Amendments for 'Fix' bill: 90.

[SirNitram]

Link

I'll just show some truly stupid ones.

Barton (TX) Would prevent this bill from taking effect until the Office of Management and Budget certifies that the federal budget deficit has been eliminated

Combine with GOP budget 'We don't have to pay for that', and it's an eternal limbo.

Barton (TX), Johnson, Sam (TX) Would require that all individuals under Medicaid have to demonstrate their identity and citizenship.

'You're a legal, approved immigrant? Too bad. NONE FOR YOU! DIE IN THE STREETS!'

Barton (TX) Would strike all taxes in the bill.

Because paying for it and paying down the deficit is against the GOP charter, apparently. Oi. Were they ever for fiscal responsibility? I mean, since Teddy Roosevelt?

Barton (TX)(Ed: Man, he's persistant) Would prevent the bill from taking effect until Medicare and Medicaid are solvent for the next 20 years.

Improbable, given you can't reliably predict the economy 20 years ahead.

Upton (MI) Would prohibit the bill from taking effect until the Medicare Trustees publish projections that show that Medicare is solvent for the next 30 years.

See above.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I hate Joe Barton... Unfortunately he is also my representative

[Pelranius]

The first time I had the misfortune of seeing him on air was when he was denying global warming in some BBC documentary about nine years ago. Judging from current news footage, he hasn't changed one iota. Though I think the insurance companies have their collective fist up his ass this time, instead of the oil companies.

[Phantasee]

How does this work? The amendments will have to be defeated one by one?

[Molyneux]

Are these still in-play, or what?
I personally wouldn't mind the individual mandate being removed (#66).

[SirNitram]

Are these still in-play, or what?
I personally wouldn't mind the individual mandate being removed (#66).

These are dead. The Senate will have even more stupid amendments soon, possibly starting the vote on 5pm.

Some of the stupid:

Vitter: Prohibiting use of funds to fund the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

ACORN folded, the courts stamped this down. Vitter shall continue his crusade against the Constitution for a bill of attainder.

Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT): To protect the democratic process and the right of the people of the District of Columbia to define marriage.

Apparently, he's upset that where he works now lets the dirty homosexuals marry.

Coburn: To require all Members of Congress to read a bill prior to casting on a vote on the bill.

There's people specifically employed for that. ANd do we really think the GOP would read aloud their tax-cuts-for-the-rich?

But the reality here is simple: If the GOP can change just ONE WORD of the bill before passage, it's punted back to the House.

[Darth Wong]

I don't know if Americans can appreciate how truly fucked-up your system is, because you're accustomed to it. It's symptomatic of the problems with the American governmental structure that people seriously thought it was some kind of extraordinary "ramming down our throats" action to pass a bill by having a body of elected representatives vote on it. That is the standard method through which all bills are passed in most democratic societies! And the obstructionism continues.

[eion]

I realize how dysfunctional the Senate has become, but the only way to change its rules is to involve even more of the dysfunctional assholes than is required to pass legislation through a filibuster (67 vs. 60), or to call for a constitutional convention and add an amendment restoring majority rules. In the ~81,000 days of our countries existence that procedure has never been attempted, let alone implemented.

It’s fucked up beyond all belief, but at this point it is kind of like being angry at gravity for making things fall. It’s a fact of political reality that the Senate will be the final resting place of so many promising bills. All you can do is engineer around it until the stink of their political intransigence kills them all dead.

[Themightytom]

I hate Joe Barton... Unfortunately he is also my representative

Yeah well I got fucked with judd Gregg so count your blessings

[Terralthra]

I realize how dysfunctional the Senate has become, but the only way to change its rules is to involve even more of the dysfunctional assholes than is required to pass legislation through a filibuster (67 vs. 60), or to call for a constitutional convention and add an amendment restoring majority rules. In the ~81,000 days of our countries existence that procedure has never been attempted, let alone implemented.

