View Poll Results: Should adding non-related amendments to bills in Congress be banned?

Voters
20. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    17 85.00%
  • no

    2 10.00%
  • maybe

    1 5.00%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Ban unrelated amendments?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    dimensionally transcendental
    Last Seen
    08-15-11 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,153

    Ban unrelated amendments?

    Would you support an amendment banning all unrelated amendments from bills in Congress? Why or why not?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    dimensionally transcendental
    Last Seen
    08-15-11 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,153

    Re: Ban unrealted amendments?

    If a MOD could please correct my spelling error in the thread description...

    It should read Ban unrelated amendments, not unrealted. Thanks.

  3. #3
    ThunderCougarFalconBird
    roughdraft274's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,080

    Re: Ban unrealted amendments?

    I think more or less the problem with this is who gets to decide what's unrelated. Recently I believe the Dem's put a amendment in a defense appropriations bill that would allow illegal immigrants gain legal status with military service and a few other caveats. It is kinda sorta related but I'm thinking whether someone really thinks they're related will have to do with whether they are for or against the amendment, lol.

    All in all I'd love to see something in place where unrelated amendments were banned, but I doubt anyone in congress would vote for a ban like that.

  4. #4
    Educator Jucon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    04-22-14 @ 07:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    787

    Re: Ban unrealted amendments?

    Yes, however a lot less would get done. But I'm all for keeping politicians honest. I got pretty annoyed at how Democrats went on the media touting how some people voted against reforming DADT, when in reality there was a lot more in the bill.
    "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, it to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." óJohn Adams

  5. #5
    Norville Rogers
    Kernel Sanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,730

    Re: Ban unrealted amendments?

    Sure, enforcement would be tricky due to the issues rough raised, though. A similar move that I think would improve the legislature and the legislation that comes out of it is breaking up the monster bills that are all too common on important issues. When you have mammoth bills like the patriot act or the healthcare bill that end up being all-or-nothing you get a ton more crap pushed through. As is you get huge swaths of law that nobody even debated because it wasn't important enough to either support or oppose the bill over. We'd get something closer to what the people actually want instead of a 1000-page monstrosity that represents whatever could be cobbled together to get enough votes on a one-off push

  6. #6
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Ban unrealted amendments?

    Yes I would support such an amendment. I could care less if less gets done.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  7. #7
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Ban unrelated amendments?

    Quote Originally Posted by Whovian View Post
    Would you support an amendment banning all unrelated amendments from bills in Congress? Why or why not?
    No, as it is unenforceable. There is no obvious definition of what is "unrelated" and what isn't...and if there was such a definition, there would be a way to avoid it anyway.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #8
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Ban unrealted amendments?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders View Post
    Sure, enforcement would be tricky due to the issues rough raised, though. A similar move that I think would improve the legislature and the legislation that comes out of it is breaking up the monster bills that are all too common on important issues. When you have mammoth bills like the patriot act or the healthcare bill that end up being all-or-nothing you get a ton more crap pushed through. As is you get huge swaths of law that nobody even debated because it wasn't important enough to either support or oppose the bill over. We'd get something closer to what the people actually want instead of a 1000-page monstrosity that represents whatever could be cobbled together to get enough votes on a one-off push
    I disagree. Some bills (health care being a perfect example) NEED to be mammoth bills. Lots of smaller bills sound nice, but the problem is that they only work in tandem with one another. For example, most people think that it should be illegal for insurers to discriminate based on preexisting conditions. But in order for a ban on that to work, we would need a health insurance mandate to prevent people from waiting until they're sick to buy insurance. But if we did that, then we would need to subsidize health insurance for the poor. And if we did that, then we would need to raise taxes or cut spending somewhere else in order to pay for it.

    Regardless of whether one is for or against the health care reform bill, I think it's pretty clear that it only made sense as a single bill, because the pieces wouldn't work individually.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #9
    Educator hallam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Philly
    Last Seen
    10-23-15 @ 09:44 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    620

    Re: Ban unrelated amendments?

    Quote Originally Posted by Whovian View Post
    Would you support an amendment banning all unrelated amendments from bills in Congress? Why or why not?
    If you are of the opinion that nothing gets done now even with these amendments, then congress would just stagnate even further. Unrelated amendments are essentially how the government works now. I am willing to accept unrelated amendments if it means some type of progress occurs.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    dimensionally transcendental
    Last Seen
    08-15-11 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,153

    Re: Ban unrealted amendments?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I disagree. Some bills (health care being a perfect example) NEED to be mammoth bills. Lots of smaller bills sound nice, but the problem is that they only work in tandem with one another. For example, most people think that it should be illegal for insurers to discriminate based on preexisting conditions. But in order for a ban on that to work, we would need a health insurance mandate to prevent people from waiting until they're sick to buy insurance. But if we did that, then we would need to subsidize health insurance for the poor. And if we did that, then we would need to raise taxes or cut spending somewhere else in order to pay for it.

    Regardless of whether one is for or against the health care reform bill, I think it's pretty clear that it only made sense as a single bill, because the pieces wouldn't work individually.
    Considering that the vast majority of the voters do not support Obamacare as passed, you appear to be in the minority here... but lets save that for the healthcare thread, shall we?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •