4 ms·

Doesn't it have to go back to the House anyway? Am I missing something? I thought that bills needed to pass in both the House and Senate before they can be sign

Doesn't it have to go back to the House anyway? Am I missing something? I thought that bills needed to pass in both the House and Senate before they can be signed into law? Now in the House they'll have an opportunity to reject the bill with McConnell's original amendment, which is obviously dispicable. This all seems like political theater, like Senator Schumer allowed a vote on this today knowing Sanders would be out. This way, the GOP looks slimy and the House has more reason to simply reject the bill as is and Bernie Sanders can be the scapegoat --> more support for Biden. If this amendment had passed, it'd have been harder for the House to reject the bill. (Sanders was out today with Ilhan Omar advocating for international debt relief for indebted countries. )

coldcode 6y ago
I read it was merely a replacement of something already in, and thus does not need to be returned to the house.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  The House has already passed the surveillance renewal bill, so unless the Senate passes the House bill with at least one amendment (so it's not technically the same bill), it doesn't have to go back to the House.
  - macawfish 6y ago
    I've been reading that Mitch McConnell's changes, the ones that would expressly allow warrantless surveillance, are a "new amendment". Wouldn't that kind of reporting imply that this amendment hasn't yet been cleared in the house?
    - vxNsr 6y ago
      Democrats are federally elected officials and are of course gonna vote yes on his amendment. Just bec they wear a blue tie it doesn't suddenly make them less self serving.
- macawfish 6y ago
  How can they just replace something in the bill passed by the house without the house approving that change? Would that not constitute an amendment? My understanding of the bicameral legislature is that both bodies need to clear the exact language of potential legislation for it to become law. Any change made by either body constitutes an amendment and needs to be approved by the other before the president can sign the bill into law or veto it.

coldcode 6y ago

I read it was merely a replacement of something already in, and thus does not need to be returned to the house.

dragonwriter 6y ago
The House has already passed the surveillance renewal bill, so unless the Senate passes the House bill with at least one amendment (so it's not technically the same bill), it doesn't have to go back to the House.
- macawfish 6y ago
  I've been reading that Mitch McConnell's changes, the ones that would expressly allow warrantless surveillance, are a "new amendment". Wouldn't that kind of reporting imply that this amendment hasn't yet been cleared in the house?
  - vxNsr 6y ago
    Democrats are federally elected officials and are of course gonna vote yes on his amendment. Just bec they wear a blue tie it doesn't suddenly make them less self serving.
macawfish 6y ago
How can they just replace something in the bill passed by the house without the house approving that change? Would that not constitute an amendment? My understanding of the bicameral legislature is that both bodies need to clear the exact language of potential legislation for it to become law. Any change made by either body constitutes an amendment and needs to be approved by the other before the president can sign the bill into law or veto it.