[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 106th Congress]
[106th Congress]
[House Document 105-358]
[Jeffersons Manual of ParliamentaryPractice]
[Pages 243-246]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 

                  sec. xxxvi--division of the question


[[Page 244]]

plicated or not--where it is complicated--into how many propositions it 
may be divided? The fact is, that the only mode of separating a 
complicated question is by moving amendments to it; and these must be 
decided by the House, on a question, unless the House orders it to be 
divided; as, on the question, December 2, 1640, making void the election 
of the knights for Worcester, on a motion it was resolved to make two 
questions of it, to wit, one on each knight. 2 Hats., 85, 86. So, 
wherever there are several names in a question, they may be divided and 
put one by one. 9 Grey, 444. So, 1729, April 17, on an objection that a 
question was complicated, it was separated by amendment. 2 Hats., 79.



Sec. 480. Parliamentary law for division of the 
question.

  If a question  contain more parts than one, it may be divided into two or 
more questions. Mem. in Hakew., 29. But not as the right of an 
individual member, but with the consent of the House. For who is to 
decide whether a question is com



  The House, by clause 5 of rule XVI and the practice thereunder, has 
entitled a procedure differing materially from that above set forth. 
While a resolution electing Members to committees is not divisible 
(clause 5 of rule XVI), other types of resolutions containing several 
names may be divided for voting (Mar. 19, 1975, p. 7344).



Sec. 481. Jefferson's discussion of division of 
the question.

  The soundness  of these observations will be evident from the 
embarrassments produced by the XVIIIth rule of the Senate, which says, 
``if the question in debate contains several points, any member may have 
the same divided.''



[[Page 245]]

remains but the last member of the section and the provisos, they cannot 
be divided so as to put the last member to question by itself, for the 
provisos might thus be left standing alone as exceptions to a rule when 
the rule is taken away; or the new provisos might be left to a second 
question, after having been decided on once before at the same reading, 
which is contrary to rule. But the question must be on striking out the 
last member of the section as amended. This sweeps away the exceptions 
with the rule, and relieves from inconsistence. A question to be 
divisible must comprehend points so distinct and entire that one of them 
being taken away, the other may stand entire. But a proviso or 
exception, without an enacting clause, does not contain an entire point 
or proposition.
  1798, May 30, the alien bill in quasi-committee. To a section and 
proviso in the original, had been added two new provisos by way of 
amendment. On a motion to strike out the section as amended, the 
question was desired to be divided. To do this it must be put first on 
striking out either the former proviso, or some distinct member of the 
section. But when nothing


[[Page 246]]

must be so made as that each part may stand by itself, yet the House 
having, on the question, retained the two first divisions, the words 
``any alien merchant'' may be struck out, and their modifying words will 
then attach themselves to the preceding description of persons, and 
become a modification of that description.
  May 31.--The same bill being before the Senate. There was a proviso 
that the bill should not extend--1. To any foreign minister; nor, 2. To 
any person to whom the President should give a passport; nor, 3. To any 
alien merchant conforming himself to such regulations as the President 
shall prescribe; and a division of the question into its simplest 
elements was called for. It was divided into four parts, the 4th taking 
in the words ``conforming himself,'' &c. It was objected that the words 
``any alien merchant,'' could not be separated from their modifying 
words, ``conforming,'' &c., because these words, if left by themselves, 
contain no substantive idea, will make no sense. But admitting that the 
divisions of a paragraph into separate questions




Sec. 482. Division of question as related to debate or 
amendment.

  When a  question is divided, after the question on the 1st member, 
the 2d is open to debate and amendment; because it is a known rule that 
a person may rise and speak at any time before the question has been 
completely decided, by putting the negative as well as the affirmative 
side. But the question is not completely put when the vote has been 
taken on the first member only. One-half the question, both affirmative 
and negative, remains still to be put. See Execut. Jour., June 25, 1795. 
The same decision by President Adams.





  Where a division of the question is demanded on a portion of an 
amendment, the Chair puts the question first on the remaining portions 
of the amendment, and that portion on which the division is demanded 
remains open for further debate and amendment (Oct. 21, 1981, p. 24785). 
However, where neither portion of a divided question remains open to 
further debate or amendment, the question may be put first on the 
portion identified by the demand for division and then on the remainder 
(June 8, 1995, p. 15302).