Barring Amendments to Main Motion

[Guest David A.]

I'm wondering if it is permissible to bar amendments to a main motion.  The purpose of doing so is to avoid confusion and ensure that the eventual vote is on what the main motion says.  If it is permissible, how is it done?  Can the presiding officer simply announce that is the case?

[Atul Kapur]

On 4/16/2024 at 10:53 AM, Guest David A. said:

Can the presiding officer simply announce that is the case?

No.

On 4/16/2024 at 10:53 AM, Guest David A. said:

If it is permissible, how is it done?

It would require a Suspension of the Rules.

For what it's worth, I do not recommend this approach.

[Rob Elsman]

The mover can make a preliminary main motion as one of two main motions made in a series.  As Mr. Kapur has noted, the adoption of this main motion will require a two-thirds vote, since its adoption would have the effect of suspending the rules.

If it should so happen that the preliminary main motion is rejected, the mover of the second main motion in the series would have the opportunity to withdraw his motion before the chair states the question on its adoption without obtaining the permission of the assembly.

Edited April 16, 2024 at 04:00 PM by Rob Elsman

[Rob Elsman]

I guess I feel a little obligated to explain an alternate parliamentary path that has been opined by Mr. Honemann, but with which I disagree.

Instead of using a series of two main motions, as I explained above, the maker can just make the desired main motion (which would be the second main motion in the series I discussed above).  After the chair has stated the question on the adoption of the main motion, the mover can make a motion to modify the limits of debate.  For example, he might move that debate on the motion will be limited to one speech of five minutes for each member.  Before this subsidiary motion is voted on, the member can then move the Previous Question on all pending questions.  If the motion for the Previous Question is adopted, Mr. Honemann is of the opinion that the question on the adoption of the motion, Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, is then put.  Under this scenario, the adoption of this last motion will result in a parliamentary situation where members can debate the main motion, but amendments would be barred.  Mr. Honemann is basing his opinion on a very valid and worthy reading of RONR (12th ed.) 16:9.  To be clear, I do not for a minute consider Mr. Honemann to be talking nonsense.

I am of a different opinion than Mr. Honemann.  I am of the opinion that the question on the adoption of the motion, Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, becomes moot if the Previous Question is adopted and not rejected upon reconsideration.  So, in my opinion, the path described in the previous paragraph will not work.  I base my opinion on RONR (12th ed.) 39:3, since I hold that it is absurd to propose to limit or extend the limits of debate affecting motions that have all been rendered undebatable by the order for the Previous Question.

The authors are certainly aware of this difference of opinion as to which rule is controlling in this situation.  As far as I know, the matter has not been discussed and decided upon (and might never be).

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/16/2024 at 12:59 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I guess I feel a little obligated to explain an alternate parliamentary path that has been opined by Mr. Honemann, but with which I disagree.

Instead of using a series of two main motions, as I explained above, the maker can just make the desired main motion (which would be the second main motion in the series I discussed above).  After the chair has stated the question on the adoption of the main motion, the mover can make a motion to modify the limits of debate.  For example, he might move that debate on the motion will be limited to one speech of five minutes for each member.  Before this subsidiary motion is voted on, the member can then move the Previous Question on all pending questions.  If the motion for the Previous Question is adopted, Mr. Honemann is of the opinion that the question on the adoption of the motion, Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, is then put.  Under this scenario, the adoption of this last motion will result in a parliamentary situation where members can debate the main motion, but amendments would be barred.  Mr. Honemann is basing his opinion on a very valid and worthy reading of RONR (12th ed.) 16:9.  To be clear, I do not for a minute consider Mr. Honemann to be talking nonsense.

I am of a different opinion than Mr. Honemann.  I am of the opinion that the question on the adoption of the motion, Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, becomes moot if the Previous Question is adopted and not rejected upon reconsideration.  So, in my opinion, the path described in the previous paragraph will not work.  I base my opinion on RONR (12th ed.) 39:3, since I hold that it is absurd to propose to limit or extend the limits of debate affecting motions that have all been rendered undebatable by the order for the Previous Question.

The authors are certainly aware of this difference of opinion as to which rule is controlling in this situation.  As far as I know, the matter has not been discussed and decided upon (and might never be).

Once again, I think it would prove helpful (at least to me) if you would post a link to whatever opinion I have expressed in this regard to which you now refer.

I certainly remember expressing an opinion as to what what should happen if the previous question is ordered at a time when a motion to limit debate is immediately pending, but I do not recall ever suggesting that this is a procedure anyone should consider using to accomplish the result desired by Guest David A.

 

[Rob Elsman]

I apologize, but I have never had any luck searching for anything on this website. It's odd. I successfully use internet search engines, but this website's search capability seems to work differently, and I can't figure out how to use it effectively.

[Wright Stuff]

On 4/16/2024 at 6:00 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I apologize, but I have never had any luck searching for anything on this website. It's odd. I successfully use internet search engines, but this website's search capability seems to work differently, and I can't figure out how to use it effectively.

site:robertsrules.forumflash.com "Rob Elsman" “I apologize”

Entered in Google for example…

Edited April 17, 2024 at 04:09 AM by Wright Stuff