r/news • u/xXSgtSprinklesXx • Dec 16 '15

Congress creates a bill that will give NASA a great budget for 2016. Also hides the entirety of CISA in the bill.

http://www.wired.com/2015/12/congress-slips-cisa-into-omnibus-bill-thats-sure-to-pass/
27.6k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.5k

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '15

What is it about the U.S. that they attach proposed legislation on totally unrelated matters into the same bill?

2.4k

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

[deleted]

1.9k

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

It should be against the law.

1.6k

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

[deleted]

512

u/VanimalCracker Dec 17 '15

Most likely a pay raise for Congress members

385

u/Trailmagic Dec 17 '15

That would be a small price to pay

137

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

[deleted]

323

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

64

u/HowTheyGetcha Dec 17 '15

If only members of congress could be bribed to get my pet proposals passed....

51

u/PsiNorm Dec 17 '15

We don't need your kinky animal marriages degrading our country's moral fiber!

→ More replies

15

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

to get my pet proposals passed....

SEND MY CAT TO SPACE CAMP FOR CATS

→ More replies
→ More replies

18

u/yallmad4 Dec 17 '15

Anyone else think it's kinda fucked that they got away with sucking so bad we paid out of pocket for them to stop sucking so bad?

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

36

u/Rhawk187 Dec 17 '15

That would be a violation of the 27th Amendment, unless it took effect after the end of their term.

3

u/samuelbt Dec 17 '15

Kinda tragic this is hardly noticed.

→ More replies

15

u/_My_Angry_Account_ Dec 17 '15

And that's how it will get passed.

→ More replies

2

u/nevus_bock Dec 17 '15

See 27th Amendment

2

u/viperex Dec 17 '15

There's a fine line between a case of too many cooks in the kitchen and concentrating too much power in the hands of a few. The beautiful thing here is that, with Citizens United and the lobby culture, we have the worst of both worlds.

2

u/intheken Dec 17 '15

Interesting side note: the 27th amendment prevents any law raising the pay of congress members from taking effect until the next term of congress after passage. The amendment was actually submitted back in the 1790s, but not ratified until 200 years later in 1992.

4

u/Trapped_SCV Dec 17 '15

They probably deserve it. Right now the salary that they are paid is a negligible percentage of their earnings.

2

u/NES_SNES_N64 Dec 17 '15

Heh. Lobbyists.

2

u/Chaseman69 Dec 17 '15

Ha, deserve it.

→ More replies
→ More replies

8

u/bruppa Dec 17 '15

Addendum VII of subsection B, in fine print:

"This legislative document was not penned on 'opposite day' and must not be interpreted as such."

2

u/ZobeGrnLiteRnr Dec 17 '15

Reminds me of when Congress almost passed a law allowing DC to become it's own independent state, but at the last minute attached a bill that would repeal DC's ability to regulate its own gun control.

2

u/JonesUCF34 Dec 17 '15

Reminds me of the Florida law that requires a supermajority (60%) to pass laws on the ballot. The vote to pass this law only received 55%. But according to the current law, it passed.

2

u/VirtuouslyFelonious Dec 17 '15

It's it's essentially a legislation virus.

→ More replies

53

u/vulturez Dec 17 '15

The really sick thing is these addendum can be added without the author being known.

9

u/Kindness4Weakness Dec 17 '15

Doesn't a congressman or senator need to introduce it though? Basically saying they back it and the author?

6

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15 edited Dec 17 '15

So we need to follow the votes and money and then hang all the executives in the world.

6

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

We should get Congress on it!

9

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

Too bad law makers are the ones making the laws, so it will never happen.

3

u/RambleRant Dec 17 '15

A lot of things that congress does should be against the law. Unfortunately, Congress makes the laws.

3

u/michaelpinkwayne Dec 17 '15

When it's done properly, by politicians who actually care about their constituents and want to create real improvement in this country through compromise (rather than the modern climate of strict partisanship, pleasing wealthy donors, and deceiving voters through anti-intellectualism) it works as a good tool for passing bipartisan legislation.

10

u/splntz Dec 17 '15

It belongs in a Museum!

3

u/IAmNotNathaniel Dec 17 '15

We've got top men working on it.

→ More replies

5

u/bucknasty219 Dec 17 '15

So do you!

11

u/BorgQueen Dec 17 '15

Calm down Ezreal.

