Senate Cybersecurity Bill Stalled By Ridiculous Amendments

wiredmikey writes "Despite a recent push by legislators, it remains unclear whether the Senate will manage to vote on the proposed comprehensive cybersecurity legislation (Cybersecurity Act of 2012) before Congress adjourns at the end of the week for its summer recess. Once all the amendments (over 70) have been dealt with, the Senate could decide to vote on the bill immediately, or wait till after the summer recess. As usual, the Democrats and Republicans have been unable to agree on which amendments will be considered, effectively stalling the bill. And most interesting, is that in typical U.S. political fashion, some of the amendments have nothing to with the topic on hand (cybersecurity): ... Sen. Frank Lautenberg has filed a measure to ban high-capacity ammunition clips as part of a gun-reform proposal. And Sen. Mike Lee filed a bill that would ban abortion in Washington, D.C. after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Sen. Michael Bennet and Tom Coburn filed an amendment to expand the Office for Personnel Management's federal government's data center consolidation initiative. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell suggested an amendment to repeal the Affordable Care Act."

Comments

Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[rbanzai]

I know this is the way our government works, tacking on all sorts of stupid shit but it still seems absurd.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Zobeid]

Those who love sausage and respect the law shouldn't watch either being made.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

Sausage at least has nutritional value. However, in this case, perhaps we should be thankful for all the ludicrous amendments, because they appear at least to have stalled this ludicrous, farcical, and absurd piece of legislation.

Congress mandating "security performance requirements". It'd be a joke if the wrong people wouldn't be going to jail as a result of this stupidity.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Sponge Bath]

This congress can choke on my love sausage.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this is the way our government works, tacking on all sorts of stupid shit but it still seems absurd.

Not everywhere. In Canada (and probably many other Westminister systems), each bill has a particular topic.

Something that includes everything and the kitchen sinks is called "omnibus", generally discouraged, and isconsidered 'bad form' to use (though that doesn't stop them from happening of course):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_bill

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[DJRumpy]

I wish they would change the rules to allow only amendments related to the legislation in question. It would seem such a simple thing would make congress much more efficient. Then again, I seriously doubt that was ever a priority for them.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[MightyMartian]

It's like government by obsessive-compulsive sufferers. "I can't concentrate on this bill, I can only keep my obsessions front and center."

Government for the morons, by the morons and of the morons.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[ganjadude]

And the bill to get that passed would have 100 amendments having nothing to do with outlawing amendments!

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Jessified]

It's not absurd. If you cyberRTFA you'll see that they are talking about cyberabortions of cyberpregrancies, cybergunreform and cyber-repealing of cyberhealthcare.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[nschubach]

Or how about no amendments... pass or fail by the bill alone.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[bluefoxlucid]

I solved this problem ages ago, but nobody listens to me. I guess it's a curse: I'm some kind of miraculous oracle, I solve the world's problems on the backs of napkins, and nobody fucking cares. It's what I do.

Look, maybe if I say it enough somebody will listen. When you make a bill, you add a mission statement. A statement of purpose. It's legally binding. This bill has the purpose of ... improving the robustness of the economy of the United States of America by means of regulating the trading of securities. That's a statement of purpose.

Does banning abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy improve the robustness of the US economy? Does it do so by means of regulating the trading of securities?

No?

Well THAT LAW IS INVALID.

When you go to court, it should be a sound legal argument that the law is BULLSHIT and has nothing to do with what it's supposed to be about. It can be as far as showing that the intent of the law was to solve a particular social injustice and that the "criminal behavior" engaged in did not in fact perpetrate such injustice; or it can be as simple as showing that the law was intended to attack one problem and the section of the law in question has absolutely nothing to do with whatever the fuck it was supposed to address. These are actually the same thing. If you want a law against gun control, create a bill about controlling guns.

On the other hand, the law prescribes HOW to address the problem it seeks to control. That the law attempts to address "the proliferation of marijuana use" doesn't mean you can arrest someone for a clear case of marijuana use. The law must specify something about marijuana that is now illegal. If it's illegal to smoke marijuana, but not to grow and sell it, you can grow and sell it. If it's illegal to traffic marijuana, you can still PRODUCE it, and CONSUME it, but apparently you can't sell or trade it. If you want it to be illegal, you better say so. And if you say something that's not related to marijuana is suddenly illegal, THAT'S NOT FUCKING RELEVANT SO IT'S NOT ENFORCEABLE IN COURT.

Yes, it will cause problems with the legal interpretation of laws down the road. You know what? THAT HAPPENS ANYWAY. I've actually just suggested that we make INTENT more clear, so fuck off, this actually makes things work as expected. It, of course, takes power out of certain peoples' hands--in theory. In reality legislature has no power, and they're too stupid to utilize the power they do have to any effect. Still it's effectively binding the legislative body, and they'll never pass such a resolution so as to bind themselves.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

This is partially why it ISN'T working anymore.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[SuricouRaven]

But how do you define 'directly related' and 'one thing?'

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[LandDolphin]

If the Founder Fathers wanted efficiency, they would not have created the federal system with a bicameral legislature. Stupid shit like this slowing down the process is there by design - to protect our rights. If government were efficient, they would just erode our rights faster.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[LandDolphin]

Amendments are often how compromise is reached. Without amendments, the Constitution would never have passed.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[DJRumpy]

Amendments in and of themselves aren't inherently evil. If they introduce legislation that has a gap, or isn't clearly defined, an amendment can be used to shore up weaknesses and to address various concerns.

That said, allow anyone to introduce ANY amendment, related or not, just seems asinine. Limiting the scope only to related amendments makes sense.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[shutdown -p now]

Some American states have explicit prohibition on these kinds of shenanigans. E.g. Washington State Constitution:

SECTION 38 LIMITATION ON AMENDMENTS. No amendment to any bill shall be allowed which shall change the scope and object of the bill.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[shutdown -p now]

You basically invoke common sense. The idea is not to make the law foolproof, but to make it possible to shoot down such amendments, even if it takes some effort to do so. Let the courts argue the specifics in any particular case, that's what they're there for.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Cinder6]

Obligatory Simpsons quote:

Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of—
Congressman: Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill – $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill? [entire Congress boos] Bill defeated. [gavel]
Kent Brockman: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[knight24k]

And the bill to get that passed would have 100 amendments having nothing to do with outlawing amendments!

LOL. I wish I had mod points to give you. That about made me spew coffee all over my screen. Well done sir! :)

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[DJRumpy]

I disagree. If they knew the basic system was flawed, making it inefficient would only delay any perceived protection, inevitably ending up in the same place eventually while only taking longer to get there. Claiming they designed it as such specifically to protect our rights has no basis in proof. A good example is the filibuster. It was never intended to be used in the manner it is today. It's use today is used to endlessly stall legislation. The founding fathers didn't design that. It was added later. They also couldn't foresee what our legal system would look like 300 years later.

The very fact that we have amendments to our Constitution indicates that they couldn't foresee everything, and that social values change and that the law had to change to reflect that.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[cayenne8]

For the most part...I am the happiest with congress when the best they can manage is gridlock.

That just means they aren't passing more useless laws to infringe on my privacy, curb my rights, or charge me more money.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

If they had to make a mission statement, they'd just make the mission statement 40 pages long, include the word 'and' or similar words no less than 800 times, be written in horrendously vague legal-eze, and in itself have written in the ability to amend the mission statement as needed.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Tom]

Agreed completely, however... ...I used to work in a field fairly close. We weren't passing laws, but essentially we were doing regulations. Here's the thing: If you have a rule that says only amendments that are related can be added, the trolls will simply move to discussing you to death on what exactly "related" means. While you cut down on the obvious bullshit, you add a lot of conflict to the non-obvious and for the actual useful - the same guys who file this nonsense amendments all the time will doubt that your own very closely related amendment actually is related, just to piss you off, delay the process and make everyone hate a law they don't want to see passed.

The original thinking might have been that it's easier to deal with non-related amendments than it is to deal with that kind of bullshit all the time.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[LandDolphin]

Read The Federalists #10.

To sum it up. James Madison writes about the influence of Factions (aka Parties). He sees these as negative, but unavoidable. Thus, the he suggests a system in which smaller Factions have the ability to slow down and force larger Factions to discuss and debate issues.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

It's the ass end of tacking on shit.

It's one big cluster fork of politicians getting goodies in exchange for their vote.

The downside of this process is that, wait, that was a downside.

The upside of this process is politicians can use the same mechanism to attach poison pill amendments that will cause the bill to fail. That's what we are seeing here.

Wait, wut?

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[DJRumpy]

A yes/no simple majority vote would be easy enough to decide if an amendment is related. Sometimes a simple solution is also the best one ;) If they want to play politics claiming gun clip laws are related to Cybersecurity, then they could answer to their opponents when they are up for re-election. They could also consider penalties for those that suggest an amendment that is voted 'No' (not related) to prevent such spamming.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[DJRumpy]

He disagreed with political parties, not with amendments or efficiency. He saw parties as diluting the message (the message getting lost in a larger parties platform). A good example would be the difference between a social conservative and a fiscal conservative. Especially right now, we see social issues burying fiscal issues in the Republican Party, who in turn has trouble focusing on helpful legislation due to intra party factions. They are now ruled by the more fringe elements of their party, and fiscal maters in reality take a back seat to social issues.

I don't see this as largely relevant when discussing how quickly a bill passes in regards to amendments. In this case, the people proposing these amendments are not doing so to slow down this legislation, but rather to piggyback on a more popular bill in the hopes that their amendments will be more palatable in the larger scheme of things.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[icebike]

I know this is the way our government works, tacking on all sorts of stupid shit but it still seems absurd.

These are just tactics to poison the bill without having to be seen vote against it. Load it down with enough dung and pretty soon even a Rose Parade float full of scantily clad women smells like, well, bull.

The bill is getting exactly the treatment it deserves.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Khyber]

Given the current state of the USA government, I am quite happy that they manage a deadlock instead of shit just getting pushed through like typical.

But it seems that out of the /. population, *YOU* don't tend to do shit about it, whereas I've been part of several counters against some of these bills being proposed.

Yes, I'm calling *YOU* out. Get off your ass and do something about it, or shut your mouth and let the rest of us bitch.

"glibtard principles."

Sounds like a RepubliCUNT to me.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

This was one that the Confederate States got right:

Article I, Section 9(20): Every law or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.[17]

Too bad that one was never incorporated.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[CrimsonAvenger]

A yes/no simple majority vote would be easy enough to decide if an amendment is related. Sometimes a simple solution is also the best one ;)

So, under your system, the Democrats in the Senate can define anything they want to be "related", and the Republicans in the House can do likewise.

So, how is that different than now?

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[nschubach]

Who's to determine if an amendment is related? I mean, if you are talking about a budget act, one could argue that any amendment could be included because anything takes money. If I submit a bill that states: "Patents relating to software are hereby disallowed" (but of course, in legalese). What's to prevent someone from saying: "Well, Microsoft is involved heavily in software patents... therefore I amend that companies reporting as software entities be permitted a tax break because of this bill." Now, as an "unrelated" circumstance... Apple decides they are now a software company and they get a tax break on all hardware purchases."

I only mention something like this because of UPS and FedEx. During my time at UPS (I'm no longer involved in either) it was made very clear that UPS was considered a company covered by Railroad regulations and FedEx was covered by Airline regulations. They perform the same functions, but since UPS is older and didn't start as an air shipping company they are beholden to Union labor laws based on rail legislation and FedEx does not have union labor regulations. This recently came up as a topic and UPS was criticized for trying to bring FedEx under the same regulation as FedEx.

So who determines the validity and repercussions of an amendment?

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[nschubach]

Gah! Typo:"...UPS was criticized for trying to bring FedEx under the same regulation as UPS."

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[ColdWetDog]

This congress can choke on my love sausage.

You've got a lot of balls to say something like that....

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[DJRumpy]

Because rather than just allowing the amendment in without any safeguards, it would require a majority vote. If the majority is still interested in adding it for political purposes, then that doesn't break the system, but it does prevent rouge amendments from individuals from being introduced.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[gl4ss]

In most of the words countries legislation manages to get passed just fine with specific laws dealing only with specific things tacked only with amendements(extras) which define that particular law more strictly than the title of the law does as well as defining sanctions for breaking said law.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[w3dg]

I am non-opinionated in this thread, but I do have to point out that trying to discredit somebody else's opinion on a matter by telling them that what they are doing is wrong, or assuming something pretty major of them, whilst you go on to say that you are bitching as well as they are bitching, makes you look like an asshole. So, don't tell somebody to not do something you are doing because it disagrees with what you said. Well, I mean you can, it's your right, but it makes you look like an asshole who would be genuinely upgraded in life status by being called a douche, or being douched out with an asshole douche. Also, turning the word Republican into anything but republican, same goes for liberal/democratic and red/blue, makes you look like an underwear stain on the great fabric of the internet. So, just say no to being an asshole who leaves underwear stains on the fabric of the internet. It gives people with opinions on the internet a bad name.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[shentino]

We tried that already.

SCOTUS ruled it as an unconstitutional violation of the presentment clause.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[shentino]

The constitution forbids it, and SCOTUS already struck down something like that.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[txsable]

Line-item veto. In Texas, it's granted to the governor only over budgetary bills, but it's one of the ways an executive could potentially put a stop to the amendment abuse. Granted, of course, that said executive isn't the one who pushed for, or is at least complicit in, adding these ridiculous amendments in the first place.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[nicolastheadept]

In the UK, bills have a short and a long title. You can't tack things onto a bill if that's not what the long title is about.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[DJRumpy]

No, SCOTUS struck down a line item veto by the executive. Everything is within scope when it comes to congress within the general confines of the Constitution. This is simply a procedural change in and of itself, and it would not require the force of law behind it.These are called 'Riders' and have been used throughout our history as a nation. Other countries deal with these with varying degrees of success. Some forbid them outright, some forbid the mixing of two types of amendments (for example, tacking on a social rider to a budget item, etc).

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[hierophanta]

it also means that you are paying for services that you are not receiving

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[ColdWetDog]

Define "one subject". See this post just above.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[DJRumpy]

43 states still have these state Line Item Veto powers on their books, which is curious since the SCOTUS did throw out a similar act at the federal level (see Clinton vs. the City of New York), but that specific instance threw out a Line Item veto by the president. I don't believe it addressed state legislatures.

The problem being that the Executive could adversely impact, or change the implementation of a bill in a way that was not officially sanctioned by the legislature. It's a valid concern.

Here's a bit more info on the history of these Amendments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_(legislation)

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[ravenshrike]

The really funny thing about your response? Slippytoad from his post history is clearly a left wing asshole. But keep fucking that chicken Khyber. It's quite entertaining.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Curunir_wolf]

it also means that you are paying for services that you are not receiving

No, Congress is not a "service". It's a representative body. The vast amount of money required to run Congress is the only real problem, but that money is such a small percentage of the budget as to be basically irrelevant.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[ceoyoyo]

Bicameral legislatures are indeed seen as a way to make sure bills are properly considered. In many places the two houses also represent different viewpoints - one may be population weighted while the other is geographically representative, for instance.

But tacking random amendments onto bills seems to be used as much (or more?) for pushing through unpopular legislation (by tacking it onto very important bills) as it is for stalling things. The process must make the legal code extremely difficult to follow as well, which is most definitely counter to protecting the rights of the average citizen.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Slime-dogg]

We tried that already.

SCOTUS ruled it as an unconstitutional violation of the presentment clause.

The unconstitutional portion was the line-item veto, which is to say, the bill that passes the House has to be the same as the bill that passes the Senate, which has to be the same that is signed by the president. There is nothing that would be illegal about curbing the amendments as they are assembled within whichever sourcing portion of congress they originate in. The presentment would then be preserved across House, Senate, and Executive.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, maybe if I say it enough somebody will listen. When you make a bill, you add a mission statement. A statement of purpose. It's legally binding. This bill has the purpose of ... improving the robustness of the economy of the United States of America by means of regulating the trading of securities. That's a statement of purpose.

Does banning abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy improve the robustness of the US economy? Does it do so by means of regulating the trading of securities?

No?

Well THAT LAW IS INVALID.

Doesn't work. This example was obvious, but but there will be non-obvious cases and endless quarrels "do this suggested amendment fit the mission statement?"

It is much easier to say "no amendments". Either reject the law and then re-suggest a slightly different one, or accept the law and then have another vote to change the wording a bit. They can still pass weird laws, of course. But not in silly ways.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Quirkz]

Heh, sorry, but I can't help but laughing. Invoking "common sense" is a frequent trick of political rhetoric. Generally they mean it in terms of a "providing common-sense solutions to today's problems" but most of what that rhetoric boils down to is and empty phrase that means "if you agree with me, you'll like my policies" rather than any actual demonstration of thought that is both "common" and "sensible." I know that's not the common sense you're talking about, but considering the political track record of using that phrase, I don't like its chances of working here, either.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[shutdown -p now]

I didn't mean this literally, but rather in intent. For example, here's how Washington State constitution specifies this:

"LIMITATION ON AMENDMENTS. No amendment to any bill shall be allowed which shall change the scope and object of the bill."

