I don’t care if you have to “ram it down their throats,” as the Republicans are fond of saying:
The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.
The Senate Parliamentarian’s Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said.
Two thoughts:
1.) Anyone who believes an anonymous GOP source needs their head examined. I’ll need to see video of the Parliamentarian issuing this decree before I believe it.
2.) Even if it is true, whatever. Fire the parliamentarian- not like it will be unprecedented to do that. Or have Biden over rule him. Or find another way. Who cares, really? The Republicans have proven definitively that the only reason the rules exist is to provide cover for when these guys don’t want to do something.
If the Democrats want to pass HCR, with the majorities they have, they will find a way. If they start whining about the Parliamentarian, it means they don’t want to pass the bill. And if they don’t pass the bill, I can’t think of one reason for anyone to vote ever again for any Democrat who votes no on the bill. Even darling Dennis.
lamh31
Just watched on Hardball, and some reporter from the Atlanta Monthly, said that his sources said that House dems don’t like the white house’s deadline of March 18, and they said that they should not have to be “forced” to vote based on the President going on “vacation” because “the Obama girls wanted to spend some time with him on their Spring Break”.
WTF!!! I rarely use this word online, but f*&; the Dem Congress. How long has this trip been planned??? How long has the Congress been working on healthcare? How long ago did the Senate pass their healthcare bill? How long did the Dems in the House know that they’d have to somehow reconcile the Senate bill with the House??? How long did they said that Obama should show leadership??? Now that he’s telling doing that, not they want to slow down??? How f*&’ long????
Ya know what, whoever brought up the Obama girls deserves a good kick in the mouth.
I’m not even saying that Obama should or should not go on the trip (I’m in the stay til healthcare is done camp, and then meet up with Michelle and the Kids, for Easter), but why the hell does the girls have to even be mentioned?
Just Pass The Damn Bill!
Catsy
That may be the best headline in the history of ever.
Ana Gama
@Catsy: Seconded!
Joseph Nobles
I for one welcome Obama’s LBP of Socialized Medicine.
I called my Representative today (Eddie Bernice Johnson) and put myself on record to pass the Senate bill.
El Cid
You mean it won’t strengthen the Democrats’ electoral image in the eyes of the public and the voters to surrender before the opposition of a much smaller minority party? But — but — many of them talk about how bipartisan-curious they’re trying to be!
Makewi
By any means necessary! I’m curious as the legality, constitutionally speaking, of voting on a bill which references a law that has yet to be enacted. Like jumping off the diving board into a pool that has yet to be filled with water.
I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest the Dems will not go this route. My guess is that Nancy will take the next week and a half or so to try to bend the House to her will on a vote for the Senate version as is.
ellaesther
I spent years working for newspapers, and every once and awhile I would see a headline emerge that made me go “Really? Do you not have eyes in your head?”
But never — NEVER — as powerfully as I am feeling that right now.
Wowee!
SiubhanDuinne
I know this is O/T — and I’m no big fan of Harry Reid as a leader — but his wife and daughter were severely injured in an auto accident today. Wife’s back and neck are broken. Mercifully, neither one appears to be life-threatening and according to AP, both women can feel their extremities. Still. That’s a terrible thing, and the Reid family is in my thoughts tonight. Sending them white light for a complete and speedy recovery. Political leadership or lack thereof means very little in this kind of family crisis.
Joshua Norton
Since when have Repugs been bothered by the size of any guys package?
Nick
@lamh31: But, you know, if only Obama would forcefully tell them to do it, they’ll just do it. It’s that simple…blah blah blah….bully pulpit…blah blah blah…leadership.
Makewi
@lamh31:
The actually urgency is the fear that Nancy will lose votes over the Spring break as Representatives return home to face their constituents who will give them an earful over this.
PTirebiter
@lamh31: Your reaction is entirely appropriate.
If it’s true, his sources should be tracked down and publicly caned. What pathetic need drives some Democrats to pull this kind of petty crap?
mcc
If the Parlimentarian’s opinion is for real, it likely doesn’t make much of a difference. The House voting on the Senate bill first is the plan Obama and Pelosi have been pushing toward the last week or two anyway.
Tax Analyst
I knew it all along! It’s those damned little Obama girls who have been stymieing HCR and probably all the other progressive bills that have been tied up in Congress.
I’ll bet they pull the same obstructionist move with their Summer Vacation this year, too.
