Constitution Lecture 10: How Bills Become Laws
Articles Blog

Constitution Lecture 10: How Bills Become Laws

October 8, 2019


One of the aspects of our Constitutional form
of government that is taught the most is the process for a bill becoming a law. You probably
remember being taught this in school; you probably even remember the Schoolhouse Rock
cartoon about it. But while what you learned is technically correct, it doesn’t go far
enough in showing what exactly goes on in Congress during the process. The process is detailed in Article I Section
7. I won’t quote the whole section here, but to summarize, a bill originates in one house
or the other. If it’s a revenue bill, it must originate in the House of Representatives
and not the Senate. After it passes both the House and the Senate, it goes to the President.
The President can sign it, veto it, or do nothing. If he signs it, it becomes law. If
he vetos it, he returns it with his written objections to the house where it originated.
At this point, the only way the unaltered bill can get past the President’s veto is
by a two-thirds majority in both houses. If the President does nothing, then it all
depends on what happens in the next ten days. If Congress is still in session (and if they
themselves have not prevented the President returning the bill), the bill passes without
the President’s signature. If Congress adjourns within ten days, tbe bill is killed. This
is known as a “pocket veto.” If you look at what actually happens, though,
it’s not so simple. Generally, after a bill is introduced, it is relegated to some committee
or other. The committee can then work on the bill and get it in a form acceptable for debate,
after investigating whatever issues the bill brings up or fixing the major problems with
it. But the committee can also be used to kill an inconvenient bill: the bill is sent
to committee, and the committee just never gets around to working on it. Many bills are
quietly killed this way. Also, it’s not as straightforward as both
houses voting for it. The fact that a bill can be amended before the vote throws a wrench
into the works. Say a bill originates in the House (which, again, it must if it is a revenue
bill). The House passes it, and it goes to the Senate. The Senate, like the House before
it, will likely introduce amendments changing or adding to the bill. Since the bill the
Senate passes will be different from the one the House has passed, the bill then goes to
a joint committee to iron out the differences, after which it goes back to the House and
the Senate for the final vote. These amendments can be more significant than you think. It’s
actually very important for getting the bill passed in Congress in its current form. Senator Foghorn needs the support of Senator
Leghorn in order to get his new bill passed. Is he going to speak rationally to Senator
Leghorn, explaining in logical terms why the bill should be passed? No! He’s going to
ask him what kind of rider he could put on the bill to encourage Senator Leghorn to vote
for it. See, the Constitution placed no restriction
on bills saying that they should be restricted to only one subject. So Congressmen and Senators
usually take every opportunity to see that their pet projects and pork-barrel boondoggles
get attached to bills that have a greater chance of passing, like disaster relief bills.
This usually takes the form of “pork,” money appropriated to Senator Leghorn’s
state, some big corporation therein, or some big campaign donor. What results can cross
the line into ridiculous and border the atrocious. In 1997, the Red River flooded parts of North
Dakota and Minnesota. It wasn’t too long before Congress started falling all over themselves
to pass HR1469, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, also known as the Flood
Relief bill, to give money to help the poor victims recover from this natural disaster.
Included in the bill that passed both House and Senate were such riders as: An order for the President to report on the
costs and funds of overseas peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia (a good 5,000 miles from either
North Dakota or Minnesota); Collection and dissemination of information
on prices received for bulk cheese (Isn’t the cheese state Wisconsin and not Minnesota?); $3,600,000 for Utah to be used for projects
critical to the 2002 Winter Olympics (When Utah wasn’t flooded at all); A provision allowing for the taking of marine
mammals if it is necessary to avoid injury or death or provide for its safe release (Finally!
Something relevant to the coastal states of Minnesota and North Dakota. Oh, wait a minute…); A provision allowing the Rural Housing Service
to make loans and grants available to the College Station area of Pulaski County…Arkansas???
(Wait, wasn’t that where President Clinton was from? Interesting coincidence…); Whatever money may be required to repair or
replace concession facilities at Yosemite National Park (And I thought Yosemite National
Park was in California, not North Dakota or Minnesota. Learn something new every day…); (My personal favorite:) A provision to order
the Secretary of the Interior to issue a permit for the imporation of polar bear parts from
Canada; $133,600 to the children of Frank Tejeda,
late Representative from the State of…Texas; And so on and so on and on and on and on.
There was a rider to prevent the Census Bureau from using statistical sampling. Another rider
prevented the studying of the medical benefits of marijuana. Yet another amendment took $2
million AWAY from FEMA’s disaster relief fund. You get the idea. Of the tens of billions
of dollars this bill allocated, only $500 million was appropriated for flood victims
in North Dakota and Minnesota, and even then there were so many restrictions that none
of the money actually got to where it could do any good. And an earlier version of the
bill had neglected to appropriate any money to the flood relief effort at all! And this was in a Congress that was at least
pretending to care about balancing the budget! No one even knows exactly how much spending
this bill appropriated. We know it’s in the tens of billions, but Congress doesn’t make
line-items with a total at the bottom. Often, the appropriation is “whatever funds are necessary”
or some non-specific language like that. Now, you may accuse me of choosing an extreme
example, but it’s NOT an atypical example. This kind of thing happens all the time, with
bills growing to hundreds and hundreds of pages, full of one rider after another, and
the final bill passes without anyone in Congress actually reading it. In fact, many times a bill will be debated
merely on its title, such as the “No Child Left Behind Act” or the “Patriot Act.” Anyone
who votes against the bill is therefore chastised by others in Congress and in the media as
being against children, or against disaster relief, or not being a patriot, or whatever
the title of the bill says. Often it gets quite disturbing. For example,
in 2005 the House passed the REAL ID Act, which centralizes identification procedures
throughout the states, essentially setting up a National ID Card. After it passed the
House, the public outcry against it was so great that the Senate rejected it. But then,
the bill’s author attached it as a rider to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005. The Senate passed
the bill–with the REAL ID rider included–unanimously, 100-0. This happens quite a bit. Congressmen who
wanted to stop online gambling couldn’t get enough support to get a bill passed, so they
attached it to a bill on Port Security. A 2004 Appropriations Bill had riders attached
to exempt up to 900 grazing allotments on national forest land from environmental review,
to limit legal challenges to timber sales in Tongass National Forest, and to allow some
committee members to view other people’s tax returns. In short, Congress gives bills lofty-sounding
(but mostly undeserved) titles, puts in a lot of unrelated riders (some of them quite
sinister), and passes the bill without anyone in Congress even reading it. If this angers
you–and it should–then you need to write your Senators and Representative to tell them
to pass laws forcing Congress to read the bills it passes, and to make the bills based
on one and only one subject, specifically spelled out in the title. Until next time, stay strong and be free.

Only registered users can comment.

  1. why isn't there more outrage from the people to change this insane process?

    does anybody pay attention to this , or is it more interesting to know what kim kardashian is doing ?

  2. @Yevhen123 There is, but the media rarely if ever reports on it. Because they like the system just fine the way it is. I don't know if it was ever the case that the news media "comforted the afflicted and afflicted the comfortable," but I've never seen it in my lifetime.

  3. @TheAtheistPaladin It didn't take them long. A clause requiring bills to only have one subject was put into the Confederate Constitution. Unfortunately, they could never get it put into the Federal one.

  4. But if congressmen would have to read all the bills The goverment would be paralized. Oh… I see what you did there. =P

  5. @vspqbd The nice thing about the RTBA and the OSTA is that they allow people in court to use Congress's violation of these acts as a defense in court. If you're accused of breaking a law that Congress didn't read, or that isn't the subject of the bill it was in, you get off scot-free!

  6. No wonder so many Americans are anti government, your system's fucked. It's like, it takes real effort to be that corrupt and ineffectual.

  7. @shanedk

    I see how hard of work it is to get elected to office if you are a nobody like myself. Let alone an atheist getting elected. If I thought it was possible I would try and make this bullshit make sense. Instead, I have to watch my country slowly descend into madness…

  8. @FHomeBrew Well, you can research it for yourself, but I would point out that this really isn't a partisan issue. (I myself like Jim Babka's term "transpartisan.") Apparently, the only people who aren't in favor of the RTBA and the OSTA are politicians.

  9. Thank you for the insight into American politics. This is revealing and concerning. I hope that any Americans watching this would feel spurred on to have this major flaw in the system corrected.

  10. I think they did this on the Simpsons once, they passed a bill limiting planes from flying over residential areas by attaching it to a "flags for orphans" bill.

    P.S. I KNEW the "patriot act" and "no child left behind" got passed just because of their stupid titles! Those are two of the worst policies I've ever heard of! I mean, how does depriving a struggling school of funding help it? and how did they pass a law that violates our constitutional RIGHTS?

  11. @passwordresetisbroke You'd be surprised: a lot of times, members of Congress will hold secret meetings at night and not tell any of the opposition that it's happening, move to suspend the rules, and change it however they want. On the vote the next day, what the rest of Congress is voting on might be completely different from what they actually ARE voting on.

  12. @caseagainstfaith Why don't you read it yourself and see? They publish the entire bill on their website, and unlike Congress, they made it a short bill that's easy to read.

  13. @wakeangel2001 "and how did they pass a law that violates our constitutional RIGHTS?"

    Oh, they do that all the time, and never give it a second thought.

  14. The new healthcare bill is a good example. 'We need to pass this!' 'Why, though? What's in it?' 'We don't know… we'll have to pass it to find out!'

  15. @caseagainstfaith Did you miss the part about how it's enforceable in the courts? It doesn't matter what Congress say a subject is. If they pick some ridiculously broad subject, they'd have to get it by the courts the first time someone opposes it.