It’s fucked up beyond all belief, but at this point it is kind of like being angry at gravity for making things fall. It’s a fact of political reality that the Senate will be the final resting place of so many promising bills. All you can do is engineer around it until the stink of their political intransigence kills them all dead.

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about a filibuster. It's Senate bylaw, no more and no less. Changing it does not require a convention.

[eion]

I realize how dysfunctional the Senate has become, but the only way to change its rules is to involve even more of the dysfunctional assholes than is required to pass legislation through a filibuster (67 vs. 60), or to call for a constitutional convention and add an amendment restoring majority rules. In the ~81,000 days of our countries existence that procedure has never been attempted, let alone implemented.

It’s fucked up beyond all belief, but at this point it is kind of like being angry at gravity for making things fall. It’s a fact of political reality that the Senate will be the final resting place of so many promising bills. All you can do is engineer around it until the stink of their political intransigence kills them all dead.

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about a filibuster. It's Senate bylaw, no more and no less. Changing it does not require a convention.

Absolutely correct, but changing the Senate rules requires 67 Senators at present, unless someone finds a parliamentary loophole or a court rules the filibuster unconstitutional. The only way to bypass the legislature entirely that I know of is by constitutional convention or through the courts.

[loomer]

Wait, senators aren't required to read the bills they pass? That's fucked.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Wait, senators aren't required to read the bills they pass? That's fucked.

Nobody in either branch of Congress is required to read them, and since they're thousands of pages long, nobody does, they just rely on their staffers to prepare powerpoints for them to decide whether or not to support them.

[Darth Holbytlan]

Absolutely correct, but changing the Senate rules requires 67 Senators at present, unless someone finds a parliamentary loophole or a court rules the filibuster unconstitutional. The only way to bypass the legislature entirely that I know of is by constitutional convention or through the courts.

Didn't we just cover this a month ago? I don't think the parliamentary loopholes we discussed have disappeared since then.

[Flagg]

I don't know if Americans can appreciate how truly fucked-up your system is, because you're accustomed to it. It's symptomatic of the problems with the American governmental structure that people seriously thought it was some kind of extraordinary "ramming down our throats" action to pass a bill by having a body of elected representatives vote on it. That is the standard method through which all bills are passed in most democratic societies! And the obstructionism continues.

I think when most people finally learned just exactly what a filibuster was, they started to have an inkling. The real problem is that IIRC the US Constitution doesn't make rules for the legislature other than that there has to be 2 houses of congress and how many members each state will get. I think it's actually perfectly constitutional for the house or senate to pass a rule requiring a unanimous decision to pass bills.

[eion]

Absolutely correct, but changing the Senate rules requires 67 Senators at present, unless someone finds a parliamentary loophole or a court rules the filibuster unconstitutional. The only way to bypass the legislature entirely that I know of is by constitutional convention or through the courts.

Didn't we just cover this a month ago? I don't think the parliamentary loopholes we discussed have disappeared since then.

But even the groupthink Republicans lacked the muster to eliminate the filibuster via the nuclear option, probably for the same reason the Democrats are reluctant to do so: they knew that one day they would again be in the minority. So it would be unwise for them to eliminate the minorities' greatest weapon in the Senate.

The courts or a constitutional amendment, or an election of enough Senators on an anti-filibuster slate, are the only things that could conceivably be used to return majority rules to the Senate.

[Serafina]

Wait, senators aren't required to read the bills they pass? That's fucked.

A proper bill shoul be long and detailed.
Instead of having dozens of representatives wasting time on that, why not appoint a few experts to trust to give you a readout on what it actually says?

It works that way in most democracies, and i see nothing wrong with that.

[Darth Wong]

Wait, senators aren't required to read the bills they pass? That's fucked.

A proper bill shoul be long and detailed.

Canada's Health Act is only 14 pages long. The ridiculous size of American bills seems to be due to the incredibly convoluted and obstruction-friendly process they have, which encourages the addition of endless clarifications, amendments, and add-ons to make every single member of government happy before something finally passes.