The precise interpretation of "change the scope and object" is not defined here, and would be up to the court. But the purpose of this clause is so that you can invoke the court in the first place.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[hierophanta]

So hypothetically, you hire a Lawyer to represent you in court but instead of doing anything to help you out he/she spends all day surfing the net and doing other things that are not valuable. You dont worry about it because you are a billionaire and can afford it - but at the end of the day you still go to jail / are found guilty/ whatever because your lawyer is incompetent. That is what is happening today, and it is we, the people/ citizens of the united states, that are having our personal information 'leaked' time and time again - to our great detriment.

My point is that the OP's point of view that being happiest when the best they can manage is gridlock, is what is wrong with the american public. (no personal offense meant to cayenne8). Personally, I'm happiest when politicians make well thought out decisions that improve our quality of life. Khyber said about the same thing as I, but puts it more bluntly.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[hierophanta]

I might be wrong about what I understood from Kyhber's post, I cant really tell

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

More like it'd never pass unless someone managed to tack it on to a bill that had nothing to do with outlawing amendments.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[hairyfeet]

There is an easier and more effective way to point out the stupidity of the whole "glibtard/republicunt" wingers and that is with some words of wisdom for the late Bill Hicks..

"Well I believe the puppet on the left shares MY beliefs, well I believe the puppet on the right has MY interests at heart...hey wait a minute, there's one guy controlling both puppets!"

Every time the elections roll around all I can think is how much we could use him right now..

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[AdamWill]

As far as I know, no other country does this ludicrous crap, it's only the U.S. In this case, there's no intrinsic need for the ugly bits of the process, it's just a problem of your particular political process.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Curunir_wolf]

Bad analogy. You don't "hire" a congressman to do a specific job (well, some people DO, but let's assume for a moment that they are truly representative), it's more of an overhead cost for having a government at all. And compared to having NO government, it's a pretty good bargain (the overhead of running congress itself, that is).

But I do think you're wrong about the OP's point, which is really more along the lines of Thoreau: "That government is best which governs least...", as in, when they aren't passing laws to tax us, or drone us, or take away our rights, that's better than when they are. For a good look at how someone can arrive at this conclusion, take a look at the legislation or issues that have enjoyed overwhelming with "bipartisan support":

• The War on Drugs
• Wall Street Bailouts
• Wars in the Middle East
• The PATRIOT Act
• Corporate subsidies
• Protectionism
• Marriage discrimination
• SOPA
• The Federal Reserve act

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[cayenne8]

It's not so much that...not getting service...but making sure they aren't making laws for the sake of something to do and to crow about election time.

That job really wasn't meant to be a full time job.....we have TONS of laws, many of which should be repealed and done away with. Trouble is, once a law gets passed....very seldom does it get repealed.

But, we just need them enough, to pass just enough laws as new things come up...and a budget.

And the budget...is something that hasn't been passed in how many years??

And, the way govt is set up...gridlock is PART of it....it is best to have a federal govt that moves slowly, and with small steps...

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[uglyduckling]

That should be the case for all forms of government in all countries. It makes a mockery of democracy when bills are amended to contain statute that has nothing to do with the original purpose of the bill.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

The relection of Congress is hard work and every congressman in raising funds every day for it. Read their campaign filings.

Business as usual is not absurd for the Congress because everyone if raising funds for reelection. It is very likely your congressman is raising money for his reelection. There are treasurers, campaign staff, and fund raising letters and "meet the folks" meetings back home. And the people who send money get stuff for it. Not directly but they get favors and language.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Hartree]

"As far as I know, no other country does this ludicrous crap"

You haven't studied many other countries legislatures much, then. Look up things like the cow walk in Japan and some of the shenanigans where fistfights break out various legislatures.

What about Belgium when it couldn't even form a government for a year and a half? They finally did late last year.

What about the long term period of the Italian government of the month that went on for decades?

What about India two years ago when they only managed to pass 4 whole bills in one session?

I'm not saying the US congres is good, it's just not the only one that does this.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

My state has a "one subject" restriction for state constitutional amendments. AIUI the language of an amendment can be challenged in state court on this basis either before or after it is ratified. If successfully challenged, the entire amendment is either remanded to the legislature for rewriting (before passing via ballot) or it is struck down (after ratification).

Something similar might work for ordinary federal legislation.

- T

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[TheSeatOfMyPants]

This times 1000:

Also, turning the word Republican into anything but republican, same goes for liberal/democratic and red/blue, makes you look like an underwear stain on the great fabric of the internet.

It also shows that they're still far too immature to voice disagreement or disgust without acting like a bratty younger sibling, signaling to other people that we should give their opinions equivalent weight.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

"Those who love sausage and respect the law shouldn't watch either being made."

Same goes for circumcision.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[sociocapitalist]

I know this is the way our government works, tacking on all sorts of stupid shit but it still seems absurd.

Because it is absurd.

It's also why nothing gets accomplished.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[sociocapitalist]

If the Founder Fathers wanted efficiency, they would not have created the federal system with a bicameral legislature. Stupid shit like this slowing down the process is there by design - to protect our rights. If government were efficient, they would just erode our rights faster.

There was plenty there to protect our rights without having to resort to something like designed-in inefficiency.

Probably be better if they removed all our rights as fast as possible because then people might actually do something about it whereas they seem to be quite prepared to lose a right or two at a time and doing nothing at all to stop the metaphorical bleeding out every orifice.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Minnesota has in our our state constitution Article 4 Section 17:

Sec. 17. Laws to embrace only one subject. No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.

The problem is that it requires that a judge find that the law or statute was illegally passed and then repeals it. This situation came up several years ago when the current version of Minnesota's carry law was passed. It was attached to an unrelated bill and a lawsuit was filed. The law was struck down and was re-passed the next year as a standalone bill. The problem arises when judges then won't overturn a statute that was passed using the same method which is what happened after this when it was discovered that the most recent (at the time) law raising the pay for state judges was passed.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Actually I think it would likely have 535 amendments. As funny as your comment was (props to you fine sir) your comment really deserves a +5 insightful instead.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Tom]

Sorry, but that's bullshit. If you already have a majority to pass the law, then you also have a majority to declare anything you like "related" and anything you don't "unrelated".

So basically, such a rule would bring zero benefit.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

No, as it is right now in congress, a simple majority is almost never used to pass a law due to the partisan bickering.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct term is magazine, not clip. Gun grabbers get this wrong all the time too.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

Growing up raising and killing pigs to eat and helping make sausage you do have a point.
also
Never ask what kind of meat is in the stew.

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[Khyber]

The fact you imply I have any political affiliation with any of those parties is hilarious.

I'm the only surviving member of Benjamin Franklin's Party of Common Sense.

In my viewpoint, you're all equally stupid. Democraps, libtards, and republicunts, all the same.

You keep fucking that dog!

Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd

[rhalstead]

Allowing them to "sneak in" items unrelated to the actual bill does not protect our rights, but rather gives those with special interests a back door into eroding them. Nor does this add efficiency in most cases. Bills that could be warranted and useful end up being defeated and the converse happens as well, just because some one stuck on a pet amendment and I do mean snuck on in hopes it wouldn't be noticed, or that the original bill would be considered so important the hidden amendment would be carried along with it.

Ridiculous all over

[jbmartin6]

There's no reason the amendments should be any less ridiculous than the bill itself.

You mean to tell me...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean to tell me that they use bills as "asdf" / "misc" folders? I though I was the only one.

the bill already failed, what is this article abou

[Anonymous Coward]

??? the bill failed a vote on the senate floor minutes ago

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-cybersecurity-act-fails-to-pass-in-the-senate-20120802,0,1649471.story

How about...

[Anonymous Coward]

An amendment making the proposal of amendments to a bill - which are not directly related to said bill's specific subject - matter a crime punishable by being forced to watch at least 72 continuous hours of Barney the Friendly Dinosaur.

Re:How about...

[jamstar7]

An amendment making the proposal of amendments to a bill - which are not directly related to said bill's specific subject - matter a crime punishable by being forced to watch at least 72 continuous hours of Barney the Friendly Dinosaur.

For a second offense, maybe. First offense? 48 hours of The Brady Bunch. Course, they'd probably throw it out as cruel and unusual punishment, but hey, if it's not cruel and unusual, how can it be punishment?

Re:How about...