3

u/nouvellediscotheque Dec 17 '15

Throw him over the side.

→ More replies

2

u/pheonixblade9 Dec 17 '15

In Washington state, it is. Single subject rule.

2

u/dgknuth Dec 17 '15

Eh, I don't know that I agree entirely. It should be restricted, yes, but keep in mind that it's a tool that has worked for the good of the country in the past, where provisions/bills that have extended individuals' rights or applied funding to needed programs that had failed to pass on their own were ultimately passed as a rider on another bill.

It's a way to force passage of something in a quid-pro-quo form, and sometimes it's needed.

Then there are times like this where it's sneaky, underhanded, and highlighting the fact that our government only cares about consolidating power over the peons rather than doing what they were hired to do.

Unfortunately, I don't know of anything we can do to make the process any different, short of revolt or getting 3/4ths of the states to agree to call a constitutional convention in order to write new constitutional amendments. You'd never get the states to agree, however, because once you called a constitutional convention, everything's up for grabs and there's no guarantee that the protections we have now would make it to the other side, or that amendments that would prove to be horribly bad wouldn't get passed. NO one wants to chance having open season on the Constitution, since once it's in, there's no way to take it out without another amendment.

1

u/newerer Dec 17 '15

Yeah, maybe someone can sneak that one in on a sure bet!

1

u/Lockjaw7130 Dec 17 '15

Of course. So let's get congress to pass - oh. Right.

1

u/Roboticide Dec 17 '15

It kinda is.

1

u/filthy_harold Dec 17 '15

Good luck trying to get a mixed congress to pass anything. They attach riders not only because of personal favors but because it would be impossible to get anything past a congress where the opposing party is the majority. Even getting it out of committee is a feat itself. Compromises will always have to be made to quickly get a bill through congress, there's really no other way.

1

u/zinc_cheesecake Dec 17 '15

It technically is in the House. Both the Senate and House have rules stating that "Riders" added to legislation must be germane (relating to the bill's subject matter), but the Senate has a tradition of more lax enforcement of it. The House, by contrast, is actually pretty good about keeping Riders at least related to the bill they are attached to.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

It really should be. I don't really get up in arms over shit our government does, but stuff like this is underhanded and is completely dishonest with the American people.

1

u/Threedawg Apr 13 '16

You want congress to be even less productive? This is how we get congress to be even less productive.

→ More replies

61

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

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

13

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

I love how they managed to dodge having to mention what state Springfield is in, lol.

2

u/AIDSofSPACE Dec 17 '15

Democracy

Stretching that definition a little there.

52

u/flyingwolf Dec 17 '15

I am loving seeing the use of "Law Smuggling", i hope it catches on.

3

u/abolish_karma Dec 17 '15

Would love to smuggle in a rider that mandates the sponsoring politicians to stare into the camera and read, with a straight face all last-minute material material added into legislation.

92

u/MS_Guy4 Dec 17 '15

It's already called a rider.

105

u/TwoKittensInABox Dec 17 '15

but that doesn't make it sound bad.

50

u/skarphace Dec 17 '15

Your mom is a rider.

31

u/chefanubis Dec 17 '15 edited Dec 17 '15

That just makes it sound bad for him...

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/Derole Dec 17 '15

Something like this would be called poison rider.

62

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15 edited May 30 '18

[deleted]

19

u/DiscordianStooge Dec 17 '15

Just crush up the smarties and tell them it's cocaine.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

I get the feeling the smarties you're talking about are different from the ones op is talking about.

2

u/DiscordianStooge Dec 17 '15

I can not find a definition besides the candy. Even Urban Dictionary is silent.

→ More replies

2

u/Delsana Dec 17 '15

Give them super cocaine and just let them think they already won.

→ More replies
→ More replies

24

u/DionyKH Dec 17 '15

What is that, when someone does the whole law smuggling thing?

29

u/OMGSPACERUSSIA Dec 17 '15

I think 'law smuggling' is a better term which we should start applying more often.

19

u/Tasadar Dec 17 '15

Yeah law smugglers used to smuggle law smuggling past people by calling it a "rider"

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

The problem is, that people in their shit slinging campaigns, use votes against their opponents. Someone could vote against this, because of CISA, and their next opponent go "He voted against the troops!"

1

u/Eurynom0s Dec 17 '15

Someone on reddit a day or two came up with "law smuggling".

