I know the house bill was defeated in the senate but...

[SoutherDem]

Is it even legal (or constitutional) to put a requirement to "pass" an amendment to the constitution in a bill? I might understand requiring to "debate" an amendment, but I don't recall this happening before. Although it didn't pass in the Senate and I doubt it would have been ratified by the states if the Democrats would have done this under "W" there would have been hearings, impeachments and Faux would have the words "CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS" posted at the bottom of the screen.

[Kaleva]

1. Usually, the proposed Admendment is passed by Congress before....

being sent to the states for actual ratification.

[wtmusic]

2. No, it's grandstanding.

It's tantamount to passing an amendment, and that requires a supermajority (the bill doesn't).

[SoutherDem]

3. I guess that was kind of what I meant,

to pass the bill would take a simple majority, but the amendment a supermajority, but if I understood correctly the bill had a requirement to pass the amendment to get the second debt ceiling increase. Is there anything to prevent this from happening again, if the Republicans have there way we will have 100 amendments with in the next 10 years, that may be overstating it, but what if this happens with something else, like the Republicans requiring their "marriage amendment" to get the debt ceiling increase. There just might be enough Democrats who would go for that. I mean some are willing to sacrifice Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

[Tx4obama]

4. It was a 'stipulation' regarding the Constitutional Amendment, not the actual amendment.

A clause that basically said a Constitutional Amendment would have to be passed before the debt ceiling increase.

What was in the bill wasn't the actual passing of the amendment - that would have to be done in the future in a separate bill.

I hope I explained that clearly enough.

[Igel]

5. It's more silliness

Congress can't bind Congress except through a rules change. It's also unseemly for a motion that passes with a simple majority to require a vote requiring a supermajority. Rules of order typically chuckle at such ham-fisted attempts to control a committee.

It passed the House; had it passed the Senate and been signed, Obama would have left the language stand because it doesn't affect him. The Congress would have largely ignored the language because, really, it doesn't affect them. Those who insisted on the language would pitch a fit and use it in campaigning; that's their business, such campaigns are local and not state.