"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
.70...
"Ed Huntress" fired this volley in
:


It really isn't worth getting worked up about. It's an attempt to keep
underhanded amendments from defeating the function of the legislation
by the back door. It's been done before.



You didn't quite word that right, Ed. It's an UNDERHANDED attempt to keep
amendments from the defeating the function...

LLoyd

Nope, I had it right, Lloyd. If you do some checking, you'll see that this
phrasing has been used for similar purposes in the past.

The "amendments" we're talking about are irrelevant, and sneaky, snipes
taken at the legislation by adding an amendment to an unrelated bill. It's
been decades since I studied this stuff in college but I remember one issue
that was related to it. After the Civil Rights Act was passed, some southern
legislators tried to sneak an amendment into a military funding bill that
would have gutted the CRA. Who can vote against a military funding bill in
the middle of a war?

That kind of sneakiness is exactly what these provisions are intended to
prevent. And it's really a moderate, and weak protection. If Congress wants
to be forthright and vote specifically about provisions of this bill at some
time in the future, or even completely overturn it, they can do so.

Of course, people opposed to the bill are going to scream bloody murder.
Some of their bag of tricks have become complicated, because they'd have to
come out in the open with their opposition. Of course, they're probably
among those who have used these procedural methods in the past, on other
issues. They're counting on us not noticing There's a LOT of that going on
with the health care bill.

--
Ed Huntress