ter comes before the Convention, it is a
main question unless divided. Ordinarily,
all parts of the main question can be con-
sidered seriatim so you will have an op-
portunity to offer an amendment to a part.
Then at the end, the whole question will
be open again for amendment. Suppose the
Legislative Committee had suggested a
whole legislative article. Its recommenda-
tions and its report would be the main
question. Therefore, amendments would be
proper after each part in turn seriatim
and after all was done an amendment that
was germane previously would still be gar-
mane with respect to the whole question.
You have that additional protection.
We have an amendment to Rule 47 [51],
again a technical parliamentary matter, to
make it clear that when a question is di-
vided, the same seriatim procedure shall
still apply. Under ordinary parliamentary
law, once a main question is divided, for
example, in two parts, both parts are
equally a main question. When you come to
the end of the consideration of the first
main question, that is the end of the mat-
ter. No other amendments would be ap-
propriate.
The proposal we have in the amendment
to Rule 47 [51] is to make it clear that
even after a question is divided, the same
seriatim consideration that would be ap-
plicable in the case of a nondivided main
question would still be applicable.
Our last change, again while it is some-
what a major change, is perhaps not as
important as might appear. That is an
amendment to Rule 50 [54]. Rule 50 [54]
is the rule that deals with reconsideration
in the Convention, not in the Committee of
the Whole but in the Convention.
Your Rules committee recommends that
the present rule be eliminated and an en-
tirely new and somewhat more liberal rule
be adopted, more liberal in the sense that
it gives the delegate a little more chance
to have his question reconsidered.
The first major aspect of it is that any
question that has been adopted or rejected
by the Convention may be reconsidered on
motion at any time before the Convention
adjourns. We are referring now to the
Convention, not to the Committee of the
Whole. Reconsideration in the Committee of
the Whole is governed by Rule 35 [37] and
in effect it means if you reconsider it, you
do it at that session of the Committee of
the Whole. We talk about the Convention
on second reading, after things are coming
back from the Committee on Style. |
Your Committee proposes that no ques-
tions may be reconsidered more than once
in the Convention with three exceptions:
One, if the Committee on Style requests it.
Two, if the substantive committee that
originally reported the matter suggests it.
Finally, and this is the more liberalizing
provision, upon a petition signed by 15
delegates. These are the three instances
where something could be reconsidered
more than once.
We also permit, even if a motion to re-
consider has been once defeated, a dele-
gate to make a motion to reconsider. If it
is defeated or tabled that would not pro-
hibit the Committee on Style or the sub-
stantive committee or 15 delegates asking
that the motion again be reconsidered.
We followed here, I think, the practice
that prevailed in the great Constitutional
Convention of 1787 where reconsideration
was permitted day after day and time
after time. The significant difference be-
tween that historical precedent and the
rule we suggest is that there the reconsid-
eration took place in the Committee of the
Whole. The rule as liberalized, proposed by
your Committee, would only be applicable
to proceedings in the Convention itself,
most specifically, I would think, on second
reading.
I suppose I have omitted some details.
The report is long enough but I hope you
have all read it. This then is the Twelfth
Report of your Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any ques-
tions of the Chairman of the Committee for
purposes of clarification? Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Delegate Scan-
lan, I realize of course that this report was
prepared prior to our experience with the
militia in the Committee of the Whole. I
wonder, in light of our experience, if it
would not be better, under Rule 46A [50]
on page 5, to delete the requirement that
the amendment be placed on the desk of
each delegate prior to the time the amend-
ment is offered. The rule would still pro-
vide, of course, that the amendment would
have to be in writing and would have to
appear at the floor desk. But because ex-
perience has shown that there will be times
when a delegate may wish to withdraw his
amendment or may not offer it and because
delegates may have a similar amendment
in mind and there would be duplication, I
am wondering if the chairman would de-
lete that language and still carry the thrust
of the Committee's proposal? |