[gmuslera]

Noone will propose that amendment, as it won't be directly related to that bill subject, so will be condemned to see the Barney marathon. Anyway, should exist a bill against such kind of inhumane punishments, but didnt got approved because the cybersecurity addendum to it.

And that would be pretty close to a paradoxical bill, not that having logic or any pretention of making sense matter for most already approved ones anyway.

Holding pattern until the election

[crazyjj]

At this point Congress is in a holding pattern until the election. You'd be lucky to get through a resolution expressing condolences to the Colorado shooting victims.

Re:Holding pattern until the election

[0racle]

I'm sure there is a pay raise bill somewhere that can get passed.

Re:Holding pattern until the election

[JDG1980]

You'd be lucky to get through a resolution expressing condolences to the Colorado shooting victims.

Indeed; the NRA would never allow that.

Re:Holding pattern until the election

[Githaron]

Why not? Expressing condolences for the victims does not mean you believe that there should be more gun control or a ban on guns.

Re:Holding pattern until the election

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a bit cynical. Perhaps someone can propose it as an amendment to the cybersecurity bill. :-)

Re:Holding pattern until the election

[Nimey]

If you've not been paying attention, the NRA's gone off the deep end lately.

Re:Holding pattern until the election

[Jawnn]

At this point Congress is in a holding pattern until the election. You'd be lucky to get through a resolution expressing condolences to the Colorado shooting victims.

You haven't been paying attention, unless by "at this point" you mean "for the last three years or so". The work of those behind the Tea Party and the polarization (paralysis) that has created within our government is nothing short of masterful.

Gridlock

[fustakrakich]

It's probably a good thing in this case, like so many others.

"Cybersecurity" 101

[Darkness404]

"Cybersecurity" 101, don't have critical infrastructure facing the internet. Use strong encryption for sensitive files. Deploy security patches promptly. Use the right tool for the job, sometimes that means using a commercial OS, sometimes it means developing a new OS, sometimes it means taking an existing OS (*Nix) and tweaking it.

Re:"Cybersecurity" 101

[MozeeToby]

don't have critical infrastructure facing the internet.

There are other ways to get malware onto a target PC, especially if the target is specific enough

Use strong encryption for sensitive files.

Keys can be lost or stolen. I think we've learned the lesson by now and 'strong' encryption means unbreakable for the forseable future, but there was a point where strong encryption was only secure for a decade or two.

Deploy security patches promptly.

Doesn't help any of the multitude of zero day exploits in the wild.

Use the right tool for the job, sometimes that means using a commercial OS, sometimes it means developing a new OS, sometimes it means taking an existing OS (*Nix) and tweaking it.

Sometimes you just can't afford to in terms of time or budget. Sometimes the available developers have a limited skill, sometimes you're contractually limited in your choices.

Not that any of your recommendations are bad or wrong. They're absolutely right. I'm just pointing out that cybersecurity 101 is not enough to build an ironclad system. And I'd argue that proper training and compensation for your users is at least as important as any of them. All the security in the world won't mean a damn if someone will pick up a USB drive off the parking lot, plug it into your secure machine, open docs and files looking for contact information, and offer to return it.

Re:"Cybersecurity" 101

[s73v3r]

Unfortunately, there are too many people out there who either don't know any of this stuff, or simply don't care, or find it "too expensive".

Re:"Cybersecurity" 101

[s73v3r]

All of those are excuses, and while one or two might be valid for a specific part, one of the things about security is that you should be doing ALL that stuff, to minimize your risk should one of the other facets fail.

Especially the budget one. I'm sorry, but good security costs money. And until there are very real penalties for not doing it, many cheapasses will simply choose not to.

Re:"Cybersecurity" 101

[Anonymous Coward]

If the internet was completely free, without ANY kind of regulation, there wouldn't be any need for stupid laws like this.

Whenever you pass a law to regulate something on the internet, you centralize, you create choke points, weak spots ripe for exploitation by either side. So, they add some more laws to counter the failings of the previous on. And they keep adding and adding, until, the only solution remains to give complete control to a single central authority and trust in their ability.

Re:"Cybersecurity" 101

[timeOday]

"Cybersecurity" 101, don't have critical infrastructure facing the internet.

OK, let's start with our most critical information infrastructure. I guess that would be the banking system and the stock market. So, I guess we will just go back to mailing checks around and good old authentication techniques like writing your name on a piece of paper or calling your broker and sounding like yourself.

Feel better yet?

Re:bill itself

[TaoPhoenix]

Well, here's the summary links to the bill itself.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.2105:

I'm a little out of my depth but "comprehensive legislation" these days makes me nervous that there aren't sneaky things in there.

kent brockman:

[hamburger lady]

i've said it before and i'll say it again, democracy simply doesn't work.

Re:kent brockman:

[Black Parrot]

i've said it before and i'll say it again, democracy simply doesn't work.

It's worse than everything except everything else.

The best government would be an enlightened despot, but there's no way to me sure your despot stays enlightened. Nor to ensure the succession.

Nor to get everyone to agree on what 'enlightened' means.

Re:kent brockman:

[Freddybear]

That's not a bug, that's a feature.

Re:kent brockman:

[spidercoz]

the only problem with democracy is the people who participate

Re:kent brockman:

[TheScarryKitty]

Yes to that. I think there should be a Constitutional amendment so both chambers Congress and the Presidency can't be controlled by the same party. That would keep all kinds of stupid crap from passing.

Re:kent brockman:

[s73v3r]

And it would keep good things from passing, and it would make anything that does pass into complete and utter crap.

Re:kent brockman:

[Fallingcow]

So two cheers for Democracy: one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism. Two cheers are quite enough: there is no occasion to give three.

— E.M. Forster, "Two Cheers for Democracy"

Re:kent brockman:

[Anonymous Coward]

... How long have you been following politics? That happens all the time, and not only does it result in the legilature passing "stupid crap" or tacking it onto otherwise sensible bills, it usually keeps anything remotely productive from happening because it just turns into a pissing contest. Especially any kind of reform. The legislature just wastes all of their time (and the taxpayers' money) stalemating the President.

Re:kent brockman:

[Anonymous Coward]

Or insure that anything that passes is absolutely necessary for the county. I personally like it when the Democrats are in charge of one part of the government and Republicans are in charge of another. It generally keeps the Republicans from going to war with every country in sight, driving dumptrucks of money to the defense contractors and giving corporations free range to plunder the country. It also keeps the Democrats from turning us into the ultimate nanny state, enacting "fairness" legislation to steal from the successful and give to the leaches and regulating everything down to the color of toothbrush bristles.

Re:kent brockman:

[dkleinsc]

The best government would be an enlightened despot, but there's no way to me sure your despot stays enlightened. Nor to ensure the succession.

A couple of ways other countries have historically handled those problems:
1. Keep the despot near the battle front. He'll be dead before he's no longer enlightened.
2. Always have a ridiculously long plan of succession and clear rules for how that line is decided. For instance, the Brits have a list of about 60 people in line to succeed Queen Elizabeth II if for some reason Prince Charles can't do so when the time comes.
3. Don't coddle your would-be despots. For example, the Spartans treated the sons of their kings not significantly differently from the sons of their regular citizens.

However, historically, most despotic systems run into the problem of starting out with fairly enlightened despots and trending towards really stupid despots, at which point a smart upstart overthrows the stupid despot and the cycle begins again.

Re:kent brockman:

[Anonymous Coward]

What I see is both sides advancing a cause:

The dems pass laws banning people from camping out in BLM land, saying it "hurts the environment" to have US citizens hike or *gasp* use a mountain bike on a trail.

The reps then use the closed land and hand it over to private interests, so what was once public land becomes an exclusive golf course, or mined and turned into a Superfund site.

Another two-step would be the solar industry. The left gets solar to have large subsidies. In come the foreign companies who make solar panels for cheaper than what they cost. The right will not act to protect US interests (unlike with motorcycles where the offshore dumping was stopped by Congress.) Result, a complete industry subsidized, but yet completely handed to offshore companies.

yfw americans clap

[Anonymous Coward]

after failing to pass a bill

What would it take...

[Antipater]

What would we need to do to make this kind of shit illegal? A law? A constitutional amendment? I don't think it would be too hard to get 2/3 of Americans to agree that any amendment or rider to a bill should be relevant to that bill's stated purpose.

Re:What would it take...

[Anonymous Coward]

2/3 of Americans, sure. 2/3 of congresscritters? Good luck!

Re:What would it take...

[Darkness404]

It wouldn't matter. The constitution is routinely ignored, there are so many laws on the books that its impossible to be sure that you are following them all.

