If no one will claim inserting the Citibank provision into the spending bill then it is not legal.

[OregonBlue]

Who's to say that it wasn't some staffer who just decided to take it upon themselves. No measure can be passed without someone who is authorized to insert legislation and we would win a law suit. That's what my neighbor just said and I agree so, either whoever did it needs to come forward or Harry Reid must declare it void.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Recommended. (nt)

[DetlefK]

2. It was Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-Kansas) and he has gone into hiding ever since.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/15/kevin-yoder-wall-street-bailout_n_6329784.html?ir=Politics

Quote from article:
"Yoder has been mum about the spending package since it passed the House. His office hasn't responded to multiple requests for comment on why he slipped the Citigroup language into it. The press statements on his website say nothing about the provision or the spending bill. There are no posts about it on his Facebook page. He's said nothing in his Twitter feed."

And it seems, his republican constituents aren't too happy with him either.




I think, "key-architect of the next Wall Street-bailout" has a nice ring to it.

[Faux pas]

3. Kickin'

off subject, where are you in Oregon OregonBlue?

[OregonBlue]

4. North Central Oregon. Middle of nowhere but that's what I like. South of The Dalles, North of Bend

Closest traffic light is 35 miles away. Perfect. And you?

[Faux pas]

5. Lol

halfway between Lincoln City and Otis. Almost perfect except for summer traffic. Nice to meet you

[OregonBlue]

11. Very nice. A little cloudy in the winter but such a gorgeous part of Oregon. Of course the

whole state is beautiful. It's high and dry where I live but very, very beautiful. On the White River in the rain shadow of Mount Hood. We are all so lucky to live here!!

[Faux pas]

18. Yes we are!

And even more lucky since we went blue.

[dumbcat]

6. Not that I disagree, but ...

No measure can be passed without someone who is authorized to insert legislation and we would win a law suit.

Is there some provision in the Constitution, or U.S. Code, or case law to support that claim?

Shouldn't it be assumed that the legislators read what they are voting on? We know they don't, but shouldn't they?

[PoliticAverse]

9. There is no legal support for the OP's claim. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

7. I think it is fucked up but I doubt it is "illegal".

Please provide a reference for your assertion that this breaks any law, senate rule, or constitutional provision.

[PoliticAverse]

8. Your neighbor shouldn't quit his day job, and Kevin Yoder inserted the provision...

See: http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/politics/kevin-yoder-citigroup-elizabeth-warren-wall-street/index.html

[OregonBlue]

10. So if Yoder had not done it, you are saying anyone can insert a provision into a bill. Actually, I

don't think they can. I thought (while a staff person might actually take it to the clerk) it had to be in the name of a member of congress. If not, what's to stop me from inserting a provision if I want to?

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. What matters is the head count of people who voted for it.

They have a word for stupid shit written by lobbyists and approved by the governing body; "laws".

[PoliticAverse]

13. Committees draft the final version of a bill for consideration and who knows how things get added.

A large amount of bills are written mostly by lobbyists. Just because no one takes direct blame/credit
for a portion of a final bill making it out of a committee doesn't in any way invalidate it.
A few bills have passed with provisions no one was willing to admit they were responsible for (no one
seems to be sure who wrote certain parts of the 1,000+ page PPACA for example).

[Recursion]

14. If it's a floor amendment it has to have a sponsor who can take the floor

If it's a committee amendment, then there's no particular need for that, and effectively the committee chair is the member who "adds" all language.

[OregonBlue]

16. Oh, I thought it was a floor amendment. Oh well, it's disgusting however it happened.

[Recursion]

17. EDIT: it was a committee amendment, in June

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/12/12/3603194/dodd-frank-cromulent-phil-gramm/

[Recursion]

15. Besides all of the other problems, the courts will *never* adjudicate legislative process

Each chamber sets its own rules and is responsible for maintaining them; I can't think of any court that would step in to that morass.