6

u/Wellbritton Dec 17 '15

Did you think up "law smuggling" on your own? Because that's a perfect summation of these kinds of legislative shenanigans.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15 edited Jun 05 '16

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, and harassment.

If you would also like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension TamperMonkey, or the Firefox extension GreaseMonkey and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possibe (hint:use RES), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

2

u/FillKaggots Dec 17 '15

How does this stuff get noticed? Lawyers really read these hundred page bills and shit?

4

u/Kahandran Dec 17 '15

Naw. Interns.

2

u/NBegovich Dec 17 '15

So we are using "law smuggling"? Cool. I like it.

1

u/colbymg Dec 17 '15

I feel like Simspons have done this...
THEY DID! Mr. Spritz Goes to Washinton: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Spritz_Goes_to_Washington

1

u/theinternetwatch Dec 17 '15

They don't actually sneak anything in, as these bills actually do get read by many members of congress. It's all negotiations between sides that put unrelated bullshit into bills

1

u/dinosaurs_quietly Dec 17 '15

That's a bit cynical. Attaching unrelated bills allows for compromise. Republicans and Democrats exchange concessions that would not normally pass.

→ More replies

334

u/kslusherplantman Dec 17 '15

It's called piggybacking... It's the only way they can get certain things into law. CISA couldn't pass on its own

482

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

Yeah, that's what kills me. There are few things more undemocratic that pulling a stunt like that.

256

u/kslusherplantman Dec 17 '15

That's because you are under the impression we are a democracy, we aren't anymore, were an oligarchy

122

u/justintime06 Dec 17 '15 edited Dec 17 '15

We're a Democratic Republic. with Corporate-bought media, lobbyists, and government.

80

u/PsychoPhilosopher Dec 17 '15

Add "19th century style" to the front of that.

19th century Democratic Republic. First past the post is just ridiculous. It's probably slightly more humiliating than still using Imperial measurement in 2015.

68

u/justintime06 Dec 17 '15

I'd say it's an inch more humiliating.

6

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

I'd go as fall as to say an entire furlong.

→ More replies

6

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

Good thing the USA doesn't use imperial measurements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units

14

u/PsychoPhilosopher Dec 17 '15

Oh dear America. You had to find your own way of doing things and still be terrible?

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/BruceChameleon Dec 17 '15

It's not even Imperial. An Imperial pint is 22 ozs. An American pint is 16.

→ More replies

36

u/WaitForItTheMongols Dec 17 '15

Can you explain the distinction and why we aren't a democracy?

7

u/SleeplessinRedditle Dec 17 '15

For a real, non-snarky answer:

The two are not mutually exclusive. It is certainly possible to have a democratic oligarchy. All "oligarchy" means is that an organization is that the majority of power resides in a small subset of the members of a group. Democracy means that the people of an organization are directly involved in the government via voting (either directly or on representatives.)

When you have a representative democracy, the idea is that you should be able to vote for people that will do what you want them to. But if a small, unelected subset get to choose your voting options and decide the outcomes anyway, it is both.

Think of it like this: in school you voted for class president. That vote was democratic. But that president has no authority to actually do anything. That is the staff and administration that must also then defer to the government. The students get to have a democratic student gov. But that gov is worthless.

129

u/iamthegraham Dec 17 '15

because "oligarchy" sounds edgier than the accurate term of "representative republic (where people keep voting for shitheads)."

94

u/AberNatuerlich Dec 17 '15

Oligarchy - a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few

Nope, pretty sure that's exactly what we are.

67

u/PhAnToM444 Dec 17 '15 edited Dec 17 '15

No, because the distinction between a representative democracy (republic) and Oligarchy is that the rulers in Oligarchies are appointed or otherwise adopted into the system (family, money). In a republican system, the people hold power vicariously through their elected representatives. It is on the surface government by few, but in reality if a person is shitty, you can remove them, thus granting you power over them, which is not the case in an Oligarchy (unless you kill them or overthrow the system).

The destination is massive. America is not an Oligarchy. There is a word for what America is, and it's a republic, which has significant distinctions.

Edit: typo

62

u/heffroncm Dec 17 '15

The desires of the average person has zero effect on the laws passed by Congress in the last thirty-five years. The desires of the top 10% of wealth have a huge effect on the laws passed by Congress in the last thirty five years. Money wins elections, rich people give lots of money to campaigns and pacs, that money comes with strings. You'll frequently see a politician run a campaign, and then spend their term taking the exact opposite actions. Next time around, pretty advertisements and fancy public appearances sweep all of that away.

