Posted: 3/8/2004 8:17:44 AM EDT
|
I've always been amazed by the amount of knowledge many of you have here about legislation. Hell, some of you guys could be hill rats or lobbyists not just 'gun nuts' ;0 At any rate, what could the democrats do between now and the expiration of the AWB to get it extended? Could they try to use some of the Patriot Act or similar to get an extension? Please educate me. Thanks |
|
Here is the status of the AWB, ONE MORE TIME... 1) There are 4 renewal bills that have been submitted in the Senate so far. They are being held up in committee by the committee chairs, to prevent anyone from voting on them. 2) It is allways possible that Feinstein could try to insert a re-auth attached to a popular bill (again)... However, if it's not a gun or budget bill, Frist could stop it by ruling it 'not germaine', just like he did with the welfare extension ammendemnt to the liability bill. A Patriot re-auth seems the most likeley target, but that will not be taken up untill after November (probably in the 'lame duck' session)... So, for all practical purposes, we just saw the Dem's best chance at a pre-September re-auth expire... This is a campaign year, and from August thru November very little will get done... |
|
DaveA - [i]Senate[/i] admendments do not have to be germane - they do need to be in the House however. Hence the Senate could try some other crap by adding an amendment to a bill, expecially since we know we have some turncoat Repubbies in the Seante (whom we need to badger like a 3 year old lookin' for a lolipop...). The House is much more "rules" bound and therefore the Repubbies, who control virtually every Committee and Sub-Committee, should (had better!) just bury any new AWB related bills or amendments. KEEP THE PRESSURE ON YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND SENATOR! CMOS CMOS |
|
Quoted: DaveA - [i]Senate[/i] admendments do not have to be germane - they do need to be in the House however. Hence the Senate could try some other crap by adding an amendment to a bill, expecially since we know we have some turncoat Repubbies in the Seante (whom we need to badger like a 3 year old lookin' for a lolipop...). The House is much more "rules" bound and therefore the Repubbies, who control virtually every Committee and Sub-Committee, should (had better!) just bury any new AWB related bills or amendments. KEEP THE PRESSURE ON YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND SENATOR! CMOS CMOS I disagree. From what I have read, they do have to be or they will be stricken from the bill. Here is a bit I found regarding this issue. (BTW, this is from the Republican policy commitee, our friend Larry Craig back in 2002) [url]http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/gv061002.htm[/url] Quick Guide for Germaneness Post-Cloture Under Senate Rule 22, when the Senate has voted to bring debate on a measure to a close, then that measure becomes the unfinished business of the Senate to the exclusion of all other business. Debate is limited thereafter, but amendments are in order [red]so long as they were filed in advance [i]and[/i] are germane. "Germane" is a term of art under the Senate rules, and it means something much narrower than "relevant" or "pertinent." [/red] An amendment that expands the scope of a bill or [red]introduces new subject matter is not germane.[/red] A. Frumin, Riddick's Senate Procedure at 292. An amendment regarding the minimum tax to a tax bill was held not germane because the bill did not contain a provision relating to the minimum tax. Id. at 294. An amendment requiring a study of women in the Armed Forces was held not germane to a bill extending the Selective Service Act because there was nothing in the bill on the drafting of women. Id. at 293. An amendment on the pricing of oil was held not germane to a bill deregulating the price of natural gas. Id. at 293-94. Amendments that limit or restrict provisions of a bill are germane. Id. at 292. An amendment to strike will be ruled germane. In 1982, the Chair gave its opinion that amendments that strike language from a bill "regardless of their effect upon the powers granted in the bill would be considered germane per se." Id. at 291-92. Germaneness "should be strictly construed," and the "burden of making the case for germaneness rests on the proponents." Id. at 291. The Chair may rule amendments out of order as not being germane without a point of order being made from the floor. Id. |
|
Cape_hunter: That "germainness" discussion deals only with "post cloture" posture.... i.e., after you get 60 votes on record to shut down a possibility of a filibuster. That's what the "good guys" tried last week, but in order to get enough votes for cloture, they had to "allow" consideration of the gun control measures. Had we just musted two more Republicans, we would have had a victory. As it was, we got turncoated and lost. |