H.R.3806 — One Subject at a Time Act

[Samson]

Perhaps we should picket Congress, singing (to the tune of 'one day at a time, sweet Jesus)

One bill at a time, damned Congress
That's what we're demanding of you.
Just give us the bill
You know the drill
One bill at a time.

I volunteer to take a crap on the lawn of the capital whilst cameras roll.

 

[freedombecki]

I thought it might be kind of cool to see if there are bills that both Dems and GOP support... kind of 'if we can agree, why can't congress' kind of thing.

So, to start with: Bill HR 3806 - One Subject at a Time Act

What does it do: To end the practice of including more than one subject in a single bill by requiring that each bill enacted by Congress be limited to only one subject, and for other purposes.

The 'no piggybacking' bill.

I support it. Far too often, bills are used by partisan hacks in congress to force the other side to vote against a good bill because of the shit that gets tacked on. This, in turn, leads one side to accuse the other of some bullshit... a classic example is 'the XXX hate the troops because they voted down XXX'. I think this disgusting, divisive practice is used to divide Americans and divert attention from our utterly incompetent congress critters.

Read the bill:

The bill H.R.3806 from congress to force congress not to be corrupt: One Subject at a Time Act – To end the practice of including more than one subject in a single bill by requiring that each bill enacted by Congress be limited to only one subj

So, guy... what say you? One subject at a time... or bullshit as usual?

It depends on the kind of amendments they tack onto the bill.

 

[WillowTree]

I'd love to hear what some of our intelligent liberals on the board think.

the cricket army is amassing.. wait for it.

 

[California Girl]

I'd love to hear what some of our intelligent liberals on the board think.

the cricket army is amassing.. wait for it.

Granted, it will be too hard for the borg to deal with - because the media haven't instructed them how to respond. But I have high hopes that the elite liberals of USMB will respond. I know some smart libs here.

 

[Full-Auto]

Perhaps we should picket Congress, singing (to the tune of 'one day at a time, sweet Jesus)

One bill at a time, damned Congress
That's what we're demanding of you.
Just give us the bill
You know the drill
One bill at a time.

I volunteer to take a crap on the lawn of the capital whilst cameras roll.

Cool..

Pay no attention to the wires. Homeland security mandate you understand.

No no a bit more to the left.. Perfect!!! Now smile

 

[Samson]

I'd love to hear what some of our intelligent liberals on the board think.

the cricket army is amassing.. wait for it.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I'd love to hear what some of our intelligent liberals on the board think.

I don't think Jillian is on right now.

maybe Dean or Chris can fill in.....

 

[Samson]

I'd love to hear what some of our intelligent liberals on the board think.

I don't think Jillian is on right now.

maybe Dean or Chris can fill in.....

They'll say it is a ridiculous idea...would you like to know why?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'd love to hear what some of our intelligent liberals on the board think.

I don't think Jillian is on right now.

maybe Dean or Chris can fill in.....

Cali said intelligent

 

[Conservative]

I don't think Jillian is on right now.

maybe Dean or Chris can fill in.....

Cali said intelligent

what would you know about intelligent, you narcisstic little fuckwad?

Say nothing about what is in PM's-Meister

 

[Harry Dresden]

I don't think Jillian is on right now.

maybe Dean or Chris can fill in.....

Cali said intelligent

well Dean claims he is right 99.9999% of the time.....so i guess that would make him a bright guy....and Chris thinks his shit dont stink,only yours......

 

[konradv]

I'd love to hear what some of our intelligent liberals on the board think.

Good idea, but doesn't solve the root problem of government, the auction of votes to special interests for campaign contributions.

 

[California Girl]

I'd love to hear what some of our intelligent liberals on the board think.

Good idea, but doesn't solve the root problem of government, the auction of votes to special interests for campaign contributions.

If Americans could learn to work together - left and right - on the areas where we agree: such as insider trading, piggybacking... and, dare I hope, earmarking.... we could, in theory, eat this elephant.... one bite at a time.

 

[konradv]

I'd love to hear what some of our intelligent liberals on the board think.

Good idea, but doesn't solve the root problem of government, the auction of votes to special interests for campaign contributions.

If Americans could learn to work together - left and right - on the areas where we agree: such as insider trading, piggybacking... and, dare I hope, earmarking.... we could, in theory, eat this elephant.... one bite at a time.

I agree, the elephant is the problem.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

maybe Dean or Chris can fill in.....

Cali said intelligent

well Dean claims he is right 99.9999% of the time.....so i guess that would make him a bright guy....and Chris thinks his shit dont stink,only yours......

Making a claim of being intelligent and showing intelligence is too different things

 

[California Girl]

Good idea, but doesn't solve the root problem of government, the auction of votes to special interests for campaign contributions.

