NationStates Jolt Archive

If they had to hold a debate and vote on every single item they legislated they'd still be doing 1777's congressional work today.

This is something I've wondered about for a while, and thought this will be a more interesting way to find out than straight reading.

When bills are being passed in the US house or senate, somebody can just 'attach' another piece of legislation to it? 'Tack on a rider'?

Can one person do this or does it require some sort of group of majority?
What is the point of this being possible. It seems silly to me. Like in that Simpsons episode where they are about to pass a bill to pay for the evacuation of Springfield (because a comet is about to hit them) then some guy tacks on a bill for funding for the arts everyone hates so thus neither is passed.

Why not just make it so only one piece of legislation can be passed at a time? Obviously there is a reason, just like to know what it is... (Surely it isn't time?)

EDIT
Title should obviously have a 'the' in it. Give me a break, I posted this at 4:30 in the morning.

If they had to hold a debate and vote on every single item they legislated they'd still be doing 1777's congressional work today.

Huh? If you tack it on then it will pass easy if people want it to in the first place. What does that save? Just takes however long for someone to introduce it and to vote and pass it. What am I missing?

What is to stop some crazy Southern (sorry) senator from tacking on a bill to give $1000000 etc to the Taliban to a bill approving stem-cell research or something?

Huh? If you tack it on then it will pass easy if people want it to in the first place. What does that save? Just takes however long for someone to introduce it and to vote and pass it. What am I missing?

What is to stop some crazy Southern (sorry) senator from tacking on a bill to give $1000000 etc to the Taliban to a bill approving stem-cell research or something?

Fear of the voters.

Congress is split into two parts, the House and the Senate. Each side has to pass a bill in order for it to go on to the President to become law. If Strom Thurmond scribbles into a highway bill with his crayolas bringing back slavery that version of the bill will get killed.

I think. Starting to wish I'd taken a government class or thirty.

This is something I've wondered about for a while, and thought this will be a more interesting way to find out than straight reading.

When bills are being passed in the US house or senate, somebody can just 'attach' another piece of legislation to it? 'Tack on a rider'?

Can one person do this or does it require some sort of group of majority?
What is the point of this being possible. It seems silly to me. Like in that Simpsons episode where they are about to pass a bill to pay for the evacuation of Springfield (because a comet is about to hit them) then some guy tacks on a bill for funding for the arts everyone hates so thus neither is passed.

Why not just make it so only one piece of legislation can be passed at a time? Obviously there is a reason, just like to know what it is... (Surely it isn't time?)

If they banned the practice of riders....

1) Senators and Congressman wouldn't be able to place "pork" and other pieces of legislation they want passed on critical pieces of legislation. Which means their bills would have little chance of ever passing. If I want $50 million for a NASCAR museum I'll tack it on to a bill funding the troops in Iraq (which would never be vetoed and would pass--any person that voted against it would be painted as "against the troops in the field)."

2) Senators and Congressman use the tactic to kill bills they don't like. They tack on riders that will gurantee a veto.

Since making a rule that only one piece of legislation can go through at a time would reduce a senator or representatives power, they will never agree to such a change.

Clinton did have the power of a line-itm veto on spending bills where he could veto parts of a bill but signing the rest of the bill into law. The Supreme Court struck this down as unconstitutional.

They have the "Dismiss Issue" button, just like in Nation States, though they use it more often to save them their time.

If they banned the practice of riders....

1) Senators and Congressman wouldn't be able to place "pork" and other pieces of legislation they want passed on critical pieces of legislation. Which means their bills would have little chance of ever passing. If I want $50 million for a NASCAR museum I'll tack it on to a bill funding the troops in Iraq (which would never be vetoed and would pass--any person that voted against it would be painted as "against the troops in the field)."

2) Senators and Congressman use the tactic to kill bills they don't like. They tack on riders that will gurantee a veto.

Since making a rule that only one piece of legislation can go through at a time would reduce a senator or representatives power, they will never agree to such a change.

Clinton did have the power of a line-itm veto on spending bills where he could veto parts of a bill but signing the rest of the bill into law. The Supreme Court struck this down as unconstitutional.

Okay, makes more sense, but still seems silly. If the bill isn't good enough to get passed in its own right should it get passed at all?

Okay, makes more sense, but still seems silly. If the bill isn't good enough to get passed in its own right should it get passed at all?

The Congress is about power and none of these people are going to give up power. They run for offie for power and want to stay in power. One way to stay in power is to bring goodies back to their home state (an unneeded sub base, a NASCAR museum, etc) in the form of Federal funds. If they had to pass these bills on their own merit, they would stand little chance of getting them through--so they "Christmas Tree" important bills--like funding that State Department with unrelated bills to bring back cash to their states and districts.

Basically legalized plunder of the public treasury.

The Congress is about power and none of these people are going to give up power. They run for offie for power and want to stay in power. One way to stay in power is to bring goodies back to their home state (an unneeded sub base, a NASCAR museum, etc) in the form of Federal funds. If they had to pass these bills on their own merit, they would stand little chance of getting them through--so they "Christmas Tree" important bills--like funding that State Department with unrelated bills to bring back cash to their states and districts.

Basically legalized plunder of the public treasury.

Uh huh. But why can they tack shit on in the first place? Is it a tradition that has always been just done or is it derived from an act or bill or amendment or something?

If they had to hold a debate and vote on every single item they legislated they'd still be doing 1777's congressional work today.
Or less stupid shit would get through Congress.

It's a BS practise to be perfectly honest. Unfortuantely most Americans are unaware that riders even exist (at least pre-simpsons episode).

Or less stupid shit would get through Congress.

Yeah that.

This is something I've wondered about for a while, and thought this will be a more interesting way to find out than straight reading.

When bills are being passed in the US house or senate, somebody can just 'attach' another piece of legislation to it? 'Tack on a rider'?

Can one person do this or does it require some sort of group of majority?
What is the point of this being possible. It seems silly to me. Like in that Simpsons episode where they are about to pass a bill to pay for the evacuation of Springfield (because a comet is about to hit them) then some guy tacks on a bill for funding for the arts everyone hates so thus neither is passed.

Why not just make it so only one piece of legislation can be passed at a time? Obviously there is a reason, just like to know what it is... (Surely it isn't time?)

EDIT
Title should obviously have a 'the' in it. Give me a break, I posted this at 4:30 in the morning.

Because they want to pass laws they don't think they could pass individually. It's like if I needed $4.00. I was already selling something to you for $3.00, but afterwards, you're not likely to just give me an a dollar just because I want one. -But if I make the thing I'm selling more expensive and raise the price to include that extra dollar I need, you might still want that thing I'm selling enough to do it. Do you see what I mean?

Uh huh. But why can they tack shit on in the first place? Is it a tradition that has always been just done or is it derived from an act or bill or amendment or something?

If it is a bullshit piece of legislation, they will attach it to a loser proposal that will not have a snowballs chance in hell. But, the senator or member of congress can "honestly" say that he brought the proposal up for a vote.

Also, by attaching various riders to important legislation, you end up with a bill that is several hundred or thousands of pages long. And nobody is going to read that bill page by page. That is how a lot of stupid legislation gets passed. I wish we could force them to going back to the way is was, one resolution at a time. So what if it means they have to work longer? They already work only on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday!!!

Vic