Even if they did follow the constitution they'd use political doublespeak to prevent it from working as intended.

Re:What would it take...

[Millennium]

The problem is figuring out how to craft a law demanding that. What does it mean to be "relevant" to a bill's stated purpose? For that matter, how does one define the "stated purpose" of a bill?

Common-sense legislation is a nice idea, but it turns out that common sense is actually quite difficult to describe in a manner suitable for law. That goes double in common-law systems, where precedent becomes a law unto itself and so interpretation becomes extremely important.

Re:What would it take...

[JDG1980]

The problem is figuring out how to craft a law demanding that. What does it mean to be "relevant" to a bill's stated purpose? For that matter, how does one define the "stated purpose" of a bill?

But the same thing applies to many parts of the existing Constitution. What constitutes a "reasonable search"? What kind of punishments are "cruel and unusual"? And so forth. The answer, in practice, is that the federal courts decide these things. If there was a Constitutional amendment barring irrelevant additions to bills, the deterrent to Congress would presumably be that the addendum could be thrown out by the courts and therefore there would be no point in trying to pass it. Even if the benefit of the doubt was given to the legislature in corner cases, the most blatant abuses like the ones mentioned in this article might be avoided.

Re:What would it take...

[Quiet_Desperation]

You can't do anything. The alpha sociopaths are in complete control of everything. People like you raging on about the constitution or changing the system are just a giggle to them.

Re:What would it take...

[msk]

Summary ejection from the office in question and banishment from ever again holding elected office.

Re:What would it take...

[CanHasDIY]

What would we need to do to make this kind of shit illegal? A law? A constitutional amendment? I don't think it would be too hard to get 2/3 of Americans to agree that any amendment or rider to a bill should be relevant to that bill's stated purpose.

At this point we're left with few options, although these devices have classically proven effective at eliminating political corruption.

now, if only we can find a way to convinced the doped-up masses to actually use them...

Re:What would it take...

[iamgnat]

I don't think it would be too hard to get 2/3 of Americans to agree that any amendment or rider to a bill should be relevant to that bill's stated purpose.

Too bad the general population doesn't make laws then (though there are plenty more cases where it is a damned good thing they don't). In this case the people you are trying to restrict are the ones that are creating such laws. Just how likely do you think it is that they will curb their potential of abuse of the system to suit their own ends?

Re:What would it take...

[s73v3r]

Really, it would just take an adjustment to the rules of the relevant chamber of Congress. A law would make it a little more concrete, as the House and Senate determine their rules at the seating of the new Congress (or something along that timeline).

Re:What would it take...

[s73v3r]

Those devices also have classically proven effective at removing the other guy's corruption, while increasing the power of your own corruption.

Re:What would it take...

[Greger47]

The problem is figuring out how to craft a law demanding that. What does it mean to be "relevant" to a bill's stated purpose? For that matter, how does one define the "stated purpose" of a bill?

The obvious answer is, whoever wrote and introduced the bill gets to decide which amendments are relevant.

If a bad bill is introduced and the submitter stonewalls any amendments to improve it then it'll just get voted down.

/greger

Re:What would it take...

[shutdown -p now]

Yes, it would take a constitutional amendment, likely. However you need 3/4 of the states (as in, their legislatures) to get one through, not 2/3 of the people.

Re:What would it take...

[LandDolphin]

States can amend the U.S. Constitution without Congress getting to vote on the Amendment. 2/3 of the States call for a Constitutional Convention and then 3/4 of the States ratify it.

Re:What would it take...

[LandDolphin]

Require Bills to have a Thesis statement. Any amendment that does not fall under the Thesis statement is not relevant.

Thousands of English Teachers do this with papers every day.

Re:What would it take...

[CanHasDIY]

Those devices also have classically proven effective at removing the other guy's corruption, while increasing the power of your own corruption.

Your point, assuming you have one?

"Let's leave things fucked up, because the people who want to fix it might, eventually, fuck it up too" is not a legitimate rationale for allowing known corruption to exist.

Re:What would it take...

[Altrag]

No the problem would be getting it passed. The people who would be voting on it would be the same people who expressly make use of the current system! The only way you'd get something like that passed is by having a large enough public protest that the politicians are forced to listen whether they like it or not.

As for defining a stated purpose, sure things are unclear. But that's why congress/senate/etc have discussions and debates. We just add one more aspect to it -- not just "is this good/bad?" but also "is it relevant?"

And if that fails, there are legal bodies (SCOTUS primarily) with the power to reject laws that they deem inappropriate even after passing all of the other stages. Of course, someone generally has to challenge said law before they'll do that, but if the law isn't being applied anyway then there's no need to reject it (even if its dumb.)

Re:What would it take...

[Anonymous Coward]

Those people are a giggle to us all. They're like cats, trying to open the door.

Re:What would it take...

[cpt kangarooski]

Yes, and a state-led constitutional convention of that type has only happened once, with the result being that the state delegates immediately decided to scrap the previous US government and replace it with an entirely new one. I'd be careful about what you wish for.

Re:What would it take...

[level_headed_midwest]

I think scrapping the current government would be a huge improvement...bring on the convention!

Re:What would it take...

[cpt kangarooski]

Out of curiosity, what would you like to see as the replacement? Unicameral legislature? Westminster system? Modifying the states (eg breaking them up into smaller, more managable units)? Sortition? Civil law judiciary? I mean, I don't see the point in wanting to dissolve the government unless you've thought about the form of its successor.

Re:What would it take...

[s73v3r]

My point is that killing a bunch of people, which is what you were obviously implying, is not going to solve anything.

Re:What would it take...

[CanHasDIY]

My point is that killing a bunch of people, which is what you were obviously implying, is not going to solve anything.

"A bunch of people" is a subjective, relative term; I take it by your use of it, you are implying either A) that you yourself believe a large number of our politicians are corrupted to the point of warranting public execution, or B) you're being a hyperbolic ninny in an attempt to discredit me.

FYI, your opinion would carry far more weight if you were capable of positing your own solution, instead of shitting on everyone else's like some whiny troll.

Re:What would it take...

[level_headed_midwest]

- Rewriting the Constitution in "modern legal language" to give much, much less room for the judicial "interpretation" that has rendered much of the Constitution invalidated (10th Amendment, anybody?)
- Getting rid of the previous judgments based on an extreme amount of mental gymnastics used to allow acts that were clearly unconstitutional- e.g. "The Switch in Time that Saved Nine" that allowed the Commerce Clause to be used as justification to allow regulation of almost everything*.
- Tightening up some of the loopholes in the Constitution that allowed for creeping government growth- there needs to be a balanced budget article in the Constitution, for example.

The basic framework set by the Founders was solid but 200+ years of many people with huge incentives of increasing their power and influence trying to get around it using any means possible has succeeded in gutting much of it that got in their way. Hitting a reset button would be the best thing that comes to my mind.

*Except to force people to not avoid participating in a market, that apparently is allowed under the 16th Amendment (see the Obamacare decision.)

Re:What would it take...

[sociocapitalist]

What would we need to do to make this kind of shit illegal? A law? A constitutional amendment? I don't think it would be too hard to get 2/3 of Americans to agree that any amendment or rider to a bill should be relevant to that bill's stated purpose.

It's hard to get 2/3rds of Americans to do anything other than watch TV.

Re:What would it take...

[s73v3r]

Or I could just think that your hyperbole in suggesting that we use the gallows or the guillotine against any number of public officials, regardless of their level of corruption, is absolutely absurd.

Re:What would it take...

[CanHasDIY]

Or I could just think that your hyperbole in suggesting that we use the gallows or the guillotine against any number of public officials, regardless of their level of corruption, is absolutely absurd.

Noted.

Now, unless you have something constructive to add, please STFU. There are enough useless naysayers out there, who have no ideas of their own but are perfectly happy to piss on everyone else's, without you adding to their ranks.

Re:What would it take...

[CanHasDIY]

Also worth noting, which I forgot to mention in my previous response -

Though you may perceive it to be so, I'm not being hyperbolic. I meant every word.

Re:What would it take...

[s73v3r]

And I hope you get thrown in pound me in the ass prison for it.

Re:What would it take...

[s73v3r]

No, I will not STFU. I was being far more constructive than you, as you were just advocating violence like a retarded gun nut. You added absolutely nothing, and your idiotic suggestion would do absolutely nothing to help the situation, except maybe put you in more power. And that is something that everyone should work to prevent.

Re:What would it take...

[CanHasDIY]

No, I will not STFU. I was being far more constructive than you, as you were just advocating violence like a retarded gun nut.

