El Lexhatx H.2.1 repeats, over and over again, that the necessary requirement for any bill to be Clarked (or to be submitted to the CRL) is that it has "spent 10 days in the Hopper".
The problem is - as we found in the Succession Amendment thread - at least one member of the CRL thinks that if a bill's language changes fundamentally (like, from a new draft), it's no longer the same bill and has to start again.
El Lexh H.2.1.7.4 gives the SoS authority not to Clark a bill which is totally different from what went to the CRL. If we want the CRL to have the authority to do the same to a bill whose language has changed either totally or significantly over its 10 days, we should do so explicitly.
But I disagree. My preferred amendment would be to change the language
wherever it appears to be something like:
Which way do we want to shift it? The current ambiguity is not ideal.
The problem is - as we found in the Succession Amendment thread - at least one member of the CRL thinks that if a bill's language changes fundamentally (like, from a new draft), it's no longer the same bill and has to start again.
El Lexh H.2.1.7.4 gives the SoS authority not to Clark a bill which is totally different from what went to the CRL. If we want the CRL to have the authority to do the same to a bill whose language has changed either totally or significantly over its 10 days, we should do so explicitly.
But I disagree. My preferred amendment would be to change the language
QuoteA bill has passed the Hopper if it has spent at least 10 days in the Hopper
wherever it appears to be something like:
QuoteA legislative proposal has passed the Hopper if the substantive text of the bill has been debated in the Hopper for at least 10 days and its proposer is satisfied with its form.
Which way do we want to shift it? The current ambiguity is not ideal.