“So Malia, what did you do on your Summer Vacation this year?”
“I blocked the entire agenda of my Father AND the Democratic Party. Well, my little sister helped a little bit.”
freelancer
OT – Spay and Neuter Congress, stat.
Good on Dodd, but WTF? is there something in the water that makes them all speak like Tobias Funke?
demo woman
@SiubhanDuinne: Thanks for the information. I just went to the Washington Post and their info is about the same. They were in stop and go traffic and a semi ran into them.
demkat620
Fear. Because they have believed the crap the media has been shoveling since 11/5/08.
The Dems didn’t really win. We are a center right nation afterall and what people really voted for was Democrats to enact a completely conservative agenda. They really think they are losing now because they are not giving republicans everything they want.
Jules
Ok, so get the bastards in the House to vote on the damn bill and have the President sign the fucking thing.
These idiots act like they are not in the same fucking party. Just get it done already.
Tax Analyst
@freelancer:
Frankly, I don’t think Corker should bring his sexual arousal into this discussion. And I really don’t care whether it’s little or not – it shouldn’t matter.
Tonal Crow
@Makewi:
To repeat what I said about this a month or so ago, there’s probably no Constitutional problem with such a statute. All they’ve got to do is to make the amendments conditional upon passage of the underlying legislation. Congress not infrequently makes a bill effective only upon the occurrence of some non-legislative event, and courts have never, to my knowledge, voided such legislation because of its trigger mechanism. Usually such legislation conditions some penalty or benefit upon “certification” by the President. For example, the Senate ratified a treaty allowing Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into NATO, but made its delivery—and thus effectiveness—conditional upon the President certifying, among other things, that the new NATO states were cooperating in the search for missing U.S. military personnel. Treaty 105-36, s.3(5), ratified 4/30/1998. http://www.senate.gov/legislat…..vote=00117 . (Get the text by querying http://thomas.loc.gov/home/treaties/treaties.htm ).
Given this, and the long history of conditional legislation (see, e.g., http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=11&page=382 ), it doesn’t seem that there’s any insurmountable parliamentary obstacle, either.
Joshua Norton
Well, duh! What was his sloppy reasoning that a member of the opposition minority party should have more say on the bill than the 13 Dems on his own committee? Giving the repiggies an equal 50/50 say worked SO well on the health care cluster-fuck.
Dodd is way past his sell-by date.
Roger Moore
@Joshua Norton:
They may not be bothered by the size of a white man’s package, but they obviously have a deep seated fear of black men with packages bigger than theirs.
Chuck Butcher
@Makewi:
Maybe, as much of a reach as it is, you really are as stupid as you act. That’s your guess? Apparently you really closely follow issues you pontificate on since that is exactly what the process is – and has been.
Dumbass.
This may not be exactly a ringing endorsement, but it is my push to PTDB. That and $0.50 will get you a cup of coffee.
cat48
Was Obama in the shower, too? These fricken people need to git er done……..so sick of all of them whining all the fracken time. This is hc for 30M people who don’t have it. All their health care should be cut off until they PTDFB. So sick of them. Reid has sent the ltr to McConnel. There will be reconciliation. Absolute cowards who told Ed they don’t go on Sun shows because they get beat up too bad! What a bunch of wimps. It’s all on Obama to sell it and protect their asses. “We want the president to lead!” He attempts it…..”Stop telling us when and how to do our jobs, jerky preznit!!!” GAHHHHHHHHH
PTirebiter
@SiubhanDuinne: No doubt a terrible thing. I have my complaints about Harry as speaker, but there really is much to admire about him. When he was a NV gaming commissioner, the mob seriously threatened him and his family a couple of times. They’re a gutsy bunch,
Tax Analyst
@Chuck Butcher:
Not around here, Chuck. We’re talking at least $1 for even a small cuppa java around L.A.
Little Dreamer
@Makewi:
I predict that the earful will be coming from those who want it passed, not those who don’t.
Mnemosyne
As a former newspaper copy editor, I can guarantee you that headline was not a mistake. Sometimes you have to amuse yourself as best you can.
SiubhanDuinne
@demo woman: I knew their car was rear-ended, didn’t know it was by a semi. Don’t like to argue with those guys.