Says you.

Isn't it amazing how everyone thinks they're the one making a intellectual contribution, whereas it's the other guy who's always some brainless neanderthal unworthy of attention? Why, if I didn't know better, I would think that you're just another hyperbolic asshole who thinks he's God's gift to humanity, whose every word is golden gospel... gimme a break.

Human nature sure would be funny, if not so god-damn stupid...

You added absolutely nothing, and your idiotic suggestion would do absolutely nothing to help the situation, except maybe put you in more power. And that is something that everyone should work to prevent.

You didn't have to respond to my original post; you didn't have to respond to my subsequent responses. If anyone is 'adding nothing,' it would be you, since you weren't the original respondent to begin with.

Besides that, I'm not the one getting all angry and butthurt because someone on the internet said something I disagree with. Here's a life lesson for you: Some battles aren't worth fighting - choose yours wisely.*




* I of course mean that in the future tense, as you've already demonstrated that you're currently lacking that particular bit of wisdom.

Re:What would it take...

[CanHasDIY]

And I hope you get thrown in pound me in the ass prison for it.

Yea, I'll bet you do, fag.


P.S. Thanks for standing up for my right to speech, like a true American. United we stand, right? Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm late for an engagement with your mother's quite spacious vagina...

Re:What would it take...

[s73v3r]

Isn't it amazing how everyone thinks they're the one making a intellectual contribution, whereas it's the other guy who's always some brainless neanderthal unworthy of attention?

In this case it's true, because I'm not the one advocating mindless violence.

You didn't have to respond to my original post; you didn't have to respond to my subsequent responses. If anyone is 'adding nothing,' it would be you, since you weren't the original respondent to begin with

And you didn't have to respond to the post you did either. In fact, you didn't have to read Slashdot at all.

Re:What would it take...

[CanHasDIY]

Isn't it amazing how everyone thinks they're the one making a intellectual contribution, whereas it's the other guy who's always some brainless neanderthal unworthy of attention?

In this case it's true, because I'm not the one advocating mindless violence.

It's never true. You're making an assumption based on your pre-decided notions about how you interpret my words. Like the narcissistic douchebag you apparently are.

Yes, you are a narcissist. Know how I can tell? By how adamantly you scream about how your opinion is 'right,' and how 'wrong' I am, no matter how I explain it.

You didn't have to respond to my original post; you didn't have to respond to my subsequent responses. If anyone is 'adding nothing,' it would be you, since you weren't the original respondent to begin with

And you didn't have to respond to the post you did either. In fact, you didn't have to read Slashdot at all.

True, and thanks for that, Captain Obvious, but FYI, I'm not the one bitching about the other person's lack of contribution, now am I?

Feel free to rant on all you want, I'm done with your self-obsessed ass.

Re:bill itself

[TaoPhoenix]

p.s. the link won't work with a final : symbol on the end, Slashdot doesn't like the link.

Precisely the problem.

[unr3a1]

This is one of the fundamental reasons why we have the issues we have. Including amendments or clauses that have absolutely nothing to do with the main content of the bill itself should not be allowed. It has historically and currently used to sneak in laws that are not openly discussed with the public in order to pass those laws without public knowledge. This is because they know it is harder to eliminate a law after it has passed than it is to block a law before it passes.

While arguments could be made that legitimate laws that should be passed would take too long to get passed, this ability is abuses far more frequently than being used for legitimate laws. And for that reason, things like this need to stop.

Re:Precisely the problem.

[mjwalshe]

Quite in normal democratic parliamentary systems amendments that are not related to the original prop / motion or spoiling amendments are ruled out. I have been on committees that have done that we even debated for an hour if the presence of "the" made an amendment a spoiling one or not.

Maybe we need a kick starter project to give every senator/congressman a copy of Citrines ABC of chairmanship.

Who decides?

[PraiseBob]

And who decides if the amendment is related to the bill or not? The majority party? Luckily our congress would never act in a petty & partisan manner by randomly punishing their political opponents just because they can.

Re:Who decides?

[Antipater]

And who decides if the amendment is related to the bill or not? The majority party? Luckily our congress would never act in a petty & partisan manner by randomly punishing their political opponents just because they can.

Believe it or not, Congress is not made up only of Congressmen. There are various nonpartisan offices whose job is to analyze everything brought to them - for example, the Congressional Budget Office. This could just create the Congressional Relevance Office.

Re:Who decides?

[CanHasDIY]

And who decides if the amendment is related to the bill or not?

Logic, maybe?

Oh, we're talking about Congress; no logic allowed.

Re:Who decides?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure I like that. If we had an Congressional Relevance Office it might need to dissolve congress due to lack of relevance. Inept and corrupt government is better than no government at all.

Re:Who decides?

[s73v3r]

And who decides who's on that office?

I really like the idea, I'm just worried about what the implementation would be.

Re:Who decides?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure it is the Senate Parliamentarian, who is charged with interpreting the arcane rules of the Senate. Presumably, these would include whether an amendment is germane. Unlike the House, the Senate doesn't have a strict requirement on germaness for amendments, however.

Re:Who decides?

[Antipater]

And who decides who's on that office?

I really like the idea, I'm just worried about what the implementation would be.

A normal hiring process. Using the CBO as an example again, here's their "career opportunities" page.

Re:Who decides?

[Antipater]

Extra info on the leadership positions. Possible to be corrupt, but difficult.

Re:Who decides?

[shutdown -p now]

And who decides if the amendment is related to the bill or not?

The courts, if it comes to that.

The idea, though, is that once it can come to that, there will be fewer of such BS to begin with.

R.I.P.

[some old guy]

It was voted down, largely due to business objections to more regulations, but I'm sure the usual petty bickering was involved as well.

The actual bill had no teeth anyway. The proposed standards were voluntary. It will take a technological 9/11 - like event to goad the government into concrete action, and given our legislative track record, the response to an IT Pearl Harbor will probably be both over-reaching and misdirected.

It is pretty pathetic when we can trust neither the government nor business to do something reasonable and effective. One is incompetent, the other is greedy. We're hopelessly screwed.

Re:R.I.P.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ok. Now, we can have adds like "Senator So-n-So Voted against a bill that would have prevented the sale of large capacity clips....putting YOU and your family at risk the next time you go anywhere in public" and " Whosy-Whatsits voted against a ban on abortion..he actually loves the idea of killing babies "

Ulterior Motives with add-ons?

[sanosuke001]

Either Senators are all assholes (probable, either way) and they just strap on whatever they can to fast-track legislation (should be illegal, tbh) or they really don't want this bill to go through but don't want to vote "no". Really? Addition to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act? That's not gonna pass and has absolutely nothing to do with cybersecurity...

Re:Ulterior Motives with add-ons?

[T Murphy]

Sometimes they tack stuff on that they know won't stick, simply so they can boast to their constituents that they proposed a law to address topic X.

Cybersecurity and magazine clips?

[PPH]

Shouldn't they be concerning themselves with restricting WoW magic swords and stuff like that?

I mean, come on folks. Put the stuff about real weapons in a physical security bill.

Re:Holding pattern Since the election

[PraiseBob]

They've been in a holding pattern for 3 years now from what I can tell...

Oh I see

[slashmydots]

...wait no, he's not talking about high capacity clips in online video games? Then maybe that amendment should GTFO of that bill! I should run for senate, introduce a law that requires amendments to be directly related to bills, then leave lol.

Re:Oh I see

[Grygus]

It would never pass; to defeat it, opponents could simply add unrelated and unacceptable riders, which wouldn't yet be illegal. And to be completely fair, some lawmakers did attempt to solve this problem, but it didn't work.

Has there ever been a high capacity clip?

[h4rr4r]

Has anyone ever actually made a high capacity clip?

I am well aware of high capacity magazine, but I have never seen stripper clips more than 5 rounds, and moon clips are for revolvers.

Re:Has there ever been a high capacity clip?

[Antipater]

I am well aware of high capacity magazine, but I have never seen stripper clips more than 5 rounds, and moon clips are for revolvers.

Don't worry. Most other men can't go five rounds with a stripper either. Nobody's that high-capacity.

Re:Has there ever been a high capacity clip?

[Push Latency]

The M1 Garand could fit EIGHT in the clip!

Re:Has there ever been a high capacity clip?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone ever actually made a high capacity clip?

I am well aware of high capacity magazine, but I have never seen stripper clips more than 5 rounds, and moon clips are for revolvers.

10 round stripper clips are common for loading 5.56 NATO and 7.62x39.