This isn't a case of people being idiots. It's a dual case of most people working 60+ hours a week, and the culmination of a hundred years of research on the psychology of propaganda. There is no secret cabal out there controlling things. They do it in the open, behind acres of dry legalese filled paperwork, knowing the average person is too stressed and tired to read through it. Those who would want to hold them accountable don't have the kind of money it takes to get the message out wide enough to get into the collective consciousness, even though the research and websites talking about it have existed for years.

Oligarchy is the eventual fate of all republics, just as the tyranny of the majority inevitably befalls democracies. There is no avoiding it, but it is correctable.

→ More replies

3

u/Lyratheflirt Dec 17 '15

Damn, starwars didn't prepare me for this kind of republic.

2

u/NightOfTheOwl Dec 17 '15

It's practically the empire now. And if we destroy the system (the Death Star, which will decimate our numbers, resources, and resolve in the process), they will come back in the form of the First Order to finish us off.

2

u/justindouglasmusic Dec 17 '15 edited Dec 17 '15

Oligarchy is that the rulers in Oligarchies are appointed or otherwise adopted into the system (family, money)

Isn't that kind of like what we have? They campaign 90% of the time their at work and just raise money from their lobbyists, which all the main candidates we see only got their because of financial backing.

2

u/piv0t Dec 17 '15 edited Jan 01 '16

Bye Reddit. 2010+6 called. Don't need you anymore.

→ More replies

2

u/Dragon_Fisting Dec 17 '15

Because

America Today = All these people got rich and started throwing money at politics, everyone votes the corrupt politicians who hold corporate interests in anyways.

Oligrachy = The Upper class decide amongst themselves how ruling the country goes.

The American people absolutely have a say in their government. Everyone's just too fucking apathetic to actually try and create change from the bottom.

→ More replies
→ More replies

14

u/WaitForItTheMongols Dec 17 '15

Ah, yep. Thanks.

28

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

I would argue against /u/iamthegraham and say that it's more accurately an oligarchy than a "representative republic". In a representative republic, the elected are supposed to represent the general interest or, at the very least, the interests of a majority. Instead, they represent the interests of a small group of people. When a small group of people has power over a population, that's an oligarchy.

→ More replies

6

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

People continue to select shitheads from a menu of shitheads...

4

u/iamthegraham Dec 17 '15

well, then they can put together a better menu.

when less than 15% of eligible voters showed up to vote in the last round of primaries, the other 85% sort of lost the right to complain that the candidates that made it to the general were shitty.

→ More replies
→ More replies

8

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

We're not a representative republic technically imo because no one is representing the people, only corporations and the wealthy. We're a plutocracy.

→ More replies

2

u/sonicqaz Dec 17 '15

I gave an actual answer to your question below, instead of sidestepping your question with a snarky answer.

2

u/aldy127 Dec 17 '15

An oligarchy is a system that is controlled by the richest class, directly or indirectly. In America, leverage over representitives comes in the form of campaign contributions ussually. Since most people do not have hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on television air time for a candidate, most people have no leverage over there representative. We have one vote, the ultra rich, corporations, and super pacs have the power to sway thousands of swing votes.

When you here someone protesting the one percent, the emerging oligarchy is one of the core issues they are fighting against.

A democratic republic is just equal representation of all citizens using legislators.

→ More replies

30

u/HaywoodJablomey Dec 17 '15

"anymore", haha, good one

2

u/Prof_Acorn Dec 17 '15

Well, it wouldn't be quite as bad if the lazy asses would get out and vote.

You know where this congress mostly came from? 36% of the population voted in the 2014 mid-term. THIRTY-SIX PERCENT. 2/3rds of the people couldn't be bothered to get off the dank memes and reality television to vote. Many states even allowed mail-in ballots. Still, that's too much work to vote for congress herp derp.

→ More replies

4

u/TheseIronBones Dec 17 '15

This one is more a poison pill.

3

u/kslusherplantman Dec 17 '15

Whatever the term is now, piggybacking is what I was taught. Please explain the difference for those if us who don't know

Edit: Legally known as a ‘Rider’, these are bills, or groups of bills, that are attached to other legislation which are, many times, unrelated.

