Political Crossfire Forums

[Richard Owl Mirror]

We all know that POISON PILL's are placed into Legislation through the amendment process.
Not only POISON PILL's but, Pork spending in the form of Ear-marks.

Should Congress review the usage of the amendment process?
In my opinion, no amendment that does not have direct influence on the proposed Legislation should be allowed.
The most favored tactic is to attach pork-spending on to the Defense Appropriations Bills.
The most notable of recent memory is the "bridge to Nowhere" offered by Sen Ted Stevens.
Because it was such an egregious reach, a Defense Spending Bill was held hostage so he could grab Federal cash to build a bridge that is not needed and would only accommodate 70-100 people in Alaska.

Senate Amendment Process: General Conditions and Principles

HOUSE: SPECIAL AMENDMENT PROCEDURES AND THE RULES COMMITTEE

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

Do you believe a procedural change is needed in regards to the amendment process?

[LostSoul3412]

No.

Also, you're relating bills to amendments, which are two completely different types of legislation.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

LostSoul3412 wrote: No.

Also, you're relating bills to amendments, which are two completely different types of legislation.

:think: Are not amendments attached to Bills?
I'm pretty sure that's what both those links I provided to the Senate & House rules indicates.

Please explain your response further.

[LostSoul3412]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: No.

Also, you're relating bills to amendments, which are two completely different types of legislation.

:think: Are not amendments attached to Bills?
I'm pretty sure that's what both those links I provided to the Senate & House rules indicates.

Please explain your response further.

D'oh!

I thought you were talking about Constitutional amendments!

:bnghd:

As far as legislative amendments, there was one provision in the Confederate Constitution that I liked:

Article I: Section 9: Clause 20 of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America: "Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."

[Richard Owl Mirror]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: No.

Also, you're relating bills to amendments, which are two completely different types of legislation.

:think: Are not amendments attached to Bills?
I'm pretty sure that's what both those links I provided to the Senate & House rules indicates.

Please explain your response further.

D'oh!

I thought you were talking about Constitutional amendments!

:bnghd:

As far as legislative amendments, there was one provision in the Confederate Constitution that I liked:

Article I: Section 9: Clause 20 of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America: "Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."

Now that's what I'm talking about ! :tu:

That one inclusion would be akin to giving the Speaker of the House a line item veto in some respects.

[micfranklin]

Sorry ROM, but the amendment process doesn't need an overhaul and neither does the Constitution itself. I like it just the way it is.

[steve abdul jabbar]

I would say most definitely that the amendment process needs to change. I think the Confederate Constitution clause summed it up perfectly. As it currently is, all manner of abuse is allowed by the rules. Not only do spending riders that have nothing to do with the legislation get attached, but it is often used as a back door to either defeat a bill or force a political opponent to vote against something popular on the basis that the amendment is intolerable. Voting record will reflect the fact that a congressman voted a certain way, but it takes a bit of searching to find out exactly why sometimes. This is disingenuous and, I believe, contrary to the intentions of the Founders.

[bigstick61]

I definitely agree that all amendments to proposed legislation need to be germane. The clause in the CS Constitution seems like a good idea to me.

[Zadoc]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: We all know that POISON PILL's are placed into Legislation through the amendment process.
Not only POISON PILL's but, Pork spending in the form of Ear-marks.

Should Congress review the usage of the amendment process?
In my opinion, no amendment that does not have direct influence on the proposed Legislation should be allowed.
The most favored tactic is to attach pork-spending on to the Defense Appropriations Bills.
The most notable of recent memory is the "bridge to Nowhere" offered by Sen Ted Stevens.
Because it was such an egregious reach, a Defense Spending Bill was held hostage so he could grab Federal cash to build a bridge that is not needed and would only accommodate 70-100 people in Alaska.

Senate Amendment Process: General Conditions and Principles

HOUSE: SPECIAL AMENDMENT PROCEDURES AND THE RULES COMMITTEE

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

Do you believe a procedural change is needed in regards to the amendment process?

I am actually going to say no to this, and here is why.

Attaching a rider or an amendment to a bill, with either the intent of having the rider become law or whether it is intended as a poison pill is one way that we in America ensure that the minority voice is heard.

An rider allows the minority party to pass portions of their legislative agenda, or prevent a bill from passing with a poison pill.

For these same reasons, it is important that a line-item-veto never, ever be passed in the United States. Such steps would leave us at the mercy of a tyrant.

