Rep. Marino Introduces "One Subject at a Time Act" - Polidicks

[release]AKRON, Ohio, Jan. 31, 2012 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --*"It's been a long time since Congress needed a majority to pass a law," says Jim Babka, President of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. "But that could change, thanks to Congressman Tom Marino of Pennsylvania (R-10), who has introduced our 'One Subject at a Time Act' (OSTA) in Congress." "OSTA would require each bill Congress passes to be about one subject only," Babka explains. "This would end the practice of clustering unrelated measures into one package. Congressional leaders have long used this trick to pass unpopular laws on the strength of the popular proposals with which they're unnaturally joined. OSTA would end this fraud forever." "Every bill would have to stand or fall on its own merits," declares Babka. Congressman Marino told his constituents that Obamacare was a big motivation for introducing OSTA. "In order to garner enough votes to pass the law, a host of unrelated measures were tacked onto Obamacare," says Marino. "But multi-subject bills are an old bipartisan problem. DownsizeDC.org created OSTA in response to numerous omnibus bills passed when the Republicans controlled Congress. For instance, the massively unpopular Real ID Act was only passed because the Republican leadership included it in an Emergency Troop Appropriation bill. That bill also included tsunami relief! Another example is the ban on Internet poker. It was included in a Port Security bill," says Babka. Babka commends Representative Marino for his leadership and applauds the Williamsport Tea Party for their crucial support. "Now we can begin to collect co-sponsors for this vital reform," Babka concluded.[/release] [url=http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/31/4227626/rep-marino-introduces-downsizedcorgs.html#storylink=cpy]Source[/url] Finally!

Who determines what constitutes a single subject?

[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;34487116]Who determines what constitutes a single subject?[/QUOTE] When someone wants to pass a bill, others want to get something out of it. So in order for the first guy to get a vote for his bill, people attach bills to it like giving money for a bridge in Texas in order to get the Texas vote. It's basically the main problem with our legislature.

It would be ironic if OSTA came with its own attachments.

[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;34487151]When someone wants to pass a bill, others want to get something out of it. So in order for the first guy to get a vote for his bill, people attach bills to it like giving money for a bridge in Texas in order to get the Texas vote. It's basically the main problem with our legislature.[/QUOTE] Uh... Okay. I knew that. It doesn't really answer my question though.

[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;34487197]Uh... Okay. I knew that. It doesn't really answer my question though.[/QUOTE] Well it means that no attachments to a bill are allowed, it has to deal with one "main" idea only things relating to it.

It's a good idea, not sure it'll pass though.

And here we see the rarest of the rare. A sane Republican with a good idea.

Would this kill "riders"? If so, fucking do it and pass it. I can't believe they get away with that. I kinda like how here its pretty much impossible to do, if you enter a bill into parliament the entire thing has to be within the scope of the long title. It stops all this bullshit of people passing stupid laws attached to things that won't fail. Not quite as good as Hungry though, where a court nullified a budget because it tried to change like 45 laws.

[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;34487197]Uh... Okay. I knew that. It doesn't really answer my question though.[/QUOTE] Well it means that no attachments to a bill are allowed, it has to deal with one "main" idea the pipeline bill that is trying to be passed can't have an addition to increase Ohio's spending budget by 1million

[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;34487197]Uh... Okay. I knew that. It doesn't really answer my question though.[/QUOTE] Relevant sections of the bill ([url]http://www.downsizedc.org/osta-legislation[/url] ) Definitions: [quote]SEC. 4. ONE SUBJECT AT A TIME Chapter 2 of Title 1 of the United States Code is amended to include a new section 104a, as follows: “Section 104a � ONE SUBJECT AT A TIME. “(a) Each Bill or Joint Resolution shall embrace no more than one subject. “(b) The subject of a Bill or Joint Resolution shall be clearly and descriptively expressed in the Title. “(c) An Appropriations Bill shall not contain any general legislation or change of existing law provision, the subject of which is not germane to the subject matter of each such Appropriations Bill provided however, that this section shall not be construed to prohibit any provision imposing limitations upon the expenditure of funds so appropriated. “(d) Concurrent Resolutions, including those under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which are not presented to the President for signature and which do not have the force of law, are exempt from this provision.”[/quote] Enforcement: [quote]Chapter 2 of Title 1 of the United States Code is amended to include a new section 104b, as follows: “Section 104b � ENFORCEMENT “(a) If the Title of an Act or Joint Resolution addresses two or more unrelated subjects, then the entire Act or Joint Resolution is void. “(b) If the Title of an Act or Joint Resolution addresses a single subject, but the Act contains one or more provisions concerning a subject that is not clearly and descriptively expressed in its Title, then only such provision or provisions concerning the subject not clearly and descriptively expressed in the Title shall be void. “(c) If an Act appropriating funds contains a provision outside of the jurisdiction of the relevant subcommittee of the House and Senate Appropriations committee, and therefore outside the subject of the bill, then such provision shall be void. “(d) If an Act appropriating funds contains general legislation or change of existing law provision not germane to the subject matter of such bill, then each and every such provision shall be void. “(e) Any person aggrieved by the enforcement of, or attempt or threat of enforcement of, an Act passed without having complied with Sections 104a and 104b of this Title, or any member of Congress aggrieved by the failure of the house of which he is a member to comply with the requirements of said Sections, shall, regardless of the amount in controversy, have a cause of action under Sections 2201 and 2202, Title 28, United States Code and Rules 57 and 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against the United States to seek appropriate relief, including an injunction against the enforcement of any law, the passage of which did not conform to Sections 104a and 104b of this Title. 9 1 “(f) In any judicial action brought pursuant to subsection (e) of 2 this section, the standard of review shall be de novo.”[/quote]

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34487105][release]AKRON, Ohio, Jan. 31, 2012 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --*"It's been a long time since Congress needed a majority to pass a law," says Jim Babka, President of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. "But that could change, thanks to Congressman Tom Marino of Pennsylvania (R-10), who has introduced our 'One Subject at a Time Act' (OSTA) in Congress." "OSTA would require each bill Congress passes to be about one subject only," Babka explains. "This would end the practice of clustering unrelated measures into one package. Congressional leaders have long used this trick to pass unpopular laws on the strength of the popular proposals with which they're unnaturally joined. OSTA would end this fraud forever." "Every bill would have to stand or fall on its own merits," declares Babka. Congressman Marino told his constituents that Obamacare was a big motivation for introducing OSTA. "In order to garner enough votes to pass the law, a host of unrelated measures were tacked onto Obamacare," says Marino. "But multi-subject bills are an old bipartisan problem. DownsizeDC.org created OSTA in response to numerous omnibus bills passed when the Republicans controlled Congress. For instance, the massively unpopular Real ID Act was only passed because the Republican leadership included it in an Emergency Troop Appropriation bill. That bill also included tsunami relief! Another example is the ban on Internet poker. It was included in a Port Security bill," says Babka. Babka commends Representative Marino for his leadership and applauds the Williamsport Tea Party for their crucial support. "Now we can begin to collect co-sponsors for this vital reform," Babka concluded.[/release] [url=http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/31/4227626/rep-marino-introduces-downsizedcorgs.html#storylink=cpy]Source[/url] Finally![/QUOTE] Wow, I have wanted this for a while, but I didn't expect anyone to actually propose it. It will never pass, but man I wish it would.

[QUOTE=GunFox;34487343]Wow, I have wanted this for a while, but I didn't expect anyone to actually propose it. It will never pass, but man I wish it would.[/QUOTE] This and the STOCK Act passing would be a good step torwards cutting back on congressional corruption. It's unlikely, but hey, a man can dream.

[QUOTE=GunFox;34487343]Wow, I have wanted this for a while, but I didn't expect anyone to actually propose it. It will never pass, but man I wish it would.[/QUOTE] Surely they could just stick it onto something that would pass anyway. Wait a second..

This is great, but ironically I fear it would be used to severely limit the power of bills by arguing "relatedness" into oblivion.

[QUOTE=ASmellyOgre;34487512]This is great, but ironically I fear it would be used to severely limit the power of bills by arguing "relatedness" into oblivion.[/QUOTE] If anything, I bet this bill would be ignored if passed. I doubt it would be overused

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34487633]If anything, I bet this bill would be ignored if passed. I doubt it would be overused[/QUOTE] We already ignore the constitution, why not?

It won't get passed.

I can see this actually being a problem. Say the healthcare act had been titled "Free Healthcare Bill". Then that one clause that prevents insurance companies from spending less than 80% of their income on actual healthcare could be called irrelevent. Conversely, how about the "Regulation of Properties act" where it could deal with almost anything and one could argue relevence.

I don't know if this will get through. It sounds like a threat to pork barreling

All I can do is hope it passes.

i'm sure the congressmen who utilize this loophole (read: nearly all of them) will be more than willing to eliminate it. :downs:

Now tack on a Protect Babies From Kodiak Bears Act and it's sure to pass!

Such a desperately needed resolution It kind of scares me though because I see it causing even more gridlock in the house, and I feel like it may show that our current government might be inadequate to handle the needs of such a massive country. Can 100 senators and 435 representatives actually keep up with the needs of 310 million people? shiiiiiiit..

[QUOTE=Regulas021;34489435]Such a desperately needed resolution It kind of scares me though because I see it causing even more gridlock in the house, and I feel like it may show that our current government might be inadequate to handle the needs of such a massive country. Can 100 senators and 435 representatives actually keep up with the needs of 310 million people? shiiiiiiit..[/QUOTE] I don't think you took a US Gov class.

Yessss

wont pass

Quick protect the guy who proposed this act before they brainwash him into another dirty politic. I really hope it passes, it would make everything much more simplistic and better for Murica

Now tack on a provision to punch Lamar Smith in the dick and it'll be just what this country needs.

Finally, a Republican I agree with.