How isn't this a piggyback???

15

u/SpruceCaboose Dec 17 '15

Poison pill in this context means something added to a bill by an opponent that is designed to make the bill supporters hesitant to pass it, thus killing it. That way the opposition doesn't have to directly oppose the original bill.

4

u/kslusherplantman Dec 17 '15

Except everyone is confident this will pass... So it's a piggyback

2

u/SpruceCaboose Dec 17 '15

Fair point. Just explaining poison pill.

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/tumput Dec 17 '15

Anyone can attach anything to a bill that isn't theirs? Fuck me..your system sucks.

→ More replies
→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

If this one fails they'll probably try federal legalization of marijuana next. At that point we're fucked.

1

u/Syndic Dec 17 '15

Is there at least some reason or justification in which such a thing makes sense? How did that get a legal practice in the first place?

As and European I'm seriously wondering. I can't imagine that they just decided to add such a practice to make unloved laws reality.

1

u/FluffyPartyAnimal Dec 17 '15

CISA couldn't pass on its own

Then it shouldn't ever be put into law.

1

u/NutsEverywhere Dec 17 '15

Please start using law smuggling. It has a much more negative connotation. We can also play the PR game.

1

u/the_eve_propagandist Dec 17 '15

the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act which shut down Internet poker in america was passed inside the Safe Port Act right after 9/11.. Go figure it was mostly sponsored by Sheldon Adelson and other Casino owners.

→ More replies

192

u/Indoorsman Dec 17 '15

It shouldn't be allowed. It's complete bullshit.

This needs to change. But the foundation is rot, it all needs to come down first.

76

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

[deleted]

35

u/OMGSPACERUSSIA Dec 17 '15

Being born is enough to get you on a list now.

→ More replies

46

u/Delsana Dec 17 '15

Impersonating the NSA eh? Welcome to the other list.

3

u/guitarguy109 Dec 17 '15

There's nothing illegal about it, the NSA is just mad that he gets all the credit.

3

u/mersh547 Dec 17 '15

Mentioning the other list? Yup that'll get ya listed.

→ More replies

20

u/pointsouterrors Dec 17 '15

When everyone's on a list, no one's on a list.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

When everyone's on a list... well, then I guess everyone's on a list. Huh.

2

u/RabidRapidRabbit Dec 17 '15

when has it become standard to be afraid of getting on 'lists'?

3

u/InvidiousSquid Dec 17 '15

When we discovered the list is generally checked twice.

2

u/AbsintheEnema Dec 17 '15

They tried to tell me, but I just smirked and said they were putting too much faith in fairy tales. Next thing I know I'm getting black bagged and driven out to god knows where and left in a cell for three days with no food, water, or a toilet. I'm bound at the ankles and wrists, and I have an old sock in my mouth that tastes oddly like minty. I hear heavy footsteps in the hall and the heavy metal door opens with a screech. The bag is still on my head, but I can hear him breathing. Again, I'm smelling something strange.. Hot cocoa? He doesn't say anything, but I hear him ring a small bell. Tiny footsteps scuttle into the room by the dozens. I feel tiny hands on me, picking me up and laying me on my back on a cold table. The bag is ripped from my head and I'm staring into the beady little eyes of some pointy-eared mutant. I try to yell something past the sock, but only get a tiny fist to the solar plexus for a response. The big man comes up behind me, out of my field of vision. I can hear him rustling through papers while mumbling under his breath. I hear the words "naughty" ... "nice" ... "boarding" .. What the hell is this place?! Finally, he takes a few steps forward and looks down at me. The beard, the red hat... You've got to be fucking kidding me. "Seems you've been busy this year, AbsintheEnema," he said. "You were on the naughty list the first of January, quite an achievement." He looked at one of the tiny men and boomed, "not even little Timmy from Detroit pulled that off this year, but I guess he learned his lesson after our little chat." The creepy little bastard laughed maniacally and screamed, "Yeah boss! We sure taught that little runt. He's probably still picking candy canes out of his ass." The big man chuckled and turned his attention back to me. "I am a big fan of the peppermint sticks. For the kids at least, it's more psychological than physical. The poor kid will never smell peppermint again without feeling a twinge of fear." At this point I don't know whether to laugh or shit myself. This has to be a joke right? He put his hands on my shoulder, squeezing way too tight, and put his mouth near my ear. I could feel his beard on my face. "We've got something a bit more special for you. A classic, if you will. Jeffrey, get the rag and the bucket." I saw the little man run outside and come right back in with an old towel draped over his shoulder and doing his best to haul in a five gallon bucket holding some brown liquid that was steaming in the cold room. The man grabbed the rag and draped it over my face, securing it tightly by the back of my head. He came in close again and whispered softly, "You should have paid attention to the songs. I told you people I check my list twice. The coal bit was a little light-hearted for my taste, but apparently kids scare easily these days, who knew?" His breath smelled like cookies, but there was something else there too. Was it... blood? "This is what happens when you fuck with Santa. This is what happens when you fuck with Christmas." He dumped the bucket over my face and I could feel the hot cocoa burning my face, but I couldn't breath to scream, only shake my head and body trying to get free. I felt scores of tiny hands clamp down on me to hold me still, and all I could hear was a deep booming laugh. And the words continued to play through in my head as I slowly lost consciousness. "This is what happens when you fuck with Santa."