Re:Has there ever been a high capacity clip?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do en-bloc clips count? I know of one that holds 8 rounds.

Re:Has there ever been a high capacity clip?

[h4rr4r]

I doubt anyone would call 10 rounds high capacity.

I was not aware of those, don't most of the firearms that shoot that use removable magazines?

Re:Has there ever been a high capacity clip?

[avandesande]

I am not aware of any but it would be nice if they made them so we wouldn't have to see these kinds of posts any more.

Re:Has there ever been a high capacity clip?

[h4rr4r]

Garand does that, but still not hicap.

Re:Has there ever been a high capacity clip?

[artor3]

In fairness to the Senator, the amendment bans "transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices". It's the reporter who doesn't know a clip from a magazine.

It's actually a pitifully toothless law, as it excludes any extended magazines already in existence in the country. It would take decades to have any effect. Not that it has any chance of passing in the first place.

Re:Has there ever been a high capacity clip?

[shutdown -p now]

SKS is loaded from 10-round stripper clips, and has a non-detachable 10-round magazine.

IIRC, there were also 10-round clips for Lee-Enfield, though those weren't used much in practice.

And in Canada, anything above 5 rounds for centerfire rifles is "high capacity". Unless you put "designed for pistols" on the mag and there is a pistol sold in the country that can take such mags, that is...

Re:Has there ever been a high capacity clip?

[icebrain]

A magazine-capacity limit makes about as much sense as the TSA restriction on liquids in containers larger than 3.4oz, or a state (NC?) only allowing liquor to be served from the little tiny 1.5oz bottles in an attempt to reduce drunk driving.

I like how it's always 10 rounds that seems to be the magic limit. There's never any kind of sound logical justification behind it, only gut feeling from people who have no idea what they're talking about.

Re:Has there ever been a high capacity clip?

[h4rr4r]

So you can't even get normal STANAG magazines in Canada?

Re:Has there ever been a high capacity clip?

[shutdown -p now]

You can get them, but they have to be modded to only take 5 rounds (other than "it's actually for a pistol" trick described above, which puts the cap at 10). These are normally referred to as "5/30 rd" - looks like 30, but actually only holds 5. Similarly, for any rifle with a permanently attached magazine, you have to mod that as well, like SKS. For some mysterious reason, Garand is specifically excluded from that requirement in the law (by name!), so you can have it in its original 8-round glory.

On the other hand, you can buy this kind of thing there without having to pay an extra $200 to the feds. And, generally speaking, there are no import bans other than what the law normally restricts, so there's no BS like importing "sporter" Saigas to rebuild them as AKs, and cheap but decent quality Norinco clones of expensive American firearms are readily available - think semi-auto M14 for $400. On the other side of the spectrum, you can have a genuine semi-auto SIG 550 for a mere $4k.

Re:Has there ever been a high capacity clip?

[cffrost]

Computer Shopper used to make a high-capacity magazine.

Re:Has there ever been a high capacity clip?

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost every handgun sold today (with the exception of single-stack or compact handguns) have greater than 10 round magazines included, and the vast majority of rifle magazines (for AR-15 pattern rifles, AK pattern, etc) have a 20-30 round capacity. Those are standard capacity, not high capacity. High capacity would be a 60 or 100 round magazine (such as surefire or a drum magazine).

Democracy in the US is a joke...

[Anonymous Coward]

You americans are so proud of "democracy" and yet fail to have one of democracy's most important tools : the abrogative referendum.
Sure some states have referendums, but you lack one at the federal level to repel some of the most insane fedreal laws and power trips that Congress and the Supreme Court have passed in the last decades. Referendums are useful, especially when neither party has the people's will at heart.

So both parties

[Anonymous Coward]

amend a bunch of shit I don't support to a bill I detest then argue over which to pass. Get all the rats on one ship then pull back and nuke it from orbit. I am ok with this.

Just gotta laugh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Banning abortion and high capacity clips in one bill - bipartisan rejection!

And both are distraction issues along with this bill.

Why aren't they addressing the fiscal problems? Or more pressing problems?

Oh yeah, the meaningless distraction issues are the ones that get people out there to vote.

In the meantime, businesses and investors are like deer in headlights wondering what's going to happen to the economy.

So, while your personal finances are being decimated along with your employment security, those people in Washington are making sure that large ammo clips and poor people in DC can't get abortions. I mean let's face it; the well to do people will just go out of DC to get an abortion and if you really want a high capacity clip, just buy from a private citizen. That's what we did when they were banned before.

easy peazy.

There's always a way around the law - especially if your rich.

But government finances? Congress are the only ones who can take care of it. But no there wasting their time appeasing stupid people.

Re:Just gotta laugh!

[s73v3r]

You act like Congress can only act on one issue at a time. That's simply not true.

Re:Just gotta laugh!

[Anonymous Coward]

You act like this Congress has much interest in acting on anything at all. That does not appear to be true.

Re:Just gotta laugh!

[level_headed_midwest]

They have a lot of interest in acting on their re-election campaigns...

Re:Just gotta laugh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, one is far too high. Gotta start smaller.

Government procedural fail

[gestalt_n_pepper]

The rules allow them to introduce any kind of irrelevant crap into any bill. There's no filtering process because there's no binary way to assess relevance and politicians apparently can't deal with ambiguity well enough to set up even simple heuristics, approved by vote.

There's little evidence of intelligence in congress, even on the intelligence committee. After all, Michelle Bachmann is on it.

One Subject at a Time Act

[Rinisari]

This is a great reminder to contact your Representative and ask them to support the latest iteration of the H.R. 3806 One Subject at a Time Act in the House and Sen. Paul's version S. 3359 One Subject at a Time Act in the Senate. Both bills are endorsed by DownsizeDC, which is one of the originators of the idea, according to their site.

Re:One Subject at a Time Act

[s73v3r]

I love the idea of keeping amendments relevant to the bill at hand. But the question is, who decides the relevance? Do you think Michelle Bachmann would vote that the amendment to repeal the ACA would be irrelevant to this bill? Hardly.

Re:One Subject at a Time Act

[Guppy06]

Sen. Paul's version S. 3359 One Subject at a Time Act

Would this be the same Senator Paul who insists on tacking abortion riders onto flood insurance bills?

I note that even the official summary of the bill has the phrase "and for other purposes" tacked onto it.

Re:One Subject at a Time Act

[Altrag]

I love how both summaries include "and other purposes." I'm sure its standard language, but its amusing nonetheless on bills intended to prevent tacking "other things" on bills.

Re:One Subject at a Time Act

[Jane Q. Public]

"Would this be the same Senator Paul who insists on tacking abortion riders onto flood insurance bills?"

While I don't support his position on abortion, you can hardly blame him for playing by the existing rules, while he is in the process of trying to change them for the better.

Otherwise, he might as well just quit and go home, and you will never see those rules get better.

Re:One Subject at a Time Act

[Guppy06]

you can hardly blame him for playing by the existing rules, while he is in the process of trying to change them for the better.

But you can certainly question his priorities, as he is perfectly willing to sacrifice legislative purity for the sake of other issues he apparently feels more strongly about than you do.

Re:One Subject at a Time Act

[Jane Q. Public]

His "priority" happened to be restrictions on abortion, which I have already stated I do not support.

But I was not discussing his priorities; I felt it was pretty clear that you were implying he was a hypocrite, by attaching riders while at the same time introducing bills that would eliminate riders.

But there is in fact nothing hypocritical about it. He was given a set of rules (the Senate rules, that is), and he is trying to change them for the better. In the meantime, he plays by the existing rules, which he did not make. There is nothing contradictory about that.

Re:One Subject at a Time Act

[shentino]

It will probably be ruled unconstitutional just tlike the presidential line item veto act.

Re:One Subject at a Time Act

[Guppy06]

He was given a set of rules (the Senate rules, that is), and he is trying to change them for the better. In the meantime, he plays by the existing rules, which he did not make. There is nothing contradictory about that.

Then why isn't he trying to introduce this particular piece of legislation itself as a rider? If he is truly committed to "working within the system to change the system," why is he insisting his "change the system" legislation stand alone and go down a path guaranteed to go nowhere? Wouldn't be more effective to tack this onto a flood insurance bill?

Re:One Subject at a Time Act

[Jane Q. Public]

Because you can't combine them. Votes to change the rules of the Senate itself require a different percentage majority than "regular" bills.

The existing rules make it easier to filibuster any bill that proposes to change the Senate rules.