Chuck Butcher
@Tax Analyst:
I stopped at the local coffee ? barrista place the other day and gave $1.65 for a small dark roast coffee – black, no BS. There are some restaurants at under $1 for cup & refill.
This place ain’t much like LA…
Jenn
@SiubhanDuinne:
Shit. Thanks for letting us know.
Joshua Norton
They probably should re-think outsourcing their copy editor jobs to India.
Angry Space Cadet
Little known fact-the Bolshevik Revolution broke out while Alexander Kerensky was on vacation in the south of France with his two demanding daughters. Oh and Rasputin used to talk to people in the shower too. Let this be your warning America.
Chuck Butcher
@SiubhanDuinne:
HEY, that motorcycle is going faster and is closer than you seem to think. Depth perception on small objects moving fast being what it is, take that headlight seriously – please. We don’t argue – we die.
Tazistan Jen
I voted for PTDB in the MoveOn poll, and something like 80% of the voters agreed with me. The firebagger/Kucinich group is apparently very, very small. I am really feeling positive momentum here.
Also, at the request of Obama’s group, I called my Rep again. Not that he needs it (it’s Polis) but I thanked him for supporting health care anyway.
SiubhanDuinne
@demo woman:
Thanks, by the way, for the WaPo reference. It’s much more detailed than the itsy little AP story at the NYTimes.
Just about a year ago, I was the ham in a three-car sandwich. Similar thing, stopped at a light behind one car with a Hummer behind me. Hummer driver saw the light change, didn’t bother to wait until the two cars in front of her had actually started moving, and rammed into me; I in turn rammed into the front car. No injuries, except to my car which sustained about $1500 of damage — and my fresh cup of hot coffee, which went flying on impact and soaked the floor mat and seat upholstery, LOL.
But my more serious point, I guess, is that even a minor incident such as that had all three of us pretty shaky; I shudder to imagine being rammed by a fully-loaded tractor trailer.
Makewi
@Chuck Butcher:
No. What has been going on is a serious of increasingly bizarre floated machinations on how they could get it done other than a straight up vote. Dumbass.
PTirebiter
@demkat620: alot of them really do need spine implants, but fear doesn’t explain this kind of pointless, adolescent back-stabbing. And remaining anonymous means they’re only getting the attention of a single, b-team reporter. It makes no sense to me.
Martin
@SiubhanDuinne: Well, thank goodness they have good health insurance, eh? Would suck mightily to be in such an accident and not have it.
gbear
I called both my senators and my congresswoman today. Franken is signed on for reconciliation, Klobuchar still wants the payment schedule for medicare adjusted. I suggested to the staffer that maybe Klobuchar should just help pass the bill now and work on the adjustments later. Too many people need help right NOW.
When I talked with Betty McCollum’s staff person, I suggested that Betty ought to go sweet talk Jim Oberstar until he’s on board for P’ingTDB too.
SiubhanDuinne
@Chuck Butcher:
No argument from me. I may be a progressive in the way I vote, but I’m a fairly conservative driver (I didn’t say little-old-lady going 35 on the Interstate, I just said conservative), and I don’t mess with semis, bikes, deer, or whatever else may be crossing the road in front of me or bearing down behind me.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Chuck Butcher:
Sorry Repubs, firebaggers, and everybody else who didn’t want to pass the damm bill for one reason or another, but it’s all over but the shouting now. When you’ve lost Chuck, you’ve lost America.
Chuck Butcher
@Makewi:
Either the Senate Bill is passed as is or it has to go through cloture again. Trying to get agreement for reconciliation still involves a straight vote – dumbass. You need to re-read your RNC talking points.
Makewi
@Tonal Crow:
Interesting enough. The parliamentarian apparently disagrees in this instance.
SiubhanDuinne
@PTirebiter: Didn’t know that about his and his family’s history. Thanks.
Chuck Butcher
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
You are talking about that TV series … right? As a lefty I am real aware of how much influence I have, had, or ever will have.
Makewi
@Chuck Butcher:
We are not talking about the same thing. I am talking about the Senate passing an amendment to their current bill (to be voted on in the house) via the reconciliation process prior to the actual vote of the House bill as proof of their good intent to do so afterwords. Perhaps you’ve heard something about this?
What you are talking about I have no idea, nor I expect, do you.
SiubhanDuinne
@Martin: Tru dat.
Chuck Butcher
@Makewi:
I’m sorry, I’ve fed a troll. A particularly ignorant one. I shall face the sunset and abase myself.
SiubhanDuinne
@Chuck Butcher: Abase or abuse?
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Chuck Butcher:
No, actually I was riffing off of LBJ’s famous comment about how when they’d lost Walter Cronkite, they’d lost middle America. No sarcasm intended. You may be a lefty, but you have also made some pretty strong comments here in the past grounding our often airy and rather abstract arguments over this or that policy in the more mundane reality of actual real life politics in your district, which IIRC is both rural and pretty conservative, and with which you have direct experience as someone who has actually run for office, which is something that few if any other commentators have. So if even you are saying in effect: enough already, just PTDB, then I figure, it’s over.
Tsulagi
Yep.
Also yep.
Hard to say what pisses me off more. How much they fucked HCR to where it is now taking a year to do it, or how afraid of their own shadows they are when R-baggers frown at them. I’ve fired people way more decisive and focused than these guys.
As far as the “Republicans turned off by the size of Obama’s package,” well, I think we all know if was an R with a little less pigmentation….
The Dangerman
Is there enough inventory of little red sports cars in the DC area to assuage the hurt feelings of the Republicans?
General Egali Tarian Stuck
It hasn’t been pretty, but they are about to do what no other democrat or anyone else has managed to do from trying for 65 years.
D-Chance.
If the Democrats want to pass HCR, with the majorities they have, they will find a way. If they start whining about the Parliamentarian, it means they don’t want to pass the bill.
LOL! Thanks, Cole, we needed the laugh.
Of course, they don’t want to pass the damn bill. They never have. Will it take yet another year of hand-wringing and whining and pissing and moaning before you rubes get the message? If they really wanted to pass the damn bill, they would have done it last summer.
If they ever do get around to passing it, the resulting legislation will be the equivalent of a crumb off the dinner table. And they’ll tell you that you’d better be damn grateful for their magnanimosity.
Chuck Butcher
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
My CD’s disagreement with the bill is more of the teabaggery and RNC fostered BS than my much more left discontent.
I finally decided that the flaws in this thing in its attempt to curry corporate money will lead to a disasterous enough failure that the corporate gains will be unable to stop real reform. The suffering will be muted until the wheels come off – then it will be bad, for a shorter period. Of you can believe whatever wonderful you like…
Quaker in a Basement
A headline like “GOP Turned Off by Size of Obama’s Package,” and not one Blazing Saddles reference in 56 comments?!?
Get with the program, people!
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Chuck Butcher:
That’s what I got from the blog post you linked to. As for me: “Elkins Act, Hepburn Act”. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.
Chuck Butcher
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
I didn’t think you misunderstood the post, that was for the benefit of those who didn’t bother with it.
Makewi
@Chuck Butcher:
Do as you feel you must, but be beware that to call another ignorant whilst exposing your own ignorance requires extra abasement what to purge your sins.
Mnemosyne
@D-Chance.:
It cracks me up that the same people who scoff loudest at the idea of 11th-dimensional chess are the exact same ones who insist this is all a grand conspiracy by the government to fool us into thinking they’ve passed legislation.
WAKE UP SHEEPLE!
Chuck Butcher
@SiubhanDuinne:
I can come here for that… ;-)
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@D-Chance.: OK,. who peed in your Wheaties again Tiger?
Chuck Butcher
@Mnemosyne:
Well you are intended to believe that this is Health Care Reform …
The Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, and an Honest Lawyer (Politician) were sitting at a table with a large amount of cash when the lights went out…
Who didn’t take it?
Zuzu's Petals
@Tonal Crow:
Well, as I commented at the time, I don’t think it is so much an issue of conditioning implementation based on a contingency as of amending a statute that does not exist.
To update to the present discussion, I think a lot could hinge on what the Senate Parliamentarian could have meant by the Senate not “acting” on a companion bill until the original bill is signed. If he meant that the Senate could not pass the bill until there is an underlying statute to amend, that would make sense. That would not preclude the Senate from drafting or discussing the legislation. Just guessing here.
Mnemosyne
@Chuck Butcher:
Actually, I’m mocking the notion that I’ve seen start coming up recently that the entire thing has been kabuki theater and the plan from the very beginning was to drag it out for over a year and then fail at the last possible second. Not that the failure of the bill might or could happen that way, but that it was deliberately planned to fail that way.
