Democrats in the House are furious over what they see as a deliberate attempt by Republicans to rewrite Democratic amendments to make the Democrats amendments look preposterous. LINK

Does the Majority Party have the right to rewrite the Amendment Description of the Minority Party?

I don't know who's in charge of writing the "final" descriptions, but this is completely amusing to me. I read the whole story, and it looks like the Republicans really stuck it to those Democrats who offered amendments. Of course, the amendments themselves are "preposterous" enough, there was no need to embellish them.

Here are the classes that were to be excluded from the law by the amendments:
- a grandparent or adult sibling
- clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles or first cousins
- cab drivers, bus drivers and others in the business transportation profession

As noted by the Republicans, sexual predators included in the above list would be exempt from prosecution for the intrastate abortion. The re-write was unnecessary and stupid of course, but it did make a point.

Any Representatives that want to make it legal for my aunt, sister, brother, pastor or taxi driver to take my daughter across state lines for an abortion better go across that state line themselves, and keep on going. How would these same reps vote on a law that made it illegal to transport a minor across state lines to buy a pack of smokes or a beer. Oh right, those things are actually dangerous, not like a freaking abortion, which is just a "choice" and not really medical treatment.

Does the Majority Party have the right to rewrite the Amendment Description of the Minority Party?

I read about this yesterday. The dip in maturity levels is breathtaking. Making your opponent out to be something he's not is expected in politics, especially campaigns, but taking to a floor vote is ridiculous. I mean, how dare those slanderous liberals bat an eyelash at our perfect amendments!

I also wasn't aware biological fathers were incapable of raping their own daughters. Learn something new every day.

Ah well. This legislation is the latest showing that Republicans still oppose anti-federalism unless they agree with it.



Dude you are so right. In fact Republicans didn't go far enough. They should've mandated cab drivers carry a form and have minors sign the dotted line to cover their butts in case unknown to the cabbie the little minx asks to be dropped off one block away from a clinic.

OK, you're right about transportation. And you're right about biological fathers, but there are already work-arounds in state court for this. So, which of your god-parents or great aunts is on the approved for daughter's outpatient surgery without my consent list? Maybe we could have 12-year-old girls write a list of potential abortion couriers as a school project and keep it on file in case it comes up later.

I can't debate this topic without hearing the guy's mom from Fast Times at Ridgemont High saying "he says he's helping his father in the garage" when he's supposed to be driving his girlfriend to the free clinic. In that case the little minx asked her brother to drop her at the bowling alley...

This kind of partisanship is nothing new. It reminds me of the Democrats during the latest presidential race proposing a bill to reinstate the draft (conscription), making its executive summary sound like something different to keep it under the Republican radar, and then circulating it at college campuses as proof the Republicans were going to send them to war, while selling tee shirts that said, "Vote or Die!" It was several months before the Republicans got wind of what was happening and called the bluff.

Sure, you have to give both parties an opportunity to evaluate how legislation is characterized, and if there is a disagreement, put it to a vote, and the majority rules. If that disadvantages the less popular party, then they have a simple remedy-- persuade the country to elect more of them. If they can't persuade the voters to elect more of them, then they can fax the unofficial description they prefer to their colleagues and mouthpieces in the press (both parties have mouthpieces in the press) and then we can all discuss it on the internet. The system works.

Besides, no one cries about the Libertarian or Green parties not getting a crack at writing amendment descriptions. In a primarily two-party federal system, the party that is the most popular with the People and the States (as measured by seats in Congress) is the one that should logically have the most influence. The alternative is to reform elections to make them more compatible with third parties, so that a coalition of parties, rather than a single party, will control the final form of amendment descriptions.

Democracy is primarily a "majority rules" institution-- the most common form of a primarily "minority rules" institution is a dictatorship. Those of us whose views are not popular enough to translate into a majority of seats in Congress (and I include myself in that group) have to take our lumps if we believe democracy is a good thing.

The more we who are out of power whine and complain and obstruct without offering viable alternatives, the more we alienate ourselves from the majority of voters who want nothing more from their government than for it to run smoothly and solve problems reasonably without violating their liberties or costing them too much money. We will eventually strike a chord with the People only if we can confidently and consistently present good alternatives in a reasonable way-- but if we fail to attempt that, the only message we send by excessive fingerpointing is that the People were right not to put us in office because we're just troublemakers who don't have any good ideas of our own other than to make it more difficult for the majority of the People's representatives to govern-- which in Congress invariably runs counter to the overarching principles of democracy.

None. I don't have god-parents, I'd sooner pretend my aunt's dead before admitting kinship, and my mother'd sooner see herself as a great grandmother by her own son as not.