  16. Line. Item. Veto. SO, it would make it tougher for Congress to do its work? Tough nuggies. They get paid well enough.

  17. @RyuDarragh I think the OSTA is better; let people be able to take it to court, not a President who (as recent presidents have done) largely goes along with whatever Congress wants anyway.

    As for the pay, I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment setting their pay to the previous year's median family income. DownsizeDC doesn't have that, but they do have the Fiscal Responsibility Act–check it out! They run a deficit, their pay DROPS!

  18. @ 3:50

    that must be some good stuff they have, for theme to put this bullshit in the bill….

    I remember a clause in one of Obama's health "reform" abomination, talking about counting gold supplies in the US or some shit similar..of course, I could have mistaken this for another bill, since there was so much shizz in the aforementioned bill.

  19. @caseagainstfaith Anything in a law that isn't defined is considered to have the meaning that the general public regard it to have.

  20. The founder did not seem to keep this in mind when they wrote the constitution. Or did they and keep anyways just to write anything they want. I'll will assume they didn't consider this kind of abuse to take place.

  21. wait..if congress doesn't line item their spending, with totals at the bottom, how are we supposed to ever balance the budget? Kind of hard to balance a budget if you don't even really know how much your spending until it comes out of your bank…

  22. I've heard about this before, but not in as much detail (or without examples I guess is more precise to say). Im not in the US, but this sounds just plain crazy…

    I mean – how can anyone GET to vote on something they haven't read? Shouldn't THAT atleast be mandatory? – Knowing what exactly it is your voting for?

    Seems to me that there should be a law in place that limits the edits to a bill to be reasonably within the domain of the bill in question to prevent it from getting out of hand.

  23. aww..no 'school house rock'>? dang! i really wanted to hear "i'm just a bill…."
    really: thanks very much, shanedk!

  24. aww..no 'school house rock'>? dang! i really wanted to hear "i'm just a bill…."
    really: thanks very much, shanedk!
    personal ignorance 1:i did not know that revenue bills must start in the HoR…makes sense.
    2..(foghorn leghorn?haha!)

  25. @caseagainstfaith I'd like to see someone mention a subject that covers both port security and online gambling.

  26. @caseagainstfaith No more than they would be tied up prosecuting these bogus laws to begin with. Remember, the defendants would be able to argue this in court.

  27. For me as a Swede I had no idea it worked this way. This was very good lecture for me 🙂 And I must say…..that system should be changed….

  28. I expect limiting the content of a bill to a single subject would really dampen the output of the legislative process.

    That's one good thing that could come out of it, I suppose.

  29. Great video, just a quick question. Do you think that if the Read The Bills Act passes we can do something to make sure they really read the bills? Possibly, a quick quiz with electrodes somewhere uncomfortable?

  30. reminds me of obamacare. thats also about a thousand pages with all kinds of additional shit but everybody liked it, because it promised "free" healthcare for everyone

  31. @mandolinic No, it happens in state legislatures, too. There may be some exceptions: I hear that Colorado has their version of the OSTA in their Constitution.

  32. @maskedphrogg Yes, and we now have at least one House member and one Senator who have pledged to introduce the DownsizeDC agenda.

  33. Why is it that simplicity seems to be antithetical to large organizations?
    This is just an assertion, but I believe it's because the decision makers WANT to be able to do things without anyone else understanding what they are doing.
    Good luck getting rid of rider clauses! Clear and transparent government would be a boon to all.

  34. @58robbo Yeah, it's like there's a quadratic function there somewhere: partisan bills are bad, but bipartisan bills are not twice as bad, but four times as bad or more!

  35. @rebelq1 I have several more parts planned, so I wouldn't say "forgetting." But you're free to bring up anything you think I've missed so far.

  36. @rebelq1 A text itself is neither worthless nor worth a lot. What makes any text–including our constitution–be worthwhile is how well the people keep to it. The reason why we still (for the most part) have free speech in this country is not because of ink on parchment; it's because people have been willing to step forward and defend the concept.

  37. @Homer177 Yes, and there already is such a law: it's called the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the Federal government to subsidize businesses.

  38. thats why the government should "help" its people. a few %, if that, get to the people in need of help and the rest lands in some fatass fucktards pocket. the 100% of the money however is very much TAKEN from all tax payers. yay

  39. I don't think it would do any to create a law to force congress to read the laws as they would repeal it later. I think we should amend the constitution, but primarily we should start voting on people who actually care about politics and what we, the people, need instead of choosing them based on their political party.

  40. I'm pretty sure you know this already but there is a term to describe the Red River Flood bill you showed. They are called Earmarks where a politicians (usually a senator) secretly gets a law to be passed which will grant him federal money to a certain project he wants to do.

  41. I had to view this for a class and I am so glad I did!! i feel like I just came out of hibernation…posted it to FB and everything.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *