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, is adopted.  RONR (12th ed.) 16:11.  Until it is exhausted, it is my opinion that its effects perdure to the extent that the subsequently adopted order to Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate does not interfere.

The case is similar to a case where one order to Limit or Extend the Limits supersedes one already adopted.  Suppose the assembly as adopted a motion to limit the time of each speech to five minutes.  At the end of Mr. Mervosh's speech, he find that he needs an additional two minutes to complete his point and conclude his speech gracefully.  He moves to extend his time by two minutes, and the motion is ultimately adopted.  When Mr. Mervosh's speech is concluded and the next speaker is assigned the floor, he is recognized for five minutes, not ten.  The adoption of the second order did not obliterate the effects of the first order.  So, too, I opine, with the case of the order to Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate after the adoption of an order for the Previous Question, as in the case above.  If it so happens that the order limiting debate is exhausted before the order for the Previous Question is exhausted, the effects of the latter perdue until it is exhausted—in my opinion. 😬

So, Mr. Honemann, do I get to cut my own switch?

[Rob Elsman]

Does anyone doubt that the pending amendment and the main motion are not subsequently amendable, in the above case?

Edited December 16, 2022 at 10:03 PM by Rob Elsman

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/16/2022 at 5:02 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Does anyone doubt that the pending amendment and the main motion are not subsequently amendable, in the above case?

I'm afraid you will need to set forth exactly what facts you are referring to when you refer to "the above case".

[Rob Elsman]

Mr. Honemann, I am referring to the fact situation in your entry, "A main motion..."

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/16/2022 at 6:36 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Mr. Honemann, I am referring to the fact situation in your entry, "A main motion..."

This isn't enough. 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 12/16/2022 at 3:02 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Does anyone doubt that the pending amendment and the main motion are not subsequently amendable, in the above case?

Not I. My only question is whether they are subsequently debatable. It still seems to me that they should not be, based on the current wording of RONR. I understand Mr.Honemann's reasoning, but I am not persuaded.

[Rob Elsman]

On 12/15/2022 at 5:54 PM, Dan Honemann said:

A main motion, a motion to amend that motion, and a motion to limit debate to one speech of five minutes for each member on all pending questions are pending when a motion to order the previous question on all pending questions is adopted.  The chair must then put the question on the motion to limit debate to one speech of five minutes for each member on all pending questions to a vote (16:9). If this motion is adopted, it supersedes the order for the previous question.

Mr. Honemann, this quotation makes me believe that you are saying that the pending motion, Amend, will be amendable. It makes me believe that you are saying that subsidiary motions will be in order, since the order for the Previous Question is superseded.

If I am not reading your replies correctly, I need to know it.

If I am reading you correctly, then I disageee with you, as I have written already.

[Rob Elsman]

On 12/16/2022 at 6:19 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

On 12/16/2022 at 4:02 PM, Rob Elsman said:

?

Not I. My only question is whether they are subsequently debatable. It still seems to me that they should not be, based on the current wording of RONR. I understand Mr.Honemann's reasoning, but I am not persuaded.

I understand Mr. Honemann to be saying that all the effects of the Previous Question are superseded, including the shutting off of further subsidiary motions other than Lay on the Table.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 12/16/2022 at 5:27 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I understand Mr. Honemann to be saying that all the effects of the Previous Question are superseded, including the shutting off of further subsidiary motions other than Lay on the Table.

Well, I guess we'll need to wait for his clarification. But since LEL limits debate, but not amendments, it seems to me that even under his interpretation, PQ would still preclude further amendments. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/16/2022 at 11:37 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

So PQ is then ignored for the rest of the series? Even though PQ is higher ranking that LEM and also requires a two-thirds vote? If so. I think that needs to be made much more explicit in the 13th edition.

The order of precedence determines when the motion would be in order, not what rank it holds after being adopted.

What you describe is simply an assembly deciding to do one thing, and then in a surprising turnaround, deciding to do something else.  Presumably an assembly that ordered the previous question would then vote down a motion to extend debate, but not every assembly acts with perfect rationality at all times.

Edited December 17, 2022 at 01:33 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/15/2022 at 6:54 PM, Dan Honemann said:

A main motion, a motion to amend that motion, and a motion to limit debate to one speech of five minutes for each member on all pending questions are pending when a motion to order the previous question on all pending questions is adopted.  The chair must then put the question on the motion to limit debate to one speech of five minutes for each member on all pending questions to a vote (16:9). If this motion is adopted, it supersedes the order for the previous question.  The reason for this is essentially the same as the reason why the adoption of one motion limiting or extending debate in a certain way does not prevent another such conflicting motion from being in order.  "The reason is that the two-thirds vote necessary for the adoption of any motion to modify the limits of debate also fulfills the requirement for suspending the rules (25)."  (15:17) 

 

On 12/16/2022 at 7:20 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Mr. Honemann, this quotation makes me believe that you are saying that the pending motion, Amend, will be amendable. It makes me believe that you are saying that subsidiary motions will be in order, since the order for the Previous Question is superseded.

If I am not reading your replies correctly, I need to know it.

If I am reading you correctly, then I disageee with you, as I have written already.

As I specified in at least two of my previous responses (unfortunately, I neglected to do so here), what I am saying is that the adoption of the motion to limit debate supersedes the adopted order for the previous question to the extent that they conflict.  What this means is that, in the absence of anything further, the pending motion to amend will be debatable to the limited extent prescribed.  Once this motion has been adopted or rejected, the main motion (as amended if the motion to amend was adopted) will be debatable to the limited extent prescribed.  This is the full extent to which the adopted order for the previous question has been superseded, and that order will continue to prevent the making of any other subsidiary motion except Lay on the Table.

 

[Rob Elsman]

Thank you for the clarification.

I am left to consider whether what you have said passes the average reader test, which holds that the authors' intent must be attainable by the average reader who gives the book an honest reading in good faith. In particular, I am concerned about Mr. Martin's response that Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate should be dropped, presumably because it is absurd to decide on limiting or extending the limits of debate on motions made undebatable by an order for the Previous Question, adopted and not rejected upon reconsideration. I have a lingering suspicion that his response comes closer to the response that could be expected from the average reader, given the text as it exists today.

[Dan Honemann]

Well, as I said near the outset of this conversation, those of you who think that the immediately pending LELD should simply be dropped (ignored, passed over) in these instances (as an unstated exception, I suppose, to the rule rather clearly stated in 16:5(2) and 16:9) are in good company.  I simply disagree.  In my opinion, the rule stated in 16:5(2) and 16:9 should be complied with, particularly in view of the fact that LELD requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption, and this vote is sufficient to suspend any part of the previously adopted order with which it conflicts.