https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_(legislation)
Riders are the biggest bullshit in government. How do we make them illegal?
Serious discussion only please.
>>67207734
>Serious discussion only please.
I knew this would be too much for you.
>>67207734
Riders are necessary for compromise in legislative politics.
Think about it. Without riders, other parties would never vote for other party's laws, since the other parties get nothing out of the law. No new laws would ever get passed.
Which is a libertarian's wet dream.
You know what, banning riders seems like a good idea now.
>>67208331
You don't see this as generating grid lock on popular opinion and fundamentally destroying democracy?
>>67210441
It says in the Wikipedia when it's used just to prevent bills it has a specific name. Why not just ban that buddy?
>>67207734
The following constitutional amendment would fix many, many issues with nearly all modern republics:
AMENDMENT XXVIII
Section I; A bill may only be amended by Congress if the proposed amendment has a direct tie to the core nature or spirit of the bill.
Section II; All legislature passed by Congress shall expire no more than six years after its induction.
Section III; As of the passing of this amendment, all laws not set to expire within four years shall expire in four years time.
It would cut so much of the bloat out of the last 250 years of accumulated law, and with it nearly all loopholes. Newly proposed laws to replace the soon-to-sunset would be forced to be simple and straightforward in nature.
>>67207734
>serious discussion only please
POO POO NIGGERS
>>67211187
riders are like adding random extra variables to a program. it fucks shit up
>>67211662
I like this idea of auto dying bills, but on the other hand, what if we forget about re-upping on anti-slavery?
Also where do you get the 4-6 years from? Why not a bit longer?
>>67207734
http://love.house.gov/press-releases/new-bill-limits-bills-to-one-subject-at-a-time/
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4335/text?q={%22search%22%3A[%224335%22]}&resultIndex=1
There is currently a bill designed to put an end to this corruption. Write letters to your congressman tell them to vote for the "one subject at a time" act.
>>67212049
The senate version of the bill:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1572
>>67211958
Anti-slavery is in the constitution now. As written, constitutional amendments don't drop off.
As far as the time-frames, 6 comes from the term length for the senate. 4 was arbitrary, something short enough to take effect soon, but long enough to prepare replacement laws.
>>67212049
>>67212462
holy shit this is wonderful. any idea if it'll get passed or not?
>>67212603
Cool, then I agree with your proposals. Anything currently in the works for this? Has it been shot down in the past I wonder?
>>67212683
Govtrack says 0% so probably not
>>67212971
I see that but it doesn't really explain why or anything. It seems more like it's just saying "Most bills don't get passed so this one probably won't" and it'll go up in percentage as it moves further along in the process (if it gets popular).
Right now the bill is in its first political step. I suppose I'm more curious about the climate around it. Are there big opponents to it? Is the media against it?
>>67213232
Well the opponents would be those who put unrelated legislation into bills that are likely to pass so they don't have to do any real work gaining support.
The media is also against it (Corporate interests) which is why it won't be covered (not that they often cover bills anyway)
Best advice: Get involved. Like I said write your congressman, tell people, let people know what the media won't tell them.
>>67213232
Ask yourself: Would our modern Senate vote away its own power?
The answer is no, followed by derisive laughter. Frankly the only way something like this could get through would be an amendment to the constitution via the 2/3 state legislature method. The individual states are far more likely to vote power away from the feds, but it is still improbable.
>>67213984
Cool, thanks for the advice.
Does it work like that for everything? States can just vote 2/3 for anything?
