The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Gun Dog Broker
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Yardley, A Little Help Please

  1. #1
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Royse City, TX
    Posts
    5,005

    Default Yardley, A Little Help Please

    It's been a long time since I took a Civics class. Why is it that the Senate (I assume the Majority leader) can tack on to a bill another item which has nothing to do with the original bill? Case in point is Reid adding the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell" and the Dream Act to the pending Defense Policy Bill.

    I know why they do it but why is it allowed? It's probably done with every bill that's passed but with the Senate's reputation of not reading bills this may be where a lot of the crap comes from.
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

  2. #2
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M&K's Retrievers View Post
    It's been a long time since I took a Civics class. Why is it that the Senate (I assume the Majority leader) can tack on to a bill another item which has nothing to do with the original bill? Case in point is Reid adding the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell" and the Dream Act to the pending Defense Policy Bill.

    I know why they do it but why is it allowed? It's probably done with every bill that's passed but with the Senate's reputation of not reading bills this may be where a lot of the crap comes from.
    In both houses. amendments are the norm. The more popular the base legislation, the more lkely it is to be amended. While there is no requirement that amendments be related to the underlying bill, a defense appropriation bill is clearly a legitimate place to consider an amendment affecting military procedures and law.

    The amendment in question was submitted by Congressman Patrick Murphy -- my congressman -- last May. It was included in the Defense Appropriation bill adopted by the House. A parallel amendment was included in the Senate bill by committee vote (16-12). Since it has already been included in the House version of the appropriation bill, I would assume that Senate rules governing reconciliation bills would ultimately apply once a reconciliation bill emerges from Committee. That would limit the ability of Senators to filibuster the bill without rejecting the entire appropriation bill. The only involvement of Reid in this process is that he has stated that he will be bringing the appropriation bill up for a vote next week. Scheduling (or refusing to schedule) bills is something that the Majority Leader directs with fairly broad latitude.

    The Murphy amendment does not repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" policy. What it does is require a Pentagon study of the effects of changing the policy. If the Pentagon determines that a change to the policy would not negatively affect military readiness, and the President subsequently certifies that report, the policy would be reversed. This legislative approach is expected to proceed without regard to the court judgment reversing the current DADT law.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    In both houses. amendments are the norm. The more popular the base legislation, the more lkely it is to be amended. While there is no requirement that amendments be related to the underlying bill, a defense appropriation bill is clearly a legitimate place to consider an amendment affecting military procedures and law.

    The amendment in question was submitted by Congressman Patrick Murphy -- my congressman -- last May. It was included in the Defense Appropriation bill adopted by the House. A parallel amendment was included in the Senate bill by committee vote (16-12). Since it has already been included in the House version of the appropriation bill, I would assume that Senate rules governing reconciliation bills would ultimately apply once a reconciliation bill emerges from Committee. That would limit the ability of Senators to filibuster the bill without rejecting the entire appropriation bill. The only involvement of Reid in this process is that he has stated that he will be bringing the appropriation bill up for a vote next week. Scheduling (or refusing to schedule) bills is something that the Majority Leader directs with fairly broad latitude.

    The Murphy amendment does not repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" policy. What it does is require a Pentagon study of the effects of changing the policy. If the Pentagon determines that a change to the policy would not negatively affect military readiness, and the President subsequently certifies that report, the policy would be reversed. This legislative approach is expected to proceed without regard to the court judgment reversing the current DADT law.
    Not sure how true it is (never went through the records and looked) but one interview i saw Bush do either near the end of his term or right after he was saying the reason he didn't veto more bills is because a lot of the spending he signed into law was attached to military appropriation bills. The idea being he wouldn't not sign a military funding bill so it would be easier to get their agenda through.

  4. #4
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    The Constitution tells the legislative branch WHAT to do, but not very much about HOW to go about it. Both houses of congress establish their own procedural rules, and left to their own devices, is it any wonder they allow for such shenanigans? Of course, this makes it much easier for lobbyists to have a say in the process, which is the root of much of our problems on both sides of the aisle.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  5. #5
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Royse City, TX
    Posts
    5,005

    Default

    Perhaps this should be addressed.
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

  6. #6
    Senior Member JDogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MRGV New Mexico
    Posts
    3,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M&K's Retrievers View Post
    Perhaps this should be addressed.
    Anyone? anyone? Bueller?
    One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

  7. #7
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Royse City, TX
    Posts
    5,005

    Default

    Not ever gonna happen, is it?
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

  8. #8
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M&K's Retrievers View Post
    Not ever gonna happen, is it?
    As long as those who do the addressin' are making big bucks, don't expect any addressin'!
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •