Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Senate Approves the ______Act Of____

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the need-to-know-basis dept.

Idle 571

An anonymous reader writes "Apparently the Senate was in such a rush to get out of town that it forgot to name an 'important' bill that it passed, so the bill goes to the House as The ______Act of____. That's how it appears in the Congressional Record, though the Library of Congress has it listed as The XXXXXXAct ofXXXX. As for what's in the bill, well that appears to be as mysterious as the name. It was officially announced as a bill to tax bonuses to execs who received TARP money. But then someone simply deleted the entire bill and replaced it with text about aviation security. And then it was deleted again, and replaced with something having to do with education. However, because of these constant changes, many of the services that track the bill have the old details listed. On top of that, Nancy Pelosi called the House back for an emergency vote on this unnamed bill, and anyone trying to find out what it's about might be misled into thinking its about aviation security or something entirely unrelated to the actual bill. And people wonder why no one trusts Congress." It appears that the government's new martial law plans are being passed after all.

cancel ×

571 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

o rly? (2, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204770)

At this point, why don't they just write (or print) these things with dissappearing ink? It's not like they look at it again once it gets voted on.

"Wait, we aren't supposed to do this...isn't this against the law since we passed ::insert random bill::"

"What the hell are you talking about?"

Spending (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33204848)

When spending is the primary objective, it hardly matters what you call it or even if you read it. What matters is that you get to control the flow of cash, which means (caution: big scary secret) that you get first dibs on exploiting that power for personal gain.

Re:o rly? (2, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204886)

Disappearing ink is used for Ethic's rules.I heard it also is used with campaign promises and that check in the mail.

Congress has long been like this, they just haven't been so cavalier about it. When one party leads the Congress and the Presidency the American people will get the shaft. The real problem now is that instead of the press harping on every thing the Congress and Presidency did while under Republicans they have suddenly clammed up.

So the people are left with one choice, the ballot box. Hopefully most will make the choice to boot incumbents out. Because as we all know, Congress sucks but not my Congressman. This is the perception that allows these people to stay in power, that and writing laws making it near impossible for any challenge to Democratic or Republican parties

Re:o rly? (3, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204942)

The real problem now is that instead of the press harping on every thing the Congress and Presidency did while under Republicans they have suddenly clammed up.

Well thank God Fox News is finally off the air... wait, what?

Re:o rly? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205058)

The real problem now is that instead of the press harping on every thing the Congress and Presidency did while under Republicans they have suddenly clammed up.

What? Not a day goes by that I don't see something in the mainstream media bitching about what Congress is or isn't doing.

I think you may have selective sight, hearing, and/or reading skills.

Re:o rly? (5, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205178)

When one party leads the Congress and the Presidency the American people will get the shaft.

Agreed.

The real problem now is that instead of the press harping on every thing the Congress and Presidency did while under Republicans they have suddenly clammed up.

I guess that depends on what "press" you're listening to.

I was shocked and appalled at how much the Bush administration got away with. It didn't seem like anybody was holding them accountable. Sure, there was some noise about this or that... Primarily on the "liberal" channels like MSNBC... But nothing of any substance at all.

These days the "liberal" channels don't seem all that concerned about what Obama is doing. The "conservative" channels like Fox News, however, are plenty noisy. And you still get the occasional complaint out of someone on MSNBC that Obama isn't being "liberal" enough. But again it's still just noise with no substance at all.

Nobody is holding any of these folks accountable for their actions. It doesn't matter if there's a D or an R next to the name, they're all lying through their teeth and getting away with it.

Not even the usual campaign promise white lies either... Straight-up, stupidly blatant stuff like saying "I support this" on Monday, and then claiming on Tuesday that you never said you supported anything, even while the tape rolls on-screen. And nobody cares!

Re:o rly? (1)

brwski (622056) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205222)

Oh, that Ethic and his crazy rules! I'm SO sick of him...

Re:o rly? (1)

unix1 (1667411) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205270)

When one party leads the Congress and the Presidency the American people will get the shaft.

I'm not sure who said this but - two is only one better.

Hopefully most will make the choice to boot incumbents out.

Hopefully not. People should be voting for a person they want in, not because they want to vote someone else out. But that may not be feasible when they only have 2 choices.

Re:o rly? (3, Funny)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205014)

Re:o rly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33205128)

I thought maybe they finally settled this debate [theonion.com] .

Re:o rly? (4, Funny)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205148)

"It's not like they look at it again once it gets voted on."

