Single subject amendment
The single subject amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would impose the single-subject rule on federal legislation, limiting the content of bills introduced in Congress to a single subject. The amendment would have the effect of limiting legislative tactics such as logrolling, earmarks, and pork barrel spending.[1] It would also discourage the use of very long omnibus spending bills which are difficult for legislators to read and analyze in the time frame needed for a vote, and to which unrelated riders are often added late in the legislative process.[2] As of 2016, 41 states have single-subject rules in their state constitutions, but the federal Congress has no such rule.[1] Many of these state and local provisions are over a century old, and litigation is often used to enforce the provisions.[3]
The amendment is promoted by a 527 SuperPAC also called Single Subject Amendment, which is seeking passage of the amendment through either the Congressional route or through calling a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution.[1] A federal amendment was proposed as early as 1999 in a law journal article by Brannon Denning and Brooks R. Smith.[2] The Florida Legislature in 2014 passed a memorial applying to Congress to call a convention for this purpose.[4] A bill was introduced in the 113th Congress, and again in the 114th Congress, to propose the amendment by Congressman Tom Marino.[1] This bill has also been introduced by Congressman Marino in the 115th Congress as H.J.Res. 25. The rule has also been proposed as a law, the One Subject At a Time Act, by Representative Mia Love, which would allow courts to strike down legislation that did not fulfill the rule.[2][5]
References
- ^ a b c d Neale, Thomas H. (2016-03-29). "The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Current Developments" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. p. 9. Retrieved 2016-07-29.
- ^ a b c Reynolds, Glenn Harlan (2016-02-01). "Want to know why voters are so mad? Mia Love has the answer". USA Today. Retrieved 2016-07-29.
- ^ Joshpe, Brett (2014-10-24). "How about a federal single subject rule?". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 2016-07-29.
- ^ Hinman, Machael (2014-05-01). "Florida first state to demand a single-subject Constitutional convention". The Laker/Lutz News. Retrieved 2016-07-29.
- ^ Leef, George (2016-01-29). "Crimp Wasteful Federal Spending With This Constitutional Amendment". Forbes. Retrieved 2016-07-29.
External links
- v
- t
- e
- History
- Articles of Confederation
- Mount Vernon Conference
- Annapolis Convention
- Philadelphia Convention
- The Federalist Papers
- Anti-Federalist Papers
- Massachusetts Compromise
- Virginia Ratifying Convention
- New York Circular Letter
- Hillsborough Convention
- Fayetteville Convention
- Rhode Island ratification
- Drafting and ratification timeline
- Admission to the Union
- Appointments
- Appropriations
- Assemble and Petition Clause
- Assistance of Counsel
- Case or Controversy
- Citizenship
- Commerce
- Compact
- Compulsory Process
- Confrontation
- Congressional enforcement
- Contingent Elections
- Contract
- Copyright and Patent
- Double Jeopardy
- Due Process
- Elections
- Engagements
- Equal Protection
- Establishment
- Exceptions
- Excessive Bail
- Ex Post Facto
- Extradition
- Free Exercise
- Freedom of the Press
- Freedom of Speech
- Fugitive Slave
- Full Faith and Credit
- General Welfare
- Guarantee
- House Apportionment
- Impeachment
- Import-Export
- Ineligibility
- Militia
- Natural-born citizen
- Necessary and Proper
- No Religious Test
- Oath or Affirmation
- Original Jurisdiction
- Origination
- Pardon
- Postal
- Presentment
- Presidential Electors
- Presidential succession
- Privileges and Immunities
- Privileges or Immunities
- Recess appointment
- Recommendation
- Self-Incrimination
- Speech or Debate
- Speedy Trial
- State of the Union
- Supremacy
- Suspension
- Take Care
- Takings
- Taxing and Spending
- Territorial
- Title of Nobility (Foreign Emoluments)
- Treaty
- Trial by Jury
- Vesting (Legislative / Executive / Judicial)
- Vicinage
- War Powers
- Balance of powers
- Concurrent powers
- Constitutional law
- Criminal procedure
- Criminal sentencing
- Dormant Commerce Clause
- Enumerated powers
- Equal footing
- Executive privilege
- Implied powers
- Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
- Judicial review
- Nondelegation doctrine
- Plenary power
- Preemption
- Reserved powers
- Saxbe fix
- Separation of church and state
- Separation of powers
- Symmetric federalism
- Taxation power
- Unitary executive theory
Convention President | |
---|---|
New Hampshire |
|
Massachusetts | |
Connecticut | |
New York | |
New Jersey |
|
Pennsylvania |
|
Delaware |
|
Maryland | |
Virginia | |
North Carolina | |
South Carolina |
|
Georgia | |
Convention Secretary |
|
and legacy
- National Archives
- Independence Mall
- Constitution Day
- Constitution Gardens
- Constitution Week
- National Constitution Center
- Scene at the Signing of the Constitution (painting)
- A More Perfect Union (film)
- Worldwide influence