Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
April 23, 1971
Though the effect of the amendment would be to stop proceedings on the bill, the amendment itself does not state an opposition to the principle of the bill, nor does it "indicate [the] reasons why...
The Speaker ruled an amendment to a second reading motion out of order because it set a condition instead of opposing the bill's principle.
February 8, 1971
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading February 8, 1971 Journals pp. 312-3 Debates p. 3153 Background On November 30, 1970, during debate on a motion for second reading of...
The provided text is an incomplete fragment and cannot be analyzed as a Speaker's Ruling.
November 27, 1970
The amendment in question opposes the progress of the bill, not its principle. It is not, therefore, a reasoned amendment. The amendment should be relevant to the bill and not bring into the...
The Speaker ruled an amendment to a bill out of order because its subject matter was not relevant to the bill itself.
March 24, 1970
"When a motion for second reading is before the House, [the House] may debate in a general way the principle of the bill but not the clauses in detail." They and the schedules should be debated at...
A ruling clarifying that debate at second reading must address the principle of a bill, not its individual clauses.
February 24, 1970
Although the propositions that the principle of the bill be reconsidered and the second reading be deferred six months are both separately acceptable, they cannot be combined. There is no...
The Speaker ruled that a reasoned amendment and a six months' hoist motion cannot be combined into a single proposition.
February 17, 1970
The proposed amendment does not oppose the principle of the bill, but rather attaches a condition to the motion for second reading of the bill. It is therefore not essentially a reasoned amendment.
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible because it attached a condition to a bill's second reading instead of opposing its principle, failing the test for a reasoned amendment.
February 13, 1970
A Member may "move as an amendment to the question a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing...
A ruling clarifying that reasoned amendments moved at second reading must be adverse to the principle of the underlying bill.
January 15, 1970
Although this is a new form of amendment, it is not automatically out of order. Even if the amendment appears to be a statement or declaration of principle, rather than an amendment, it is, in...
A ruling clarifies that amendments at second reading must oppose a bill's principle and cannot simply seek to add new provisions.
February 13, 1969
An amendment allowed on second reading must not relate to particulars of the clause of the bill it seeks to amend or anticipate amendments that might be moved in the standing committee considering...
The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order because second-reading amendments must address the principle of a bill, not specific clauses reserved for committee review.
January 23, 1969
A bill must be read twice and referred to a committee before being amended, although a Member may move a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of a bill. The proposed amendment is...
A ruling clarifying that an instruction to a committee cannot be moved as an amendment at second reading but must wait until after the bill is referred.