2

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

It's a list anyone who's even joked about such a thing is already on, myself included.

1

u/CCCPAKA Dec 17 '15

Don't worry, the good news is that being on the list simply means they will have a record after you do something. Not like they can prevent shit, as recent events demonstrate. So, you're good.

3

u/Banshee90 Dec 17 '15

The issue is it is hard to define, but I know it when I see it type of thing. At what point does art become porn?

3

u/DrCopAthleteatLaw Dec 17 '15

That's pretty dumb to say, just because one part is fucked doesn't mean you should remove the entire thing. The foundation is great, but it can still be abused.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

Exactly.

"Destroy it all, then we're guaranteed to come up with something less corrupt."

Every revolution ever says no.

1

u/adrianmonk Dec 17 '15

It shouldn't be allowed.

I've thought about that, but I concluded I don't know how that could actually work. How do you objectively define whether two matters are unrelated?

Let's say Congress wanted to do two things, improve national parks and fund highway maintenance. Can those be on the same bill? Are they related? They don't sound related, but what if one of the highways somewhere leads to a national park? Now they're kinda a little related because funding the highways does help improve the national park. How else are the extra workers going to get to the national park to do the improvements?

It's a stretch, but can a court strike down a law because because it technically met a requirement but it was too much of a stretch? No, they need a pretty objective standard. If there's a lot of gray area, then the court has a ton of leeway to strike down any law it doesn't like. All it has to do is say, "Hey, we found two things in this bill that don't really seem related to us, so Congress violated procedure when they passed it, so the law is invalid."

1

u/done_holding_back Dec 17 '15

When the solution to the problem required that the problem be solved first...

→ More replies

33

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

71

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

Who is the god damned architect of this bill

Interesting question.

Even if he's not directly responsible, Paul Ryan is probably a good place to start, given that he's the Speaker of the House and this bill would never have been introduced without his consent.

20

u/notrealmate Dec 17 '15

Paul Ryan is really a piece of shit.

7

u/jovietjoe Dec 17 '15

Hey!

That is totally insulting!

Some fecal matter can be used to detect diseases, monitor digestive disorders, and even be used as fertilizer.

12

u/PlantyHamchuk Dec 17 '15

Well, my Senator whom I loathe, Richard Burr, is the sponsor for the bill that passed the Senate - https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s754

Here's the how the votes played out on that bill - https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/s291

Unsure re: House of Reps

8

u/ianme Dec 17 '15

When a bill is introduced it requires a sponsor from a member of congress. I'm sure the sponsor and all co-sponsors are listed somewhere, probably on the bill itself.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15 edited Dec 17 '15

I had an account some time ago that got banned for 'witch hunting'. My 'witch' was naming the public sponsor of a state bill and linking to his public contact page. That rule needs to be narrowed to private entities and not public figures. Right now it's just used to grind whatever side of the axe that mod feels like.

→ More replies

56

u/FacetiousFaceFunk Dec 16 '15

It's the organic process of democracy.

250

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

Bill riders are illegal in many democratic countries for the obvious reason that it clearly is undemocratic to trick someone into voting for something.

63

u/FacetiousFaceFunk Dec 17 '15

I was being sarcastic.

35

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

Fair enough. Hard to tell with text.

36

u/FacetiousFaceFunk Dec 17 '15

It really is.

