General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf no one will claim inserting the Citibank provision into the spending bill then it is not legal.
Who's to say that it wasn't some staffer who just decided to take it upon themselves. No measure can be passed without someone who is authorized to insert legislation and we would win a law suit. That's what my neighbor just said and I agree so, either whoever did it needs to come forward or Harry Reid must declare it void.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Quote from article:
"Yoder has been mum about the spending package since it passed the House. His office hasn't responded to multiple requests for comment on why he slipped the Citigroup language into it. The press statements on his website say nothing about the provision or the spending bill. There are no posts about it on his Facebook page. He's said nothing in his Twitter feed."
And it seems, his republican constituents aren't too happy with him either.
I think, "key-architect of the next Wall Street-bailout" has a nice ring to it.
Faux pas
(14,691 posts)off subject, where are you in Oregon OregonBlue?
OregonBlue
(7,754 posts)Closest traffic light is 35 miles away. Perfect. And you?
halfway between Lincoln City and Otis. Almost perfect except for summer traffic. Nice to meet you
OregonBlue
(7,754 posts)whole state is beautiful. It's high and dry where I live but very, very beautiful. On the White River in the rain shadow of Mount Hood. We are all so lucky to live here!!
Faux pas
(14,691 posts)And even more lucky since we went blue.
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)Is there some provision in the Constitution, or U.S. Code, or case law to support that claim?
Shouldn't it be assumed that the legislators read what they are voting on? We know they don't, but shouldn't they?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Please provide a reference for your assertion that this breaks any law, senate rule, or constitutional provision.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)OregonBlue
(7,754 posts)don't think they can. I thought (while a staff person might actually take it to the clerk) it had to be in the name of a member of congress. If not, what's to stop me from inserting a provision if I want to?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)They have a word for stupid shit written by lobbyists and approved by the governing body; "laws".
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)A large amount of bills are written mostly by lobbyists. Just because no one takes direct blame/credit
for a portion of a final bill making it out of a committee doesn't in any way invalidate it.
A few bills have passed with provisions no one was willing to admit they were responsible for (no one
seems to be sure who wrote certain parts of the 1,000+ page PPACA for example).
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If it's a committee amendment, then there's no particular need for that, and effectively the committee chair is the member who "adds" all language.
OregonBlue
(7,754 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Each chamber sets its own rules and is responsible for maintaining them; I can't think of any court that would step in to that morass.