Code Re-Use

[Un pobre guey]

A much more versatile and generalizable title would be "[% legislative_chamber %] [% legislation_name %] Stalled By Ridiculous Amendments." Used as an HTML template, it would be almost universally applicable around the world.

they're useless, downright harmful to the nation

[Anonymous Coward]

shut 'em down, grind them up, make sausage with 'em and sell them to the Chinese.

Don't forget the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder which is worse, the U.S. Chamber or the business community. It's pretty sad when you make participation voluntary... and that's still not good enough. What's it going to take?

You know the answer

[Ambitwistor]

What would we need to do to make this kind of shit illegal? A law?

Great idea! We can append it to the Senate cybersecurity bill.

Re:the bill already failed

[MagicM]

Looks like you're right. The bill was reintroduced as S.3414 which was voted on and rejected a few hours ago.

CyberSecurity Bill by Lieberman?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Join me in celebrating the defeat of this additional intrusion of police-state power. Let's hope it's blocked FOREVER!

This is not about any "Security" I know of - unless you mean the kind of "Security" that the DMCA offers toward corporations.

The bill focuses on restriction of tools and activities used to manage, diagnose and secure network connectivity. Users of Wireshark or even ping can be treated like DMCA circumventors, under the provisions of this proposed act.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/05/frequently-asked-questions-about-lieberman-collins-cyber-security-act

Re:CyberSecurity Bill by Lieberman?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's time to develop the Abortion Gun!

Kills the fetus: Leaves the mother in tact.

Now violating 2 proposed amendments!

We need a bill that stays on topic. How about a bill to make irrelevant amendments to bills illegal!

Nah, that would make too much sense for the libtards and conserverals.

Re:bill itself

[ep32g79]

I'm a little out of my depth but "comprehensive legislation" these days makes me nervous that there aren't sneaky things in there.

Unfortunately it happens far too often.
Take the Hughes Amendment for example, If you pay attention, you'll notice the amendment that Mr. Hughes brings to the table fails to pass, but is instead inserted into the bill as passed by the gavel of Mr. Rangel.

The Courts

[pavon]

The same people that interpret all the rest of the vague, subjective, conflicting law that comes out of congress - the courts. Sen Paul's bill states that any provisions in a bill which are not related to the subject of the bill will be void. Thus if the government attempts to enforce any sections of law introduced by such bills, it will be appealed and potentially struck down by the courts.

Any self-restraint by the congress is highly desirable, but they are not the final authority.

Re:The Courts

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that Sen. Paul's bill doesn't have any authority over future bills. A past congress can't limit a future congress like that, so any new thing that passed would just override the requirement. You need to change the constitution to pull this off.

If that weren't true, you could pull stunts like pass a bill with majority support that required supermajority support to change it. "This bill requires that any future bill reducing taxes pass with the votes of all congressmembers and my dog" is the same sort of thing.

here's an idea...

[just another AC]

Just an armchair expert (on the other side of the world no less) but...

maybe try pass an amendment stating that no amendments can be considered if not directly related to the bill (or infrastructure etc needed for it's enforcement). Seems it would fix an awful lot of problems. Allow the public to decry individual evils without harming the occassional good bill.

Our Whores for the highest bidder system..

[Paracelcus]

Our Whores for the highest bidder system of government is predictable in that no matter what they do it will be detrimental to the American people.

Re:Our Whores for the highest bidder system..

[Un pobre guey]

Yes, but be vehwy vehwy quiet about it.

Re:the bill already failed, what is this article a

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless if it already got shot down. The article is still a good demonstration of just how absurd the legislators often are. It has become a common practice to try and tack on other bills that have met resistance and slip them 'under cover' as part of another bill that has nothing to do with it.

Summer Recess?

[ks*nut]

Well now that they've got the budget balanced our representatives in Washington deserve some well-earned time off. As I recall, this gives them time to go back to their constituents (us) and explain what a bang-up job they've been doing. Yeah, I'm holding my breath too.

Summer Recess?

[slippyblade]

Wow - I sure do wish I got a "Summer Recess" from my job. That'd be awesome. It'd be even more awesome if any work I didn't get done before my "recess" was quietly ignored and allowed to either vanish or get set aside till I got back. Oh - and lifetime healthcare and pension would be neat too!

I hate every single one of these idiots.

All of America must be retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the best you could send to Washington.
Only way to clean it up is one and only one way remove money from politics.

No pay.
Budget for elections 500.00 max.

No monetary donations what so ever.

dammit congress

[LodCrappo]

this is why we can't have nice things

Re:bill itself

[Anonymous Coward]

Link works just fine. The colon is outside the </a> tag.

It will happen

[Anonymous Coward]

When the day comes, and it will come, when the infrasructure of the US is attacked in a coordinated cyber attack, I can only hope that the members of the senate who turned this desperately needed legislation into a fiasco are the first to suffer hte consequences.

Re:It will happen

[Anonymous Coward]

and you admin types can put the Anonymous Coward nonsense where the sun doesn't shine.,

That's why they want to repeal Affordable Care

[bogie]

When you A) have the best healthcare in the world B) have the healthcare companies/insurance sleazebags in your pocket and C) are able to trick people into voting against their own self interests why would you give a shit about the struggling masses without adequate Healthcare? Hence Mitch Fuckface McDickhead McConnell's amendment to a cybersecurity bill.

Re:the bill already failed, what is this article a

[level_headed_midwest]

Obamacare is an example of this- the original bill (HR 3590) dealt with the homebuyer tax credit for veterans until the Obamacare stuff was tacked on as an amendment.

Re:the bill already failed

[Mister Whirly]

Yay Slashdot really works! We Slashdotted that bill! Slashtivism in action!

Re:the bill already failed, what is this article a

[ranpel]

Thank you. Now I'm taking my mod points back. That'll do.

Here's something that will never happen

[Rastl]

I feel that every bill should have a one page, 12 point text summary. If it isn't in the summary it can't be in the bill. That would really cut down on all the various and sundry things that they tack onto these both because of space limitations and seeing it right there.

Even better, that summary must be made public (on the internet just so it won't be one of those "Beware of the leopard" things) for 30 days before they can vote.

The last thing these guys want is for it to be blindingly obvious what they're doing. And when they try the traditional response of "It's too complicated for the voters to understand" then they're admitting that they don't understand it either.

I'm such a dreamer.

And now you know the rest of the story....

[Anonymous Coward]

And just think when the REPUBLICANS took over the House from Dems, they vowed again and again to not ADD pork barrell and amendment garbags as
add-ons to legislation....
Spin ahead a couple years and this fine piece of stupidity is a shining example of how we get things done now in the good ole USA....
and we wonder about such things as education and health care when this kind of garbage goes on at this level, at the cost of $30 million a day to pay for these
dorks to get together ?

Printable magazines

[vik]

With 3D printers being able to print gun magazines now as well as firearm components, I strongly suspect that the silly little law on high capacity magazines will be irrelevant within a year or so.

Take action

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in New Jersey, and Senator Lautenberg represents me.
So I wrote him [rather, his staff] a wordy expression of my feelings.
While I'm a strong supporter of gun rights, I didn't so much as mention my opposition to his amendment (banning high capacity ammunition magazines [a magazine is not a clip ffs!]). Because that's the fucking problem today.
I didn't mention it because, well... One subject at a time!
I'm tired of bullshit amendments getting tacked on to unrelated bills.
This crap needs to stop. Support the "One Subject at a Time Act" (S. 3359).
Write your congresscritter. Politicians aren't exactly the most brilliant among us. Stop the madness.
One. Subject. At. A. Time.

Vote on one thing at a time

[Beeftopia]

That way we could see what our representatives are really voting for or against. Voting for one thing at a time would allow real debate on the issues and slow down the legislative process, not merely gridlock it for no coherent reason.

This "bundle everything into large bills and engage in horsetrading" is just a mechanism for politicians to obfuscate their voting records.

It's just a giant obfuscation technique. The politicians love the power and circumstance of their position, but they hate taking responsibility for leadership. However, leadership means taking responsibility. Political office should not be a lifetime career.

Most politicians simply have a lust for power completely detached from any social vision or principles.

"Access to power must be confined to those who are not in love with it." -- Plato.

Re:the bill already failed, what is this article a

[Anonymous Coward]

The Paul Wellstone Memorial Bank Bailout (aka TARP) is another excellent example of this, not only repurposing a completely unrelated bill, it gutted a bill that already went through the House so the Senate could essentially write a revenue bill despite the Constitution.

Clip...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called a magazine, and they are trying to ban standard capacity magazines, not "high capacity" ones. If the overwhelming majority of magazines being made and sold are not standard capacity, then I'm the richest man alive.