Madam Speaker, I respect that, and I also want to proceed with the motion. But it is very important because things that are being said in this House today are going to impact like dominoes, going forward, particularly things said about the competence of the Constitutional Court. I think it is important that we understand that section 167(5) of the Constitution says very clearly that the Constitutional Court - not Parliament - makes the final decision on whether an Act of Parliament, a provincial Act, or the conduct of the President, is constitutional and must ... [Inaudible.]
This House is subordinate to the rulings of the Constitutional Court, and I think we need to establish that very clearly; otherwise we are going to have problems going forward.
The second thing is that I would like you to make a ruling on whether the constitutional motion before us today is a substantive motion or not. It is my understanding that a motion of this nature, in terms of the requirements of the Constitution, has to be substantive in nature, which is why the motion requires members to provide a motivation when that motion is submitted. [Applause.]