Complaints about the bill itself being nothing but a giveaway to health insurance companies I usually chalk up to not actually reading the bill rather than insane conspiracy theories. :-)
Zuzu's Petals
@Makewi:
How about clearing up some of the bad information you’ve been spouting about the bills before you move on to your next concern troll issue.
Tonal Crow
@Zuzu’s Petals: The rule that a later-enacted statute overrides an earlier-enacted one is rather limited in scope. Generally it applies only when the statutes in question do not specify what should happen when their terms conflict. In this case, the reconciliation bill will certainly specify that its terms are to override the terms of the Senate bill. It will also specify that it is not to become effective unless and until the Senate bill is passed. I think this puts the question pretty squarely in line with the treaty example I mentioned.
It would, as you imply, perhaps avoid some of these questions for Obama to hold off signing either bill until he has both on his desk, and then to sign the Senate bill first, then the reconciliation bill.
mclaren
@John Cole:
God damn f*cking right. This “it’s against the rules” bullshit is transparent garbage. When the Repubs ran things, they didn’t give a sh*t about the rules. If a rule got in their way, they nuked it. Rules? Didn’t stop ’em from torture. Parliamentarians? Didn’t stop ’em from starting an illegal aggressive war in Iraq.
If we’re going to get hardcore, here’s an idea: howzabout Barack Obama adds a buncha signing statements to the HCR bill after it passes? Obama adds a signing statement requiring a massive public option…Obama adds another signing statement stripping out the Stupak amendment…Obama adds yet another signing statement shutting down the doctor-hospital-insurer-medical devicemake collusive cartels and making nondisclosure agreements to keep prices secret illegal and a federal felony requiring the death penalty.
Why, come to think of it, Obama could add all kinds of signing statements after the HCR bill passes. This could get fun. The sociopathic lawless Repubs came up with the concept of signing statements to run roughshod over the law…now let’s see how they like it when it gets rammed down their throats by a Demo.
Zuzu's Petals
Okay, looking at the definition of a reconciliation bill, there seems to be a pretty good argument that the provisions being changed by reconciliation must first be enacted into law:
Nick
@Zuzu’s Petals: law, smaw, the Republicans do it (although they didn’t actually do THIS), they ignore the parliamentarian, so we should be able to do it to…
…oh! and we also reserve the right to bitch when the Republicans do it in the future.
Nick
Does this mean we stop bitching when the Republicans do it again and apologize to Tom DeLay and Bill Frist for bitching when they did it before?
Zuzu's Petals
@Tonal Crow:
Possibly you are thinking of cases where a court must construe conflicting language between two different statutes, not bills. Under California law at least, the order is clear: when two bills purport to amend the same statute, for instance, the last enacted bill will prevail. (In addition, a bill must amend the last amended form of a statute.)
However, we don’t even have to get to that point in the analysis, because it looks like the definition of a reconciliation bill is a bill that changes law. In other words, it is a bill, not an amendment to a bill.
The treaty cases you are referring to had to with the conditioning of the effectiveness of a bill on the occurrence of an outside event, which is a different matter than enacting legislation amending nonexistent legislation.
Of course many bills (at least in California) contain language conditioning their effectiveness or implementation on another bill taking effect, but with a few technical exceptions, it is rare for such a bill to purport to amend the language of another bill, especially when it is the first bill that is amending existing law. In fact, I’m hard pressed to think of any examples, given the strict rules in California on how bills are to be drafted.
Again using the California example, you are more likely to see Bill 2 pick up all the language of Bill 1 with the changes it wants to make. I doubt reconcilliation is the sort of process that would permit such substantive language.
And again extrapolating from California law, it would be interesting to know if reconcilliation language could simply be given a later effective date or be put on Obama’s desk after the original bill. Given the rule that it must change existing law, it could be problematic.
Or…maybe a bill adding provisions, not amending the original bill’s provisions? Too substantive again?
All this is stream-of-consciousness here. I’m sure I’ll think of all the different ways I could have fixed it after the edit time passes.
Zuzu's Petals
@Zuzu’s Petals:
Uhm, I meant:
“conflicting language between two different provisions, not a single provision affected by two separate statutes”
I knew I’d have to edit.
Cain
@Tax Analyst:
I bet he gets a great reception when it goes up.
cain
Tonal Crow
@Zuzu’s Petals: Thank you for the interesting conversation!