Again?
You are not seriously implying that you think they read it even once?

Re:o rly? (1)

Monchanger (637670) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205180)

"Wait, we aren't supposed to do this...isn't this against the law since we passed ::insert random bill::"

No no no- you don't understand how government works. Since Congress is the one writing laws, it can't actually break them (as a group through passing legislation, that is. Individually, they can and do break all sorts of laws; ethics violations are quite separate).

Congress is only limited by the constitution, though it requires the judicial to rein in an overstepping legislature. When congress writes a law that conflicts with another it's still up to a judge to determine where and how to resolve them if congress doesn't seek to fix the issue themselves with a correction or repeal.

Only the executive branch and the people (again, including individual legislators) are required to follow the law. And yes, we do ask that "What the hell are you talking about?" question.

Re:o rly? (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205240)

That really depends on if the purpose of the law is to say what they can do (healthcare) or what they can't do (constitution). One gets used, the other ignored. Guess which.

Re:o rly? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205242)

Although originally, I would think that it's laziness, if it's this easy for them to have a template for a bill, why don't they do something to make it easily trackable when people are making changes (version tracking)?

Re:o rly? (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205350)

It's not like they look at it again once it gets voted on.

How can they read it "again", when they don't read them in the first place? I'll bet that the "problem" was not found by any member of congress. They don't care. It could be a law legalizing rape and murder, and they would vote for it, then stand in front of TV cameras blaiming the whole mess on George W Bush. The only thing they care about is keeping their jobs, and all the perks that go with it, but not in doing their jobs..

We are blessed (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33204786)

We are blessed with the most incompetent congress I can remember.

Re:We are blessed (3, Funny)

dk90406 (797452) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205160)

I beg your pardon? The XXXXXXAct ofXXXX is obviously about porn! Look at all the XXX - they are obviously just very excited.

Re:We are blessed (3, Insightful)

Monchanger (637670) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205208)

Short memory. The curse of the American people...

Re:We are blessed (2)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205278)

Incompetent implies they don't know what they are doing. I'm sure that there is actually a very carefully wrought plan in action.

Re:We are blessed (1)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205338)

They're not incompetent! This bill is the epitome of democracy: it's a Congressional Mad Lib, where The People get to write The Bill.

  • Title, first blank: slang word for excrement.
  • Title, second blank: mental disorder.

The rest of the bill is entirely made up of adjectives, expletives, and the names of various Congressional representatives. Organize them at will.

Bureaucracy (2, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204814)

When the system for legislation gets so confusing that not even the people passing the bills can keep it straight, I think it shows that there is some fundamental flaw in the system, or it didn't scale well or something.

Do we have to go back to Schoolhouse Rock?

Re:Bureaucracy (2, Funny)

morari (1080535) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205134)

I'm just a bill.
Yes, I'm only a bill.
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.

You've gotta be secretive... (-1, Troll)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204818)

....when you use taxpayer funds to bail out UPS and the Teamsters Union.

No One Trusts Them (3, Insightful)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204824)

But they keep voting for them.

Re:No One Trusts Them (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205142)

No one votes FOR a candidate, everyone votes AGAINST the "other guy". That's the only way to explain Pelosi, Obama, Bush, Hatch, Stevens...

Re:No One Trusts Them (1)

mrsurb (1484303) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205146)

Don't blame me - I voted for Kodos.

Re:No One Trusts Them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33205166)

not much of a choice

it boiled down in my state to

Take America back to its Christian roots

or

We will fight back against Obama

so either I vote for jesus or mr treason, why the fuck bother, the few people that actually had some form of reconcilable intelligence never even made it to the ballot

Very simple explanation (4, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205236)

It works very much like public schools. People will bemoan the fact that schools are not doing well, except the school their child attends.

The same logic is used when voting for the incumbent. Congress is awful, but not my Congressman.

We won't get these guys out until our political process is open to everyone fairly. As it stands now it is near impossible to get a non Democratic or non Republican elected. They can redistrict that possibility out. If they cannot do that way they will make your source of campaign funding illegal, or you method of distributing your message.

Re:No One Trusts Them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33205306)

Kent: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.

Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of --

Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.

Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill? [everyone boos]

Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]

Kent: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.

The Simpson - Bart's Comet

Ugh! (2, Interesting)

PsychoElf (571371) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204828)

Bah! I can't wait for the zombie hordes to attack so we don't have to worry about stuff like this anymore...BRAAAINZZZZZ!!!!!