Instead of having dozens of representatives wasting time on that, why not appoint a few experts to trust to give you a readout on what it actually says?

It works that way in most democracies, and i see nothing wrong with that.

I would be curious how long most bills are in most countries.

[Knife]

I don't know if Americans can appreciate how truly fucked-up your system is, because you're accustomed to it. It's symptomatic of the problems with the American governmental structure that people seriously thought it was some kind of extraordinary "ramming down our throats" action to pass a bill by having a body of elected representatives vote on it. That is the standard method through which all bills are passed in most democratic societies! And the obstructionism continues.

I think when most people finally learned just exactly what a filibuster was, they started to have an inkling. The real problem is that IIRC the US Constitution doesn't make rules for the legislature other than that there has to be 2 houses of congress and how many members each state will get. I think it's actually perfectly constitutional for the house or senate to pass a rule requiring a unanimous decision to pass bills.

Indeed, it is specifically outlined that the Congress makes it's own rules on how to govern themselves. They, the ruling majority, could in reality just make a rule dumping the old rules and it is constitutional. The only thing stopping it is bureaucratic momentum.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

The majority could just change the rules, nothing unconstitutional about it.

Edit: Poking around, it seems the change in 1975 was a result of a 56-26 vote. Simple majority rewrote the rules. Hmm, if only we had a simple majority.

[Connor MacLeod]

Canada's Health Act is only 14 pages long. The ridiculous size of American bills seems to be due to the incredibly convoluted and obstruction-friendly process they have, which encourages the addition of endless clarifications, amendments, and add-ons to make every single member of government happy before something finally passes.

It probably has other purposes than just that. Not only are huge bills like that easier to hide those "add ons" you reference (you could literally add anything) but the long and convoluted process probably makes it nigh-impossible for the "common man" (who is supposed to be able to make 'informed' decisions, remember.)

Nevermind it probably also exists just to justify the existence of lawyers, bureacrats and other sorts who would be neccessary to deal with this long and convoluted process. Corruption/greed and information control seem to be the primary bywords for how the American government operates. Oh, and propoganda. Americans do seem to love drama.

[Darth Holbytlan]

But even the groupthink Republicans lacked the muster to eliminate the filibuster via the nuclear option, probably for the same reason the Democrats are reluctant to do so: they knew that one day they would again be in the minority. So it would be unwise for them to eliminate the minorities' greatest weapon in the Senate.

But you were comparing that to a constitutional convention. Considering that the Democrats have used such loopholes in the past to change filibuster rules, it's hardly reasonable to ignore it when listing possible ways they could be changed.

Also, Republican group think actually benefits them disproportionately in executing a filibuster, so their failure to use their group think to get rid of it is not really a surprise. This is likely why Republicans have always talked about killing filibusters while Democrats have actually acted.

The courts or a constitutional amendment, or an election of enough Senators on an anti-filibuster slate, are the only things that could conceivably be used to return majority rules to the Senate.

Given that this has happened before without any of those things, I think you are being too pessimistic about the chances. Completely eliminating filibuster would require a majority to be convinced that it is necessary, but with the Republicans continuing to milk it for all it's worth, it is a real possibility. Though I suspect Democrats are more likely to just modify cloture again.

[eion]

<snip>

Agreed. I guess if the passage of HC reform has taught us anything it's that if backed into a corner long enough, democrats can get something done. Thank goodness for Scott Brown getting elected and forcing them to stop searching for that magic bill that pleases 60.

[Molyneux]

<snip>

Agreed. I guess if the passage of HC reform has taught us anything it's that if backed into a corner long enough, democrats can get something done. Thank goodness for Scott Brown getting elected and forcing them to stop searching for that magic bill that pleases 60.

Indeed.
Now, let's see about pinning down Obama on all those executive-power promises he's been slacking off on!