Could A 'Single-Subject' Amendment Put An End To 'Christmas Tree' Bills?

Forbes ^ | January 29, 2016 | George Leef

[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.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

- No bill shall be altered or amended on its passage through either house so as to change its original purpose....”-

Wouldn’t that have stopped Obamacare? Didn’t Reid gut the contents of a House Bill, and insert Obamacare? Using the same title as the original Bill?

[publius911]

Don't be silly; Christmas tree bills have been the enabling vehicle for runaway laws, the asinine "we had to pass it to fund the government!"

Stupidity on parade for ever allowing it in the first place.

[Ouderkirk]

This is exactly what Gingrich did in 1995. Every appropriation was done as a single bill rather than the omnibus christmas tree bills.

[NorthMountain]

It would have stopped 0bamacare. It would also stop the various “omnibus” bills, it would stop the practice of putting screwy stuff in highway and defense appropriation bills ...

[Twotone]

We just have to make it a permanent action, rather than one they can do or not.

[DoughtyOne]