Serious Question Here: Why can't they pass a LAW...

[matcom]

that only ONE issue can be voted on at a time?

I.E. the minimum wage bill / estate tax.

why can't we/they make it ILLEGAL to attach crap to a bill to be voted on? wouldn't more get done? wouldn't that FORCE a Congressman or Senator to make a CLEAR vote?

is this possible? practical? feasible?

i'm serious here. thanks in advance for any education you can provide

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. If I was President

that would be near the top of my list.

[QuestionAll...]

12. think you would have that power?

you assume too much, my friend. ;)

could you even be president if thoughts like that ran through your head? not a fricken chance.

[NoPasaran]

14. The president doesn't make laws, Congress does

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. It was a rhetorical response

n/t

[xmas74]

2. Damned if I know.

I'll be watching this thread for some answers.

[JAYJDF]

3. Easy, because they all do it from time to time.

That's like asking for them NOT to be able to vote themselves raises!

[JuniperLea]

4. That would solve so many problems!!

Why the heck not? Someone should start the "outlaw the poison pill bill".

Reminds me of a Simpson's episode... well, it is paper-clipped...

[liberal N proud]

5. Because then they couldn't tack on all the pork for their own districts

The amendments are what they use to sway votes or to kill votes depending on their agenda.
They will never take away a tool that benefits them and their agenda even though it cost the American tax payer billions

[matcom]

7. but is it REALLY feasible?

i mean let's start a fucking MOVEMENT on this thing! is there ANY thing that would make it not practical or a GOOD reason against it?

[liberal N proud]

10. It would take a complete cleansing of the lobbyist at the very least

Then if that didn't work, a complete cleansing of the Congress.

[Tesha]

35. DING DING DING DING DING!!!

> Because then they couldn't tack on all the pork for their own districts

We have a winner! That is one half of the reason.

The other half is: because 99% of the shittiest laws would
*NEVER* get passed if they had to stand on their own merits;
they onlyget passed because theyre tack-on to other bills in
the middle of the night.

Tesha

[Ezlivin]

6. Then Congress would HAVE TO WORK

OMG! We can't let that happen.

Seriously, my hair stylist puts in longer hours. Where is the selfless work of our so-called public servants?

I, too, await the answer with bated breath...

[MoseyWalker]

8. because they would need to get rid of lobbyists

and, though that needs to happen, I don't see it.

Everyone wants to sing to the choir when they're getting re-elected!

It's that plain and simple.

[yewberry]

9. Sure, it could be done.

Some states have, written into their state constitution, the requirement that bills must address a single issue. The requirements are usually something like, "No bill shall become a law which embraces more than one subject, that subject to be expressed in the title." That kind of provision would probably have to be added to the Constitution.

Here's the hard part: those omnibus bills that get weighed down with multiple riders are called "Christmas Tree bills," and you KNOW that O'Reilly and his ilk would get all up in arms about "those damned Democrats trying to ban Christmas trees!"

[benddem]

11. minimum wage has been brought up

as a single issue many times and shot down by the Repugs. This time they were feeling the heat, turns out the majority of Americans are for minimum wage increase. So the nice people in the majority did what they always do and try and hurt the dems. They linked the minimum wage with estate taxes and a dozen other poison pills so they could either go home and say they passed it OR say the democrats voted against raising the minimum wage. Shrugging their shoulders they could say we tried. I don't think it will pass muster if the SCLM will just report what they tried to do.

[TankLV]

15. We all know that. Your response doesn't address the original proposition.

We know WHY it's done, but what can be done to STOP this is THE question.

[TankLV]

13. Hell if I know. It's one of my pet peeves, too.

[benddem]

18. as long as the repugs are in charge

they will do what they want. They'd be the ones who'd have to make the laws...y' think they'd even consider it????

[zeemike]

16. No law is necessary

The rules comity could make it so if they wished to.

[matcom]

19. really? is it THAT simple?

what would it take to become LAW so it could transend EITHER party?

[MoseyWalker]

20. maybe you're right

and I'm wrong.

It happens!

Peace and good wishes.

Honestly, not in a bush kinda way!

[Cleita]

17. Also, why can't riders be outlawed?

I mean many a good legislation had failed because of "poison pill" riders attached to the bill.

[matcom]

21. kick

:kick:

[guardian]

30. What does "kick" mean?

I'm seeing replies in several posts with "kick" or "K&R" or similar. What does this mean?

[yewberry]

32. "Kick"

means posting in a thread and sending it back up to the top of the page. "K&R" means kicked and recommended, which means you've given a thread a recommendation for the greatest page. Once a thread gets enough votes, it gets added to the greatest page.

[bridgit]

22. that would make far too much sense...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Politicians thrive on pork filled diets and CYA attachments.

"I was voting for water purification in Strawberry Junction, Iowa that was attached to the Defense Budget, not the budget itself."

[SmokingJacket]

24. Because they don't WANT to!

If you actually get around to passing legislation, people are going to bring it up at election time.

SAYING you want to pass something, but claiming you can't, is so much easier.

Everyone in Washington is breathing a sigh of relief right now.

[AlGore-08.com]

25. Line item vetoes are another work around

They're less effective though, because there's no guaranteed that every future President would use them, or use them for the people's good...

[rug]

26. If they did, it'd have an ANWR rider attached.

[matcom]

28. kick for the weekend crowd

anyone have any idea how we can lobby to stop this madness?

[guardian]

29. Single-subject rule: a good idea

I agree. I'd love to see single-subject rules become the law of the land at local, state, and federal levels; for both ballot initiatives and legislatures.

Colorado passed a single subject rule to help ensure that such proposed law is clear and understandable to voters, and that proposed initiative won't hide purposes unrelated to the central theme.

I belive Illinois has a "single subject" rule for bills in the legislature.

So it can be done.

[matcom]

31. welcome to DU guardian

:hi:

so if it can be done on a local level, i'm wondering if it is fesabil on a national level? it would force these fuckers to stand up and vote so the electorate could know EXACTLY how they stand on issues.

i REALLY wonder if/how this could be done

[guardian]

33. Referendum

I seem to recall there being a Colorado referendum on the ballot 10-15 years ago where voters voted in the single subject rule. I'm sure activists in other states could just dig up the Colorado referendum language and try to get it on the ballot in their state.

Maybe DU could be a forum to try to get this started? Call your representatives and try to get things started.

[Philosoraptor]

34. EGG zackly! PREE cisely!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. It would be impossible to define.

You call "the minimum wage" an issue? But even a bill on the minimum wage will have multiple clauses - exceptions and qualifications and changes to definitions and such like.

If the senate had to vote separately on every paragraph - hell, every line would be necessary - then it would never pass *any* laws. For government to work, rafts of measures have to be voted on as clumps. And occasionly people will abuse that, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

So no, I'm afraid it's not practical or feasible.