Final answer:
The motion to adjourn is typically not debatable in parliamentary procedure. In the U.S. Senate, amendments are subject to unlimited debate until members decide to end it. The ratification of constitutional amendments does not have a fixed time limit, as demonstrated by the 27th Amendment's 200-year ratification period.
Step-by-step explanation:
The motion to adjourn in the context of parliamentary procedure is typically not debatable, meaning that when a motion is made to adjourn a deliberative assembly, it is usually voted on immediately without discussion or debate. However, when it comes to discussions on an amendment, the rules can differ. In the U.S. Senate, for example, there is a practice of unlimited debate wherein amendments can be discussed extensively. This debate continues until no one seeks to be recognized to speak further, or a motion to close debate has been offered and voted on affirmatively.
Regarding the ratification of constitutional amendments, the process is different. An example illustrating this process is that of the 27th Amendment, which took over 200 years to be ratified. This points to the fact that there is no fixed time for an amendment to be ratified, and extensions or delays can occur based on various legislative and legal circumstances.