4 ms·
I read it was merely a replacement of something already in, and thus does not need to be returned to the house.
by 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 agoThe 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 agoI'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 agoDemocrats 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 agoHow 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.