For the record I don't have a problem with parental notification laws. State work arounds, through judicial bypass or authority notifications, may apprehend a sex offender or blood relative sex abuser. My beef with the bill is it supersedes states that chose to allow substituting parents with health physicians, immediate family members, grandparents, etc. That's a lot of representatives "go[ing] across... state line[s] themselves" to... hell if I know where.

And of course, the cute little antics from House members more interested in preventing a single abortion than resembling state laws that already "exlcude child molesters" from facing criminal charges.

In looking at the original link, I just noticed that GOP rewrites tend to substitute emotion laden language for the original. There’s nothing quite as useful as trying to get people in a tizzy like state of agitation. I have marked the original Democratic terms in blue and the hysterical language inserted by the Republicans in red.





Use of the word “whine” is getting old. In fact, it’s almost become a cliché. If one want to use this word, then we can say with equal force that DeLay is whining about the probe of his ethics and that Bill Frist is whining about Democrats filibustering Bush’s judicial nominations. I don’t wish to co-opt a Republican, so let’s just call it GOP grousing. Hey, I even added a little alliteration.

Opposing, especially when we now have a near one party control, is not whining. Republicans are grousing because they desire more and more power--greed for power.

The thought just crossed my mind that if more people had whined, whimpered, groused, griped, complained about the Nazis in Germany, Hitler might not have been able to exterminate an estimated 6,000,000 Jews.

Oh, and BTW Jack22--are not amendments to majority bills alternatives?

Wow. In the same breath as chastising me for overusing "whine" to refer to myself and others whose politics are currently out of favor, you stoop to comparing Republicans to Nazis. Now there's a brand-new, completely-original, immminently-constructive, non-extremist, anti-inflammatory comment if I've ever seen one. (irony)

Explain to me how wanting the Senate to vote on a nominee is a power grab when it's been in the Constitution since day one. On second thought, if you're going to call me a Nazi-- or worse yet, a Republican-- then don't bother. Jaime's trying to do her best to move us beyond such low blows.

Carilitoswhey wrote:
“Any Representatives that want to make it legal for my aunt, sister, brother, pastor or taxi driver to take my daughter across state lines for an abortion better go across that state line themselves, and keep on going. How would these same reps vote on a law that made it illegal to transport a minor across state lines to buy a pack of smokes or a beer. Oh right, those things are actually dangerous, not like a freaking abortion, which is just a "choice" and not really medical treatment.”

According to the law as written, a parent of a minor who gets on Greyhound to get an abortion in another state can arrested the driver of the Greyhound. If one of the parents (regardless if the parent has legal guardianship or not) can send the other parent to jail if s/he disagrees with an abortion. Same goes for grandparents or adult siblings.

Furthermore, the law can be circumvented in other ways, but of course the difficulty goes up.

Carilitoswhey, I am glad if you are part of your daughter’s life. However, not everyone plays such a role in their daughters lives.

Jack22 wrote,
This kind of partisanship is nothing new. It reminds me of the Democrats during the latest presidential race proposing a bill to reinstate the draft (conscription), making its executive summary sound like something different to keep it under the Republican radar, and then circulating it at college campuses as proof the Republicans were going to send them to war, while selling tee shirts that said, "Vote or Die!" It was several months before the Republicans got wind of what was happening and called the bluff.

Actually, the example you give is not the same.

1) This has never been done before by either party.

2) The changes are now part of the permanent record, for the rest of history.

3) Our soldiers in Iraq have stated that lack of troops, armor, and planning have made the Iraq War much worse. Of course, since most soldiers who have been recruited come from poorer areas of the United States (inner city and rural areas).
Soldiers' point of view.

Point of Clarification

I did not compare Republicans to Nazis. Please show me where I said that.

The point was that had there been more people, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who actively opposed the Hitler's regime then the world might have been spared much tragedy.

I'm not suggesting that Republicans are Nazis. What I was saying is that when one party rules and spends an inordinate amount of time branding the opposition as "whiners" (in my opinion in an effort to grab even more power), I don't think much good can come of it.

I will say that it seems to me some Republicans would like to have one party rule. Rewriting the amendments using knee-jerk type emotional language is a perfect example of what I’m talking about.

Perhaps some on the right could lay off inflamatory stuff like "whining" in favor of the English concept of the "loyal opposition."

Does the Majority Party have the right to rewrite the Amendment Description of the Minority Party?

Under the current rules, apparently, they do, and in this specific instance, they have. Seems like an obvious abuse of power; politically editing and purposely distorting the intent of what your opponents proposed in their amendment, in your official capacity of setting the amendment for congressional vote?

I wonder how anyone, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise, could defend such a practice without considering how blatantly their biased partisan zeal is showing through.