Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
October 21, 1968
The proposed amendment does not oppose the principle of the bill but merely postpones consideration of the bill until a certain condition is met. Further, there is a substantial difference between...
This ruling clarifies that an amendment is procedurally acceptable if it postpones a bill's consideration based on a condition, rather than opposing its core principle.
October 10, 1968
If the words of the proposed amendment do not enlarge the terms of the clause, then the amendment is redundant and superfluous. If they do enlarge the terms of the clause, they must be examined to...
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible because it went beyond the scope of the financial resolution authorizing the bill.
February 28, 1968
The motion states clearly that the vote of the House was not one of non-confidence in the Government. The amendment, however, seeks to add irrelevant conditions. It also raises a new proposition...
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible because it went beyond the scope of the main motion and introduced a new substantive question.
February 26, 1968
"... the amendment, if carried, would make the motion difficult to understand." In addition, "it would also be contrary to the facts, since the bill was carried on first reading by unanimous...
The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order because it was confusing and factually incorrect.
February 23, 1968
"This amendment goes far beyond the very limited scope of the motion now under consideration. It is a substantive motion or proposal which could be discussed only after notice or unanimous consent...
The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order as it was a new substantive motion that exceeded the scope of the original proposal.
December 6, 1967
The traditional practice restricting the introduction of amendments similar to others already decided by the House during the same session, if they are to apply to the Budget debate, does not take...
The Speaker allows an amendment to a second budget in the same session, ruling that the traditional prohibition on repetitive motions does not apply due to the novel circumstance.
November 22, 1967
Amendments at this stage cannot attach conditions to the second reading, which this proposed amendment does, concerning the approval of the bill in principle. This case is distinguished from the...
The Speaker ruled that an amendment to a bill at second reading is inadmissible if it imposes a condition on the approval of the bill's principle.
November 6, 1967
The House may refer the subject-matter of a bill to committee at second reading, but the Chair is not disposed to change the established procedure in order to allow the amendment in its present...
The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order because its condition to delay a bill's second reading until a committee reported was procedurally incorrect.
September 26, 1967
The proposed amendment constitutes a new question and cannot be considered an amendment to the original motion; the original motion was designed simply to delete an entry, whereas the amendment is...
A 1967 ruling found an amendment inadmissible because it sought to delete an entire bill, which was beyond the scope of the original motion to delete a single entry.
September 25, 1967
An opportunity to debate the matter is available to the House; an amendment to the Budget motion is now before the House and there are three supply motions to be considered, one of them very soon....
Speaker denies an emergency debate request, citing the issue as a 'continuing' rather than 'sudden' emergency with other debate opportunities available.