Re:Ugh! (4, Funny)

robnator (250608) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205074)

If the Zombies are after brains, they should steer clear of Washington, D.C.

Re:Ugh! (1)

slgrimes (974517) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205172)

Allow me to correct that for you: "If the Zombies are after brains, the WOULD steer clear of Washington, D.C.". Hell, it'll probably be the safest place in the country once the zombies start swarming: after all, you don't go looking for apples in a pear tree. You are welcome!

Re:Ugh! (1)

slgrimes (974517) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205192)

Bah, I can't even post a correction properly. Make it "THEY WOULD" and I'd have had it right!

Any objections? (2, Insightful)

jwthompson2 (749521) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204830)

At this stage are there any objections to simply unseating every single encumbent? Certainly a large influx of "freshmen" to the halls of congress couldn't make matters any worse.

Re:Any objections? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33204874)

Wholeheartedly agree!

Re:Any objections? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33205008)

what makes you think the folks who would replace them would be better?

it takes a certain set of skills to be elected to public office, and i'm not always positive those are the same skills necessary to be effective/reasonable/useful in the legislature

it's not the incumbents that are the problem, i think it's the process...unfortunately, as with most people on slashdot, i have a description of the problem but not better solution to suggest

Re:Any objections? (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205310)

The problem is the professional politician. Recently there has been a lot more support for candidates from the private sector who have never held office.

Re:Any objections? (2, Interesting)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205012)

I'm all in favor of a "Recall them All" option every election. Which if it wins, all INCOMBENTS are summarily fired and forbidden from holding any elected office (everywhere) or position in any firm that Lobbies Congress.

It is high time the elites in DC learn that we're sick to death of the crap they feed us, but refuse to eat themselves. If it is so good for me and mine, why the hell are you exempted? HUH?

By the way, when was the last time you read the entire Declaration of Independence? THE WHOLE THING? I challenge each and every US citizen to go and read the whole thing and see what we went to war for back then. I think you'll be surprised that it is the very same thing many of us are unhappy about with our current Federal and even State governments.

Re:Any objections? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205094)

They went to war, not us.

Re:Any objections? (1)

uncanny (954868) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205312)

Well sure, but if you think this government is doing anything wrong, you hate america! (oh media, you tell us what to think so nicely)

Re:Any objections? (1)

uncanny (954868) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205264)

Funny thing is, if you ask a lot of people, they'll blame it on (opposite) party. One thing i've noticed with the past couple presidents is that no matter what their party, skin color, gender, who they are sleeping with in a hypothetical public office, they are all failing us and saying it's in our best interest! Then again, i'm complaining about "THEM" and "US" but i'm not doing anything about it either.

Re:Any objections? (4, Insightful)

Monchanger (637670) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205274)

Sounds like you need a refresher yourself. It wasn't about the question of federalism- that came later on. The Declaration was about a lack of self determination.

The problem with all these stupid calls to read the Declaration and Constitution is teabaggers seem to equate unelected tyranny with LOSING THE ELECTION BECAUSE THEY WERE THE FUCKING MINORITY.

Re:Any objections? (4, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205022)

At this stage are there any objections to simply unseating every single encumbent?

I don't know how every single incumbent is voting. I'm sure there are principled, effective congresspeople; voting all of them out would seem overly drastic.

Certainly a large influx of "freshmen" to the halls of congress couldn't make matters any worse.

Had something similar to that happen with the Republican revolution in the 90's. I seem to remember it making matter much worse.

Re:Any objections? (1)

hierofalcon (1233282) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205100)

Look for members of congress that are roundly hated by both parties. That is by no means a guarantee that they are voting in a principled way that reflects what their actual constituents want, but it's a good sign. Ron Paul would be a good example. There aren't many others.

Re:Any objections? (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205358)

Ron Paul would be a good example.

Sure, if you like right-wing loon jobs.

Re:Any objections? (1)

AltairDusk (1757788) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205158)

I don't know how every single incumbent is voting. I'm sure there are principled, effective congresspeople; voting all of them out would seem overly drastic.

Given the current Congress I'd be willing to accept the collateral damage of losing a few principled congress critters if it succeeds in ousting the majority of corrupt useless ones we seem to be saddled with.

Re:Any objections? (1)

Loadmaster (720754) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205032)

That will never happen. People hate the other party more than they hate a pathetic incumbent. The only certain way is a Constitutional amendment for term limits.

Re:Any objections? (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205340)

Certain? Hate to break it to you, but constitutional limits aren't certain anymore.

