One of the plotlines on last night’s episode of “The West Wing” involved an attempted override of a Presidential veto. The White House staff were attempting to delay the House of Representatives vote on overriding the veto, and one of the stalling tactics that they used was to have one of the Representatives attempt to “attach an amendment” to the override vote. I know that tacking on riders is a common strategy for delaying or killing bills, but could a Congressperson really force the consideration of some irrelevant piece of legislation concurrent with a procedural matter like a veto override vote?
I certainly wouldn’t think so, because a veto override vote requires a 2/3 majority while ordinary legislation requires only a simple majority. Also, a veto override vote is to decide on implementing legislation that has already been agreed upon by both houses of Congress. Introducing new legislation at the same time would seem inappropriate. But that’s just off the top of my head.
-Loopus
I’m happy to be corrected, but I think it’d be OK. Now, if the veto really were in a position to be overriden, this amendment would get shot down in a New York minute, because if it did pass the bill would no longer be in identical form to that presented to the President, and would therefore not become law no matter how large the vote – it would be a separate animal and would be presented to him as any other bill. (With the opportunity to override another veto, were it to occur.) But you can always propose amendments as long as the leadership hasn’t fiddled with the procedure to prevent it.
–Cliffy
I didn’t watch all of the episode since it was repeat, but the part I did catch had one delaying tactic that was different than an ammendment.
Instead, they wanted to have some Democratic congresscritter try to get a “display” or some such thing, basically a poster brought onto the floor to illustrate a point of debate. This is forbidden under the rules, and then another Democratic congresscritter would object, thus killing 20 minutes.
Did they use other delaying tactics after that?
Yes, that was tactic number one, and it seemed very plausible. Tactic number two was the amendment tactic, and I bet the scenario Cliffy came up with was what they intended. Maybe what they were trying to do was to have someone propose that the vetoed House Resolution be immediately amended and passed by the House. However, that still seems like an odd move – wouldn’t the normal procedure be to move that the bill be sent back to committee and/or tabled?