Bill structure question

[Shift]

Why are bills amended to death with unrelated things like what are things like mag limits and mental health provisions on one bill? Why propose a good amendment for a bad overall bill?

Why is it all or nothing instead of a bunch of smaller bills that could actually force them to be well thought out?

 

[dblas]

Because SB281 was a bill to amend many different parts of Maryland code all at once. I believe the thinking was that individually, items would fail, but all together, they had a better chance of getting more changes through.

 

[Shift]

Is this not normal practice? I'm thinking beyond just PoSB281. Why add good amendments to bad bills? If its a good idea why not have its own bill rather than adding to a bad bill?

 

[dblas]

It is actually normal practice to do what they did, with regards to one subject that affect many different parts of Maryland code.

The idea of good amendments to bad bills is two fold. 1. to make a bad bill better (less teeth in our case) and 2. to make it more likely that with the good amendments (as we see them) the other side will not pass the bill and it will fail.

 

[Shift]

Just seems like individual ideas should have to stand on their own merits, instead of having to accept one idea just to get another.

 

[dblas]

Welcome to politics.

 

[Shift]

 

[MDFF2008]

Amendments have several purposes

Bad Amendments to a good bill can prevent it's passing. (Poison Pill Amendments)

Good amendments make a bad bill better.

 

[Biggfoot44]

SB281 was a bit more inclusive than usual , but only a matter of degree.

But yes , this is how politics work.

A "good" amendment on a bad bill *might* be intended to be a poisin pill to be other side. OR it might be a serious attempt enact somthing positive that wouldn't be able to pass on its own.

Ie one side could declare victory to their base for the origional bill , while the other is a Hero to their base for the Amendment.