Do you support a "CLEAN BILL" amendment?

[HopeHoops]

Poll question: Do you support a "CLEAN BILL" amendment?

By this, I mean a simple amendment stating "Any and all parts of a bill must relate to the original stated purpose of the bill."

Example of a violation: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5643510 - guns in parks attached to the credit card reform bill. WTF is up with THAT?

If Congress is EVER going to be reformed, then it needs to stop hiding behind popular legislation to get pork and pet provisions through the system. If you want a bill to fund research into frog fucking techniques, FINE - INTRODUCE IT! Don't attach it to a defense spending bill so you can claim "Democrats voted against defense spending" when all you wanted to do was watch frogs fuck!

I know, that sounds like an extreme example, but it isn't that far off of the mark. They can turn a simple one paragraph bill into 800 pages of pork and pet projects in a matter of hours and little if anything after page one has ANYTHING to do with the original paragraph.

So, would you support a requirement that all additions to legislation must be directly related to the original intent of the bill?

[Skink]

1. Only if Grovlebot stops grinning.

nt

[HopeHoops]

3. Oh yeah, like THAT will happen!

At least not until the fundraising goal is reached!

[michreject]

2. yes

[tritsofme]

4. The House already forbids non-germane amendments in most cases.

This is something that could be addressed by the Senate internally with a rules change.

A constitutional amendment is an unnecessary measure.

However many argue that allowing senators to bypass committees and the scheduling of the Senate leadership to offer non-germane amendments is a very democratic practice.

[HopeHoops]

5. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!

Yeah, that SO stops them!

[ContinentalOp]

6. Seems totally unenforceable. -nt-

[aikoaiko]

7. No, amendments are an important legislative tool.

Amendments can't be attached without majority approval.

[TahitiNut]

8. I believe it was PRESUMED in 1789 when the Constitution was enacted.

British parliament has a centuries-long tradition of eschewing "hybrid" acts. It's "just not done."