I agree that the definitions of “reconciliation bill” and especially “reconciliation instruction” at http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/reconciliation_instruction.htm (“…legislation changing existing law…”) seem to hold that reconciliation can be used only to change a provision that is law at that time, not a provision that may become law later. However, I don’t know how closely those definitions hew to the rules they purport to explain, nor what other loopholes might exist in those rules, substantive or procedural.
That said, I think that the reconciliation scenario is distinguishable from the scenario covered by the California rule. Neither bill will be “enacted” until Obama signs it. If he receives the reconciliation bill first, he can pocket it for 10 days (excepting Sundays), Art.I s.7 cl.2, while waiting for the House to pass the Senate bill. He can then sign the Senate bill first, thus enacting it such that the reconciliation bill, when signed, will amend then-existing law.
On the treaty issue, I don’t think that passing a treaty that conditions its own delivery — and thus its effectiveness — upon a Presidential certification, is much different from passing a bill that conditions its effectiveness upon the passage of a different bill. It’s true that the treaty’s effectiveness is conditional upon an event whose occurrence the legislature has no direct power to affect, while the bill’s effectiveness is contingent upon an act that’s within the legislature’s power. I don’t see why that should make a difference.
I certainly see nothing in the Constitution that seems to prohibit Congress from doing this. And it’s a potential useful legislative tool, which should put it within the “penumbra and emanations” of Art.I s.5 cl.2 (“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings….”).
‘Course, I haven’t researched this in any depth. There could definitely be contrary caselaw that I haven’t found.
YellowJournalism
The headline basically covers the reason behind all the crap of the past year. That, and this:
I hope Quaker is happy, even if the quote isn’t a dick joke.
Zuzu's Petals
@Tonal Crow:
Yes, it is an interesting conversation.
No, it’s not clear to me what the actual rules paraphrased in the Senate glossary might be. It would be interesting to have a look, along with any advisory opinions etc. out there. But I don’t see how any of it would rise to the level of a constitutional question…unless somebody waay oversteps their power.
Actually, although the term “enacted” can be used loosely in talking about the legislative process, a statute does not become law in California until (usually) signed by the Governor and then chaptered by the Secretary of State (although its effective date is often later). When the courts talk about the “later enacted statute” prevailing* that is what they mean. So in that sense it would be the same as the scenario we are discussing…again, if federal law is analagous.
(You will see plenty of cases where the Governor signs bills in a particular order so that one will or will not “chapter out” the other, for instance. Sometimes it is quite a little ballet.)
I understand your point about conditioning the effectiveness of one bill upon the passage of another, but it’s more than that when one bill purports to amend provisions already amending existing law; in that case it is not just the condition of passage of the first bill, but the timing of the effect of both bills. The only example I can think of in California law would be when, for instance, Bill A, which amends Sec. 123 of the Government Code is chaptered in June but (as a nonurgency bill) doesn’t take effect until the next January 1. In the meantime the Legislature wants to make other changes to Sec. 123 of the Government Code and writes up Bill B. They can either ignore Bill A (which hostile legislators do) and let Bill B “chapter out” Bill A when it is chaptered in September and takes effect in January, or they can pick up the substance of Bill A and combine it with the substance of Bill B, in which case it wouldn’t matter if Bill B chapters Bill A out.
And if Bill A takes effect immediately (which I think is the case with federal laws?), then Bill B amends Sec. 123 as Bill A has amended it; they are then simply working off the last amended form of Sec. 123.
It may be that little if any of this translates to federal procedure. I’d like to think that the reconciliation bill could prospectively amend the provisions proposed by the Senate bill, with a contingency effective date, but they may have a strict requirement that the introduced bill show only changes to existing law.
It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.
————————-
(Asterisk goes here) Actually, it’s the higher numbered chapter that prevails. That usually means it was signed later. (See, for example, Sec. 9505, Gov. C.)
Zuzu's Petals
@Zuzu’s Petals:
Dang it all to heck. It was Sec. 9605, Gov. C. I meant to cite. Too fancy for my own good.
Zuzu's Petals
@Zuzu’s Petals:
So Tonal Crow, in case you come back, here’s what looks to be the plan:
Yukiko Loots
I love Sonny With A Chance, I’d have to say my favorite on the show is Nico, I’m hooked on the show! Thanks for your post!