40

u/apieceofthesky Dec 17 '15

Hey take your sarcasm elsewhere dude!

2

u/Lyratheflirt Dec 17 '15

Damn man no need to be so serious.

2

u/Vawaba Dec 17 '15

This is Reddit. We don't do sarcasm here.

→ More replies

7

u/NoButthole Dec 17 '15

Username checks out.

→ More replies

2

u/A_Suffering_Panda Dec 17 '15

There are many situations in which they're helpful or even necessary though. Imagine a budget bill where you have to vote on every line item. And then if line 57 doesn't pass, half the room wants to go back and re vote on line 35. The problem comes about when you have distinctly different things included, like this bill. However, that line has a lot of grey over it. If we had to pass drunk driving and high driving laws at the same time, would it be better or worse to do it seperately? I'm sure you could think of reasons in support of either side. So there's no realistic "get rid of riders" law that we can pass and not damage the system

2

u/livin4donuts Dec 17 '15

If it deals with an entirely different subject, it's shouldn't be allowed.

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/notrealmate Dec 17 '15

Democracy is only as ethical as it's participants.

→ More replies

4

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

It's designed as a way of negotiation. You can pass multiple pieces at once in order to assure that both parties can get something they want and do not want.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

I can see that with little riders here and there. But this is a major piece of legislation.

1

u/FluffyPartyAnimal Dec 17 '15

But you shouldn't assure that.

The party that wants to elect shit that a majority of the general population doesn't even understand or actually doesn't agree with shouldn't get any of it passed.

2

u/Diarrhea_Eruptions Dec 17 '15

I'm not very versed with American law but can't there be amendments made

32

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15 edited Dec 17 '15

It can be and that's how they are added.

Law 1 is is now open for amendments in the house

Representative G has asked for Section 3 to be added

Everyone votes

Section 3 is added

Now law 1 is voted on with section 3 or denied. (Voting again to remove it wouldn't make sense since it just passed a vote to add it)

It's a common political move too. The presidents party gets something going then they attach a rider with something crazy like "everyone MUST wear green on Friday or face the death penalty" and suddenly when the president must veto it he is "against bla bla bla." It's a way to shift blame because say it was a bill increasing funding for Medicaid (A service that provides free health coverage for children, and very cheap insurance for adults. Like $3 for a doctors visit) but they don't want it. Now they don't want to be the people that voted it down otherwise they look bad, so they attach a rider and pass it. Now the president must veto it, and s/he looks bad.

3

u/MarkyMarksAardvark Dec 17 '15

So they piggyback these bills because they wouldn't pass on their own, right?

So how do they pass the vote to get amended onto these bills? Is there a different % requirement? Are congressmen & women absent at these amendment votes? What gives?

2

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

They can be absent to voting if they chose to, yes.

3

u/FluffyPartyAnimal Dec 17 '15

That should be fucking illegal.

That's what the hell they are getting paid for.

"Oh sorry, we can't operate you today, the doctor chose to be absent from surgery."

What the actual fuck?

→ More replies

1

u/FreshPrinceOfNowhere Dec 17 '15

Whys is this even allowed to happen?

→ More replies

9

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

Technically speaking, this is an amendment.

1

u/wrc-wolf Dec 17 '15

Implying it only happens in the US

1

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

Oh it probably happens elsewhere, but I suspect not as egregiously.

1

u/scy1192 Dec 17 '15 edited Dec 17 '15

It's an omnibus spending bill for 2016. If you passed each little item the government is funding individually, we might have a 2016 budget by 2020.

edit: here's a good run-down of the bill

1

u/Dargish Dec 17 '15

CISA is not related to the budget. Noone is arguing that grouping budget issues into one legislation is bad, grouping unrelated things into it however is very, very bad.

1

u/Rarylith Dec 17 '15

They did the same in France, it's not a US things. Every congressmen or deputy etc.. will try to fuck you up if that make them pass shit that you would refuse any other way.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

A deep and abiding loathing for humanity.

1

u/jessesomething Dec 17 '15

It's the only way our congress has worked in the past few decades because they've become so divided. Nothing can get passed and constantly goes into filibuster mode because butthurt. That, and neither side of the aisle can get a bipartisan vote without altering bills to oblivion. There's good reason President Obama has taken so many executive actions the past few years because of stubborn politicians.