Re:Any objections? (1)

rritterson (588983) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205054)

At this point, I am not worried about incumbents as much as I am the lack of constitutionally empowered oversight of the legislative branch by the people.

There is nothing in the constitution about us (the people) changing the way senators are selected, or changing the rules by which the senate operates, which means that to do so would require a constitutional amendment. This, of course, requires a *two-thirds* majority vote by the Senate, and to change that requirement, of course, requires a constitutional amendment (ad infinitium).

You might reply that our power is to elect new senators who will act and vote in the way that we would like. Unfortunately, it seems that senators quickly lose whatever gumption they had to change the system and become a cog in it. Additionally, it's going to require a full 6 years to replace the entire incumbent bloc. It'd be better if we (the people) at least had the threat of direct action, even if the only power we were granted was some sort of last-resort nuclear option.

While California has the opposite problem and is currently overwhelmed and hogtied by too much direct constituent participation in legislation via the ballot initiative process, I still find the lack of any way for the people to override the legislative branch disturbing.

Re:Any objections? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33205062)

At this stage are there any objections to simply unseating every single encumbent? Certainly a large influx of "freshmen" to the halls of congress couldn't make matters any worse.

Debt of Honor by Tom Clancy

Re:Any objections? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33205262)

I've long said that term limits should be done away with in exchange for consecutive term limits.

In other words, you can be in $office for as many terms as you can win, but you can never be there two consecutive terms.

Thats what you get with interns (2, Insightful)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204836)

More than likely an intern was getting the paperwork in, not trained, under paid, wanting to get out the to bar to meet the gang. Ah, government by the staff.

Re:Thats what you get with interns (1)

Monchanger (637670) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205304)

What? A rational, plausible and simple explanation for an unimportant mistake?

Go away, dude. We want to vent about the politicians we keep voting in! :D

Digress (1)

DrugCheese (266151) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204838)

One step progress
Two steps congress

Is it possible (2, Insightful)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204842)

That this isn't one bill with a conspiracy theory behind it, but perhaps that that code is used more like a placeholder and constantly overwritten when a new unnamed bill comes along?

Re:Is it possible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33205150)

Actually, according to established parliamentary procedure regarding amendments and debate, it is possible for the entire text of a bill to be replaced on a large scale - generally seen as a "commit" of agreed amendments before continuing on to debate others.

I can't speak for the specifics of this bill, but obviously there are a number of other plausible explanations (most of which I'd jump to before conspiracy theories). Examples might be transcription from Congressional Record to thomas.loc.gov, some tremendously awkward subcommittee procedure, etc.

This smacks of communication error somewhere along the chain more than anything, but maybe I'm just feeling particularly generous today. Now back to your regularly scheduled political commentary. THE GOVERNMENT IS COMING FOR YOUR WOMEN AND CHILDREN, ARM YOURSELVES

Re:Is it possible (1)

uncanny (954868) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205226)

well, the fact that congress hides information isn't really a conspiracy, more of just a way of business. And lack of organization exposed them. Two ways that they are failing us and now, failing themselves.

Decades of Govt Corruption Uncovered, News at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33204846)

And this surprises people how?

After decades (as in, starting from the 1950's forward) the seed of graft and corruption that was planted then has now grown into a monster.

People keep voting these jokers into office, and they keep bending people over their knee with a jar of lube. Then the same people wonder why their ASSets hurt.

Here's a clue:

Vote the fuckers out.

Re:Decades of Govt Corruption Uncovered, News at 1 (1)

alderion (583640) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205024)

you get lube?

Re:Decades of Govt Corruption Uncovered, News at 1 (0, Troll)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205316)

Vote the fuckers out.

Sorry to undo all my mods to this topic, but when I saw this blurb of naivety I had to respond.

Votes no longer work in the USA. Votes quit working when JFK was assassinated. From that very moment onward, bullets are worth more than ballots.

The monster's claws/roots now run too deep in the system to be dethroned by simply being out-voted. I've labeled my government officials as tyrants, IMHO, rightfully so. I've told my friends and family my new mantra: "Bullets > Ballots". I am biding my time until I and my fellow Americans can bring arms against the tyrants and fight the GOOD fight.

Well (4, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204860)

If you actually read the bill you'll realize that it contains $100 billion for spending on "education", clauses to let States governments go suck at the TARP nipple (shocking huh? Whatever happened to green jobs, etc that were promised?), new taxes for foreigners doing business in the US, foreign companies doing business in the US, and US citizens previously entitled to tax credits from living abroad, and well over $1 trillion worth of rescinded spending (presumably to get money to give to the State governments). There are other details, obviously.

Re:Well (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205290)

clauses to let States governments go suck at the TARP nipple (shocking huh? Whatever happened to green jobs, etc that were promised?)

The green jobs were always a red herring. Funding to states has been the most effective stimulus we've had since the whole shebang started; I think it's wise to extend state aid.

Mod this up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33204862)

hahahaha. That's all.

And it costs $$$$$ (0, Flamebait)

tekrat (242117) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204868)

Here is Free Billions for Haliburton.. Unfortunately, we can't call it that, so it's the Bill of _____ for _____ . Trust me, this bill is nothing more than Sentators and Congressmen giving themselves and some close friends big raises at our expense, and probably fucking up our lives in some small way.

After all, any bill that actually gets anything done is shot down by one side or the other, so clearly, this is a bill that just gives money away to big companies. Those are the only bills that get passed by both sides.

Caturday (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33204876)

A century or two from now, no one will remember how "Saturday" became "Caturday".

You don't understand: blanks save money! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33204892)

It's the "ultimate" bill. The final legislative solution, really.

It's the "Fill In The Blank Bill of 2010". It's like a pre-approved blank check. Just fill in the "payable to" and the "amount" parts, and the money is withdrawn from the taxypayer's account or, if that happens to be overdrawn, put on their credit card.

Don't complain. This is all in the noble effort to streamline government and cut back on the bureaucracy that would otherwise be necessary to accomplish essentially the same thing with dozens of individually approved bills.

Blame the lobbyists... (2, Insightful)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204904)

Blame the thousands of lobbyists in Washington. They have many of the politicians in their pockets, both Republicans and Democrats. The lobbyists are their to protect the corporate exec's interests.

I know it's name (0, Troll)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204912)

The Erosion of Freedom Act of 1984

Re:I know it's name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33205308)

You need to re-read 1984. It's the Enabling of Freedom act of 1984.

Remember, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength. Or, if you like mnemonics, WiPFiSIS.

Not a bad idea in general (2, Funny)

Velox_SwiftFox (57902) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204916)

It could save a lot of time if they would just pass the executive branch a few blank legislations to be filled in later.

There isn't anything in the constitution prohibiting it, is there? Of course, you could not apply it ex post facto to dates before the blanks were filled in and so on.

Re:Not a bad idea in general (3, Informative)

antibryce (124264) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205238)

you jest, but that's essentially what congress has been doing for a long time. The health care bill essentially said "all these things will happen by this date" without detailing how they would happen. All of the details were handed over to HHS to work out on their own. Basically it was so vague (deliberately so) that the real effects won't be known until after HHS finishes figuring out how to implement it.

Reminds of an article in the WSJ... (1)

elohel (1582481) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204928)

Re:Reminds of an article in the WSJ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33205002)

*BING* New entry for 'dumbest article I've ever read'. Woo!

Tax bills can't originate in the Senate (4, Informative)

crow (16139) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204932)

If it is a bill to tax executive bonuses from TARP-receiving companies, then the Constitution says that it must originate in the House, not the Senate, but I suppose that detail is ignored.

Re:Tax bills can't originate in the Senate (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33205244)

True, but the Senate, long ago, figured a way around that. Just take some house bill that is going nowhere, offer an ammendment that replaces the entire text, and bingo, you're there.

Shh! Dammit! (2, Funny)

mandark1967 (630856) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204936)

My plan to have Congress name me king and eternal diety has come to fruition and you're ruining it!

How a Bill Becomes a Law (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204940)

If Schoolhouse Rock had been written and produced today, no doubt that popular song would have been VERY different from the one we know today.

Get a grip (2, Informative)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204960)

Seriously, guys. A clerk somewhere screwed up, and probably needs to be fired. However, it's a pretty far cry from martial law.

Re:Get a grip (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205070)

I think they were kidding about that.

Yup (1)

FreeUser (11483) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205118)

I think they were kidding about that.

Exactly. Your first clue is the Onion citation.

Re:Yup (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205352)

What happened is that a few weeks ago, conservatives saw the Onion video and thought it was real, and it spread like wildfire.

OMG (3, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204964)

The world is ending, someone made a clerical error!

I may not be fully awake yet (4, Funny)

mr_da3m0n (887821) | more than 4 years ago | (#33204968)

But for a split second there I wax expecting the Python programming language to be mentioned somewhere in there.

Seriously? (1)

cbope (130292) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205000)

Please, someone tell me this is a sick ill-timed April Fool's joke. You Have Got To Be Fucking Kidding Me.

what we deserve (1)

robnator (250608) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205040)

Since the majority of us Americans can't be bothered to take an active role in our governing process, it should be no surprise that our representatives fail to do so as well.

Pelosi (-1, Troll)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205044)

Are there any types of chicanery or parliamentary tricks Pelosi and her minions won't use to try to pass legislation that the public would hate?

Here's what I'd like to see. (5, Interesting)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205056)

All bills should be written on a wiki-like system that is publicly viewable, along with all previous versions of the bill and which member of Congress made which changes.

Re:Here's what I'd like to see. (1)

snookerhog (1835110) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205194)

agreed.

then someone might actually read all 5000 pages of some of these bills. I can guarantee you the reps don't actually read any of this themselves. They get summaries. or summaries of summaries.

Re:Here's what I'd like to see. (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205330)

Or a large team of people splitting up the bill into manageable sections.

Congress' Response (1)

AltairDusk (1757788) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205230)

How dare you suggest something so sensible! Don't you know this government prides itself on inefficiency!? Tracking who made the edits... are you MAD??? Accountability makes for all sorts of annoying problems, we don't want those people actually knowing what we suggest! Now get out of my office!

A new way! (4, Funny)

AntEater (16627) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205112)

I think this could set a new precedent of how things are done in Congress. A far more efficient way. Our reps and senators could get together to vote for an unnamed and unspecified bill. Various congressmen could stand up and speak to the issues that are most important to their constituency and party. Republicans can argue about how the bill is a hand-out sponsored by the democrats and that we all just need to have some personal responsibility. The democrats could argue about how this is required to protect the children/poor/minorities. Once all the grand standing is completed and the various pork riders attached, it will be voted on. Once approved it can then be forwarded to the various lobbyists to fill in the blanks. It would be something like a blank check but a more democratic version. The details never mattered anyways.

I think I hard about this one before. (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205156)

Doesn't it have something to do with martial law and an outbreak of flesh-eating classified something or other?

Seriously, this reads like an Onion story.

Bailout Money for San Francisco (0, Flamebait)

vinn (4370) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205186)

I was speaking with our congressional representative last Thursday, Denny Rehberg, and he said the reason for the 'emergency' was that the bill contained $20 million (or something) in "bailout" (his words, not mine) money for San Francisco - Pelosi's home district. I'm not sure if that's true or not, Denny plays A LOT of partisan politics and just likes to stir the pot whenever he can. About 50% of what comes out of his mouth is bullshit, so it's hard to say, but I do think Nancy Pelosi is complete c*nt and it's sickening she won't be voted out.

The DROP TABLE bill; Act of DROP TABLE senate; (2, Funny)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205218)

"I was just wondering what would happen!", cried the page as the men in black suits and mirrored sunglasses bundled him into the back of the black SUV.

.

Obviously (0, Flamebait)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205220)

What's probably happened is that Ms. Obama found this pair of really darling shoes in whatever town she's currently vacationing in, and needs sufficient funds channeled to her so she can make the purchase.

It requires an emergency session of congress, because she needs the funds before some other vacationing monarch buys them out from under her. That would be a political disaster, to see a foreign princess walking around in her shoes! They might even be seen wearing them on TV! With a matching haddbag, even!

A Legislative 'Blank Check'? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205266)

This is just beyond ridiculous. There is no limit to the "creativity" legislators will take when trying to get special favors passed through into law. The passing of the DMCA was pretty dirty as dirty tricks go, but at least it's easy enough to understand. But now this one can much more easily get written off as a mistake or misunderstanding. "But I thought I was voting yes to the 'don't step on puppy dog tails' bill!" Great. Even less accountability from our legislators.

We need a law outlawing this practice and fast. Now who will we get to sponsor this bill? And what shall we call it?

In related news... (0, Offtopic)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205272)

Ted "the internet is a series of Tubes" Stevens went down in a plane crash in Alaska. It appears he's dead.

Goddamn Republican trolls on a blanking spree (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33205324)

Apparently, Republicans have now brought yet another fine trolling tradition IRL: blanking! ;)

I guess Conyers was right (1)

Ozlanthos (1172125) | more than 4 years ago | (#33205326)

They don't even bother to read the title of the legislation anymore. This stinks to high-hell to me. For all anyone knows, this bill permanently suspends the Constitution, and eliminates the need for presidential elections.

-Oz
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?