Objection to the consideration of a question: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:34, 24 March 2010

Latest revision as of 14:01, 19 July 2025

(21 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Type of motion in parliamentary procedure}}

{{About|a motion in parliamentary procedure|other uses of "Objection"|Objection (disambiguation){{!}}Objection}}

__NOTOC__

'''Objection to the consideration of a question''' is a method in [[parliamentary procedure]] of preventing a motion from coming before the assembly.<ref>{{cite parl|title=RONR|edition=10th|pages=258}}</ref> It is often used to prevent an embarrassing question from being introduced and debated in the assembly.

==Explanation and Use==

{{infobox motion

| name = Objection to the consideration of a question (RONR)

Line 14 ⟶ 12:

| reconsidered = Negative vote (sustaining objection) only

}}

In [[parliamentary procedure]], an '''objection to the consideration of a question''' is a [[Motion (parliamentary procedure)|motion]] that is adopted to prevent an original [[main motion]] from coming before the [[Deliberative assembly|assembly]]. This motion is different from an objection to a [[unanimous consent]] request.

===Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR)===

==Explanation and Useuse==

It requires a two-thirds vote to be sustained and is not debatable. It is classed as an [[incidental motion]].

This objection may be applied only to an original main motion, that is, a main motion that brings a new substantive issue before the assembly, as opposed to an incidental main motion. The objection may be raised only before debate has begun on the motion, as the purpose is to completely suppress debate on the motion.

If a member feels that an original main motion should not be considered, an objection to the consideration of a question could be made.<ref>{{Cite book|title = [[Robert's Rules of Order]] Newly Revised|last = Robert|first = Henry M.|publisher = Da Capo Press|year = 2011|isbn = 978-0-306-82020-5|___location = Philadelphia, PA|pages = 267|edition = 11th|display-authors = et al.}}</ref> It is often used to prevent an embarrassing question from being introduced and debated in the assembly.

===The Standard Code (TSC)===

This motion is not recognized in [[The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure]] and is criticized for being confusing. The ''Standard Code'' offers alternative motions for accomplishing the same purpose.<ref>{{cite parl|title=TSC|edition=4th|pages=233–234}}</ref> Some organizations have bylaw provisions specifying that an objection to the consideration of a question is not in order at any time.

According to ''[[Robert's Rules of Order]] Newly Revised'' (RONR), this motion is not debatable and requires a two-thirds vote against consideration.<ref name=":0">{{Harvard citation no brackets|Robert|2011|p = 268}}</ref> This objection may be applied only to an original main motion, that is, a main motion that brings a new substantive issue before the assembly,.<ref asname=":0" opposed to an incidental main motion./> The objection may be raised only before debate has begun on the motion, as the purpose is to completely suppress debate on the motion.<ref name=":0" />

===Legislative Use===

According to ''[[Mason's Manual of Legislative ManualProcedure]] states that'', the purpose of the objection to consideration is to bar from discussion or consideration "any matter that is considered irrelevant, contentious or unprofitable, or that, for any reason, is thought not advisable to discuss."<ref>{{cite parl|title=MAS|edition=2000|year=2000|pages=218}}</ref>

In the [[United States]], particularly in the [[Senate]], a [[motion to table]] is more common due to the fact that it only requires a simple majority.

This motion is different from an objection to a unanimous consent request.<ref name=":0" />

This motion is not recognized in ''[[The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure]]'' anddoes isnot criticizedhave forthis beingmotion confusing. The ''Standard Code''and offersprovides alternative motions for accomplishing the same purpose.<ref>{{cite parl|title=TSC|edition=4th|pages=233–234}}</ref> Some organizations have bylaw provisions specifying that an objection to the consideration of a question is not in order at any time.

== Improper use of tabling a motion ==

Using the rules in RONR, a main motion is improperly killed by [[Table (parliamentary procedure)|tabling]] it. In this case, before debate has begun, it would have been proper to make an objection to the consideration of the question.<ref>{{Cite web|url = http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#13|title = Frequently Asked Questions about RONR (Question 13)|date = 2011|access-date = 2016-02-19|website = The Official Robert's Rules of Order Web Site|publisher = The Robert's Rules Association|last = Robert III|first = Henry M.|archive-date = 2018-12-24|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20181224205021/http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#13|url-status = dead}}</ref>

== See also ==

* [[Debate (parliamentary procedure)]]

* [[Postpone indefinitely]]

* [[Previous question]]

* [[Table (parliamentary procedure)]]

==References==

{{reflist}}

<br>{{Parliamentary Procedure}}

[[Category:Incidental motions]]