If so what is the term for it
2006-10-16 04:01:42 · 13 answers · asked by khm8891 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
It should be illegal. You see so many worthless pork barrell bills passed simply because they are attached to a stronger, often necessary bill. Many of these riders seem to be some pet projects that congressman have. It is a trade out, I'll vote for your bill but include mine as a tag along. It should not be allowed.
2006-10-16 04:07:58 · answer #1 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Legislators attach unconnected clauses to bills all the time, both
Federally and at the state level.
The smaller, unrelated matter is called a "rider".
As in: It comes along through the bill passing process "for the ride".
It is perhaps the least subtle way that legislators have of enforcing
compromises ("We'll do X your way if you do Y my way") - by simply
putting the two concepts in one piece of legislation.
The old joke: "There are two things you do not what to know how they
are made: Laws and sausages."
Unfortunately, the public doesn't really understand just how contorted
laws can be because of riders so politicians are frequently blamed for
voting against a bill that everybody likes because the politician actually
read and understood the full implications of the rider.
For instance, Kerry was continually derided for voting against a bill
that would have increased funding for troops overseas during the 2004
election - even though I doubt anyone would have voted for that bill
if they really understood all of the riders on it. The principle message of
the bill was "support our troops" - which made it very hard to vote against.
Riders are an evil necessity in Democracy. There simply isn't will, time or
budget to separate out each issue and argue them all on their own merrits.
2006-10-16 11:04:25 · answer #2 · answered by Elana 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No - they're called "riders" and they appear ALL the time. That's how the Honorable Senator from Georgia gets a new airplane factory in his district when the actual Bill is for Child Care subsidies...
2006-10-16 11:06:13 · answer #3 · answered by 34th B.G. - USAAF 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is called a rider, and needs to be illegal. It causes a lot of pork to go through on the coatails of a neccessary appropriations bill.
It makes absolutely no sense, and is a travesty of representative government.
2006-10-16 11:11:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's not illegal , but we end up with some very poor laws .
This is one thing we as voters need to put an end to .
If the BILL can't pass on it's own merit , we don't need it .
2006-10-16 12:08:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It happens all the time, It's called a rider, although they're usually just small additions. There's nothing illegal about them.
2006-10-16 11:33:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is not illegal. The constitution doesn't say a bill has to concern just one topic.
can't remember what it's called, "rider"?
2006-10-16 11:03:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It should be. It sure is unethical especially when it is stuck in there at the last minute.
2006-10-16 11:04:56 · answer #8 · answered by Mario Savio 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
not illegal, just another way for congress to cheat middle-class Americans!
2006-10-16 11:31:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. It happens all the time. But it can get awfully confusing.
âº
2006-10-16 11:09:41 · answer #10 · answered by Jack430 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