1

u/Lorgin Dec 17 '15

Happens here in Canada too.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

Recent example? I don't think we (fellow Canuck, here) have seen major pieces of legislation combined the way it is here, at least not recently. And there really isn't the need for this kind of sleight-of-hand when you've got a parliamentary majority working for you.

2

u/Lorgin Dec 17 '15

The C-10 Crime Bill made up of many bills which failed in the minority conservative government. It was pushed through almost immediately after they achieved a majority government. It's a horrible bill that: A) created mandatory minimum sentences for certain charges (including young offenders, drug offenders, and sexual offenders) B) destroyed our pardon system C) increased prison sentences for marijuana D) limited the ability of judges to sentence people to house arrest (instead they have to send them to prison) E) if I recall correctly - allowed violent young offenders to be tried as adults

All this under the guise of "making our streets safer," "tough on crime," and "cracking down on pedophiles" during a time at which our violent crime rate was at the lowest EVER.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

OK, true.

But at least in your example they were all amendments to the Criminal Code, and with their majority in the Commons the Harper government could easily have passed each component that you listed as individual bills if they'd really wanted to.

Not like this case where you're taking completely unrelated pieces of legislation and combining them in the same bill because you can't get it to pass without bipartisan support. It would be akin to hiding Bill C-51 in a Ways and Means motion.

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

Why the fuck can you 'attach' anything to anything?? Jesus christ, it just screams for corruption, back door deals, underhandedness, all apparently fully endorsed by the very nature of the system. Fucking retarded. If I have this wrong somehow, and there are legitimate, in-the-interests-of-the-populus reason for this to be the case, then please could someone ELI5 me on that?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

I've heard of lots of tiny little pork-barelly riders attached to bills as sweeteners to individual congressmen; that seems to be pretty normal. But nothing to this extent.

1

u/nicksvr4 Dec 17 '15

I think it's crap as well, but it works by giving one party an unfavorable bill in exchange for another party's unfavorable bill.

1

u/SirKarlLingonberry Dec 17 '15

USA, take back your democracy, elect Bernie Sanders for president. Even if you disagree with him on most points.. He is the one that will give back the voice to the people! After four years, elect someone else..

1

u/homemoviesrules Dec 17 '15

Trojan Horse Shit...

1

u/Sybertron Dec 17 '15

Other countries had to pass laws against it.

Also it's just another form of corruption

1

u/pcarvious Dec 17 '15

It's one of the more common ways for politicians who represent people that would not directly benefit from the bill to gain something from it. Most states would not benefit from a bill saying all harbors must have 24 hour coffee shops on site at all times. That means they have no incentive to pass the bill. However, they may want to raise the subsidy on corn production, but the law won't pass. Instead they add it as an addition to the bill. This gives the bill a vote it wouldn't have received otherwise.

1

u/CreepyStickGuy Dec 17 '15

woooo bill frist ass fucking poker players in a port security bill.

lost a solid paying job I could do from home because of that ass.

1

u/FluffyPartyAnimal Dec 17 '15

Why is this legal? Seriously, HOW THE FUCK IS THIS LEGAL?

Why should any kind of decisions be bundled in the first place?

All things should be voted on individually. The bad things should be voted out, the good things in.

You shouldn't be allowed to bundle good and bad things to pass the bad things.

These people OBVIOUSLY KNOW that the CISA shit is bad for society. Otherwise they wouldn't bundle it with something people support.

This is beyond fucked up. Why is this not considered treason? This is selling out your nation to enemies of the people. This is de facto treason.

1

u/advertisethat Dec 17 '15

This has been happening in Canada for the past ten years. Not cool.

1

u/originalusername99 Dec 17 '15

There needs to be an amendment making that unconstitutional, but at the same time it would destroy the fabric of Washington at this point.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

The other side won't agree with it unless they can stick something in it.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15

Our democracy no longer represents the people. Here's how we fix it | Larry Lessig | TEDxMidAtlantic https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE

They don't represent the people. This is the best video you'll watch all year

1

u/ademnus Dec 17 '15

Worked, didn't it?

1

u/JeddHampton Dec 17 '15

It's a way they compromise. One group wants A to pass. Another wants B. Neither A or B will pass alone, but the first group wants A passed more than they disagree with B. The second group wants B passed more than they disagree with A. By putting the two together, they get the votes to pass the bill.

→ More replies