Which statements describe amendments that are not in order?

• A. Both of the above
• B. Is not germane to the question being amended
• C. Makes the adoption of the amendment the same as rejection of the motion to be amended
• D. Neither of the above

Answer: (A)

In parliamentary practice, amendments to a motion must be relevant to the question at hand and should not be used to achieve the opposite outcome of the main question. The first idea—an amendment that is not germane to the question being amended—is out of order because it introduces a topic that has nothing to do with what is being considered, which would derail the debate and waste time.

The second idea—an amendment that would make adopting the amendment the same as rejecting the motion to be amended—also disrupts proper procedure. Such an amendment isn’t truly modifying the main motion; it effectively defeats it by a backdoor route. Bypassing the intended change and instead ending the matter violates the purpose of an amendment, which is to refine or modify the proposal, not to produce the same result as outright rejection.

Since both of these conditions describe amendments that should be ruled out as not in order, the correct choice is that both statements describe amendments not in order.