[Fido]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: We all know that POISON PILL's are placed into Legislation through the amendment process.
Not only POISON PILL's but, Pork spending in the form of Ear-marks.

Should Congress review the usage of the amendment process?
In my opinion, no amendment that does not have direct influence on the proposed Legislation should be allowed.
The most favored tactic is to attach pork-spending on to the Defense Appropriations Bills.
The most notable of recent memory is the "bridge to Nowhere" offered by Sen Ted Stevens.
Because it was such an egregious reach, a Defense Spending Bill was held hostage so he could grab Federal cash to build a bridge that is not needed and would only accommodate 70-100 people in Alaska.

Senate Amendment Process: General Conditions and Principles

HOUSE: SPECIAL AMENDMENT PROCEDURES AND THE RULES COMMITTEE

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

Do you believe a procedural change is needed in regards to the amendment process?

I would say yes, and fat chance if you cannot get the government to live up to the constitution as written. It is a fault of the founders that they left a loophole big enough to drive bad government through. They set an upper limit to the number of representatives a state might have, but no lower limit based upon population. Each state must have one. No more than one per thirty thousand. No word on how many less per thousand they might have. So, what hope do you have, or does anyone have of getting any meaningful amendment through when the process has been top loaded against democracy? I have read a quotation from FDR, saying with ten thousand dollars he could defeat any constitutional amendment. Against always wins. It is so easy to poison the minds of enough people to resist any change when change is what each of us fears most, even when we most need change. The devil you know always wins.

Now, the best chance for change is outside of the constitution. When this society refuses to work, when some disaster hits, or when war reveals how weakened we have been made to make more millionaires then there will be hope for sweeping change. But if I were writing the new constitution I would begin with the necessity of a new constitution within a short period of time. I would begin with an expiration date. The world is not flat, and is not round. The world is change, and fixed rules that empower government and property against people will never last, and no matter how auspicious their beginning, or how honored their founders are they will someday find their constitution is more of a prison than a key to freedom.

[Medius]

Zadoc wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: We all know that POISON PILL's are placed into Legislation through the amendment process.
Not only POISON PILL's but, Pork spending in the form of Ear-marks.

Should Congress review the usage of the amendment process?
In my opinion, no amendment that does not have direct influence on the proposed Legislation should be allowed.
The most favored tactic is to attach pork-spending on to the Defense Appropriations Bills.
The most notable of recent memory is the "bridge to Nowhere" offered by Sen Ted Stevens.
Because it was such an egregious reach, a Defense Spending Bill was held hostage so he could grab Federal cash to build a bridge that is not needed and would only accommodate 70-100 people in Alaska.

Senate Amendment Process: General Conditions and Principles

HOUSE: SPECIAL AMENDMENT PROCEDURES AND THE RULES COMMITTEE

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

Do you believe a procedural change is needed in regards to the amendment process?

I am actually going to say no to this, and here is why.

Attaching a rider or an amendment to a bill, with either the intent of having the rider become law or whether it is intended as a poison pill is one way that we in America ensure that the minority voice is heard.

An rider allows the minority party to pass portions of their legislative agenda, or prevent a bill from passing with a poison pill.

For these same reasons, it is important that a line-item-veto never, ever be passed in the United States. Such steps would leave us at the mercy of a tyrant.

Then we need a better way for the minority to be heard, because this tactic is causing idiotic legislation to be passed. It is a hack-job attempt at minority representation at best and damages the legislation process.

Not to mention that this is an extremely expensive way of giving a voice to the minority.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

I appreciate all the input :hi:

I do see and understand the concerns regarding the minority input through the use of the amendment process and I would not seek to limit that power.
The problem that I see needing to be fixed is ear-mark spending for an 'indoor tropical forest' in Minnesota being attached to a Defense Appropriations Bill.
I'm certain many more examples could be found.

The minority voice need not be stifled, even if the rules declared amendments must be germane to the Legislation at hand. Likewise, the minority could place an amendment on to proposed TAX CUT legislation for major oil companies, etc... by inserting their own TAX CUT benefiting their constituency.

Congressional Reform: Let the Sun Shine In

Open-government groups, some lawmakers wonder if earmarks are being dangled for rewards

Spending database bill marks new era
Quote: WASHINGTON - President Bush will soon sign the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act co-sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL to establish a google-like Internet database of most federal spending. Passage of this measure marks two vitally important milestones in the development of American democracy and the Internet media age.


FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2006