If Americans could learn to work together - left and right - on the areas where we agree: such as insider trading, piggybacking... and, dare I hope, earmarking.... we could, in theory, eat this elephant.... one bite at a time.

I agree, the elephant is the problem.

Yea, thanks for - again - proving that partisan sniping is more important to you than the country. It is, frankly, why I rarely make an effort to engage in any intelligent discussion on this board. I promised a liberal buddy that I would try and I have.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I’d rather read about the House enacting legislation to assist the current economic recovery and job creation, not measures designed to get their authors reelected.

The House is doing a dreadful job of prioritizing.

 

[Amelia]

I thought it might be kind of cool to see if there are bills that both Dems and GOP support... kind of 'if we can agree, why can't congress' kind of thing.

So, to start with: Bill HR 3806 - One Subject at a Time Act

What does it do: To end the practice of including more than one subject in a single bill by requiring that each bill enacted by Congress be limited to only one subject, and for other purposes.

The 'no piggybacking' bill.

I support it. Far too often, bills are used by partisan hacks in congress to force the other side to vote against a good bill because of the shit that gets tacked on. This, in turn, leads one side to accuse the other of some bullshit... a classic example is 'the XXX hate the troops because they voted down XXX'. I think this disgusting, divisive practice is used to divide Americans and divert attention from our utterly incompetent congress critters.

Read the bill:

The bill H.R.3806 from congress to force congress not to be corrupt: One Subject at a Time Act – To end the practice of including more than one subject in a single bill by requiring that each bill enacted by Congress be limited to only one subj

So, guy... what say you? One subject at a time... or bullshit as usual?

That could lead to lawsuits based on semantics. If someone doesn't like the new law they could tie it up in the courts if they found a clever way to claim that it was actually about two different issues which should have been handled separately.

We had something like that in Wisconsin about 4 years ago. An amendment to our constitution was approved by two sessions of the legislature and then ratified in a statewide election. ... and then someone took it to court because they said it was actually two separate issues and our constitution requires amendments to be one issue at a time. I don't think they won in this particular case but I don't think that will stop people from trying to challenge federal laws that way.


I have other potential problems with the "one subject at a time" notion, one being how inefficient and even broken things could get when people try to make the phrasing of the legislation bullet-proof.

You could have something where 10 single subject bills would all need to be passed to solve a problem and 9 get passed but people drag their heels on the 10th and then the rest could end up being like a bridge to nowhere.

 

[California Girl]

I thought it might be kind of cool to see if there are bills that both Dems and GOP support... kind of 'if we can agree, why can't congress' kind of thing.

So, to start with: Bill HR 3806 - One Subject at a Time Act

What does it do: To end the practice of including more than one subject in a single bill by requiring that each bill enacted by Congress be limited to only one subject, and for other purposes.

The 'no piggybacking' bill.

I support it. Far too often, bills are used by partisan hacks in congress to force the other side to vote against a good bill because of the shit that gets tacked on. This, in turn, leads one side to accuse the other of some bullshit... a classic example is 'the XXX hate the troops because they voted down XXX'. I think this disgusting, divisive practice is used to divide Americans and divert attention from our utterly incompetent congress critters.

Read the bill:

The bill H.R.3806 from congress to force congress not to be corrupt: One Subject at a Time Act – To end the practice of including more than one subject in a single bill by requiring that each bill enacted by Congress be limited to only one subj

So, guy... what say you? One subject at a time... or bullshit as usual?

That could lead to lawsuits based on semantics. If someone doesn't like the new law they could tie it up in the courts if they found a clever way to claim that it was actually about two different issues which should have been handled separately.

We had something like that in Wisconsin about 4 years ago. An amendment to our constitution was approved by two sessions of the legislature and then ratified in a statewide election. ... and then someone took it to court because they said it was actually two separate issues and our constitution requires amendments to be one issue at a time. I don't think they won in this particular case but I don't think that will stop people from trying to challenge federal laws that way.


I have other potential problems with the "one subject at a time" notion, one being how inefficient and even broken things could get when people try to make the phrasing of the legislation bullet-proof.

You could have something where 10 single subject bills would all need to be passed to solve a problem and 9 get passed but people drag their hills on the 10th and then the rest could end up being like a bridge to nowhere.

Good point. And I can see the 'law of unintended consequences' coming into play in this. Clearly, we do need to find some way of stopping the current clusterfuck though. Because it is outrageous to keep attaching crap to good bills in order to either pass the crap that should not be passed, or blame the other guys for not passing a good bill. Far too often the issue gets overlooked with partisan sniping.

 

[Greenbeard]

Why is such legislation necessary?