3 ms·
I would have liked to read something about the legal mechanics here. The bill has had the entirety of its text removed, and the text has been replaced with a th
by thaumasiotes 2y ago
I would have liked to read something about the legal mechanics here. The bill has had the entirety of its text removed, and the text has been replaced with a thoroughly trivial change to the required procedure for selling aircraft under some circumstances. (Instead of posting public notice in three public places, you have to post it in five public places.)
Obviously, (1) the purpose of this is to withdraw the bill; and (2) nobody really cares about the adjustment to the sale procedure.
So I can infer that replacing the bill with an unrelated bill of the same name is easier than replacing it with nothing at all. But why is that?
- BrenBarn 2y agoMy understanding is that it's a way to game the system of legislative procedure. Basically if the original bill went through certain steps in the process (like committee votes), the gutted-and-amended one still "counts" as having gone through those steps, and doesn't have to start over. This means it can be passed more quickly. In theory there are ways to insist that it must start over, but in practice it's not done.
- m463 2y agosort of how software updates work after an app sellout happens.
- renewiltord 2y agoHaha, that's perfect. Or the Boeing 737 MAX.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago> This means it can be passed more quickly. Is that a goal here? I'm hypothesizing that this maneuver has been done in order to withdraw the original bill, not in order to pass the new bill. I assume that if the new bill fails, the maneuver will have succeeded. The question is why this was easier than actually killing the original bill.