4 ms·
Minor point: Absent a constitutional amendment, I don't think the bill would be legally binding (it could, of course, establish a social norm within the Congre
by dctoedt 14y ago
Minor point: Absent a constitutional amendment, I don't think the bill would be legally binding (it could, of course, establish a social norm within the Congress, enforceable by peer pressure).
Suppose that a senator or representative were to introduce a bill that didn't conform to the diff requirement. Suppose also that both houses passed the bill, and the president signed it. I don't think anyone would argue that the bill hadn't become law.
- saalweachter 14y agoYup. "Congress cannot bind future Congresses" and all that. Basically any "I want to change the way Washington works!" movement is so much circle-jerking for this reason.
- cpleppert 14y agoYes this is constitutional. The houses can modify their procedure through a public law. This happened in the sequester bill that established the super committee and forced an up or down vote on the debt reduction proposal. If it wasn't reconciliation would have been illegal for the past fifty years.
- benpbenp 14y agoYou could word it like "anyone may ignore any law that doesn't conform to such and such requirements." That would be effectively binding.