Posted on 01/29/2016 9:38:21 AM PST by reaganaut1
In most of the states, bills introduced in the legislature can only relate to a single subject.
For instance, the Michigan Constitution states, "No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in the title. No bill shall be altered or amended on its passage through either house so as to change its original purpose...."
I worked in the Michigan Senate for more than five years and recall only a small number of instances where bills under consideration were challenged on this ground. The constitution's provision was quite effective in deterring members of the legislature from trying to sneak extraneous material into bills.
There is good sense behind those state rules, most of which date back a century or more.
As attorney Brett Joshpe explains in this Washington Examiner article, "The single-subject rule was intended to restrain lawmakers and protect against the unsavory practice of "logrolling" - similar to earmarking - whereby legislators insert less popular measures and riders into a larger, more popular bill. It is another example of how our forefathers had a well-founded suspicion of politicians' ambitions and their tendency toward horse-trading and sleight of hand at the citizenry's expense."
The United States Constitution, however, has no provision that limits bills to a single subject. Consequently, we get the phenomenon of the "Christmas Tree" bill - a bill that starts with a single subject but soon becomes adorned with numerous irrelevant provisions that are added to buy the support of legislators who in turn are buying the support of interest groups.
That leads to huge bills that are too monstrous to read, much less really understand, and impose many costs on the taxpayers that would be hard to defend on their merits alone.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
One for an Article V Convention.
I’m sure it will be considered at a CoS.
Essentially the proposed option bans the addition of any amendment to said legislation. What is next? No future Congress can modify or repeal the legislation?
Suppose the legislature or congress is considering a bill to appropriate funds for highway construction and maintenance. The option prohibits adding amendments to fund light rail, for example, or promote windmill farms, or other such irrelevant matters.
The question is “who determines relevance?”
You might ask that question of the various state legislatures which operate under “one subject” rules.
I don’t have to ask them anything. My position is that one numbered Congress can irrevocably bind a future numbered Congress on any legislation with the exception of a fully executed 2-year Congress-approved, President-signed budget.
Gosh, our people in DC are overworked as it is, just think how much extra burden this will put on them? Why, they might have to vote two, maybe even three times a day!
That’s just cruel.
Your position has no basis in fact. You appear to be confusing amendments to a bill with bills altering existing statute. Please reconsider your position.
A 5000 word limit would be good too.
If this is indeed a proposed US Constitutional amendment, then I say have at it and see what happens. An amendment to a particular bill? No.
My bad if I interpreted it differently. Mea culpa.
I’d VOTE for this!! ONE SUBJECT BILL!!
They couldn’t pass a ‘from what authority’ (A1S8) measure in Congress, so this is shear pie-in-the-sky.
Still, I’d push for it to be passed.
As a mere act of Congress, it’s as pointless as a “debt ceiling” law. A future Congress that doesn’t like it will simply repeal it or modify it. As a Constitutional Amendment, it has merit. “One subject per bill” is a constitutional provision in several states. Their experience with it would be valuable in considering an amendment to the federal Constitution.
Did you, perchance, mean to write "can NOT"?
Yes.
Add in: No ‘auto-pilot’ of any budget/program/department/etc.
Especially sickening the bastards get auto-pay raises because they set this kind of crap to automatically up, unless brought up to vote.
NOTHING should get through Congress w/out being voted upon, each and EVERY step!!
Three letters certainly do change things ... I think we’re very much in agreement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.