# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_June 7 8 1973_S6
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

second question that the convention does indeed have the right to amend the bylaw and to have it become
operative at once. The second opinion received the greater amount of discussion because some of the
members felt that there might be a body of legal opinion to the contrary, although Legal Counsel had
failed to find it. But it was especially the statement of Robert's Rules of Order (Newly Revised) on page
497 that an amendment goes into effect immediately upon adoption unless another specific time is stated,
that brought agreement within the Commission.
298. Wording of Consent Forms for President and First Vice President (A 441): The answer to the first
question of the previous item led the Commission to rule affirmatively on the question raised by Lay
Delegate L. C. Turnock through Reverend H. W. Riedel of Cleveland, "Was it proper for the Secretary to
include on the consent form for those nominated at the convention the wording indicating willingness to
serve if elected?" In answer to this gentleman's further request the Commission also resolved to send him
a copy of Section I of the opinion adopted under Agenda 437 (Minutes 297).
299. Opinions Regarding Resolution 2-28 (Agenda 434): Floor Committee #3 had addressed two
questions to the Commission. The questions and the replies adopted by the Commission are as follows:
1.

"Could you, would you supply us with your opinion regarding what Resolution 2-28 from
the Milwaukee convention requests"?

The Commission replied as follows:
A. Resolution 2-28 instructs the Board of Control to take action, instructs the Board of
Control to report to the President and to the Board for Higher Education, and instructs the
resident to make a progress report to the Synod.
B. Although Committee #3 did not indicate what its specific concern was, the Commission
assumes that the problem revolves around the words "appropriate action," but it is not the
responsibility of the Commission on Constitutional Matters to determine whether or not the
action taken by the Board of Control is appropriate.
2.

"Could you, would you supply us with your opinion regarding what it means 'To bring a
charge of false doctrine' and what bringing a charge of false doctrine entails and requires

The Commission replied as follows:
A.

The first of these questions should be addressed to the CTCR.

B. With respect to the second of these questions, the CCM refers Committee #3 to the
proposed bylaws on page 111 of the convention Workbook, which, however, are not in force
at this time, and to the following references in the Handbook which do indeed govern such
procedures at the present time: Constitution Article III, 7, 8; VI; XI, B; XII, 6-9; XIII;
Bylaws 1.05, 1.09, 2.27, 3.45, 3.49, Chapter 5, 6.79c, 6.83.
300. Brazil Delegation: The secretary asked the Commission on Constitutional Matters for advice as to
what he should respond to the President of the Brazil District who in answer to a previous letter from the
secretary had informed him that all delegates had been properly elected at properly called meetings of the
respective circuits with the exception of three cases. These three cases were submitted for reactionby the
Secretary. The Commission advised the secretary to respond to the effect that in the event that all of the
requirements of the bylaws regarding the selection of delegates (e.g., proper number of congregations in
circuit, circuit meeting and not just a pastoral conference duly called before the deadline date, proper