Yes! The One Subject at a Time Act has been introduced!

[MrBogosity]

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/prnewswire/press_releases/Pennsylvania/2012/01/31/DC44741

AKRON, Ohio, Jan. 31, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "It's been a long time since Congress needed a majority to pass a law," says Jim Babka, President of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. "But that could change, thanks to Congressman Tom Marino of Pennsylvania (R-10), who has introduced our 'One Subject at a Time Act' (OSTA) in Congress."

"OSTA would require each bill Congress passes to be about one subject only," Babka explains. "This would end the practice of clustering unrelated measures into one package. Congressional leaders have long used this trick to pass unpopular laws on the strength of the popular proposals with which they're unnaturally joined. OSTA would end this fraud forever."

"Every bill would have to stand or fall on its own merits," declares Babka.

Congressman Marino told his constituents that Obamacare was a big motivation for introducing OSTA. "In order to garner enough votes to pass the law, a host of unrelated measures were tacked onto Obamacare," says Marino.

"But multi-subject bills are an old bipartisan problem. DownsizeDC.org created OSTA in response to numerous omnibus bills passed when the Republicans controlled Congress. For instance, the massively unpopular Real ID Act was only passed because the Republican leadership included it in an Emergency Troop Appropriation bill. That bill also included tsunami relief! Another example is the ban on Internet poker. It was included in a Port Security bill," says Babka.

Babka commends Representative Marino for his leadership and applauds the Williamsport Tea Party for their crucial support. "Now we can begin to collect co-sponsors for this vital reform," Babka concluded.

SOURCE DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

You can read the bill here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3806:

[Lord T Hawkeye]

In a time where a bill requiring politicians to be subject to all their own bills was shouted down, how on earth did this manage to pass their "quality control" I wonder?

[Ibrahim90]

In a time where a bill requiring politicians to be subject to all their own bills was shouted down, how on earth did this manage to pass their "quality control" I wonder?

you're also talking about the people who have two differently named acts (SOPA and PIPA)* that essentially do the same things being debated in congress right now. they're just not very clever. but I'm sure you know that already 

once they realize their "mistake", they'll shoot it down in no time. and if not them, then comrade Stalin Obama. if it passes, then it will be a lucky day. If it is not ignored by the media and congress people that is...


*barring any amendments or subtleties I'm not aware of.

[Travis Retriever]

Chances it gets gutted/thrown out/ignored + disregarded even if passed:  100%

I mean, come on!  The U.S. Constitution is by definition the Supreme Law of the land, yet they ignore that every single day.  Why would another piece of paper change that if the one we already have didn't?

[Goaticus]

I'm excited, even if it doesn't pass it will be because it was voted against by specific politicians who will have to take a stance against the bill as opposed to ignore it. That's something that can be used against them later.

[MrBogosity]

Chances it gets gutted/thrown out/ignored + disregarded even if passed:  100%

I mean, come on!  The U.S. Constitution is by definition the Supreme Law of the land, yet they ignore that every single day.  Why would another piece of paper change that if the one we already have didn't?

The difference is, if you read the bill, you'll see that it gives people the right to a de novo action against the enforcement of any such act. Provided it doesn't get gutted, that is.

[Travis Retriever]

The difference is, if you read the bill, you'll see that it gives people the right to a de novo action against the enforcement of any such act.

Because government never goes against its own laws and acts right?  And that's even if it isn't gutted, much less even passed.

And even if it *is* on paper, that assumes they'd even go along with it in the first place.  Fat chance.

[MrBogosity]

A de novo action they HAVE to recognize.

[Travis Retriever]

A de novo action they HAVE to recognize.

OK.  They're supposed to recognize the Constitution.
In fact, the Constitution thing makes it worse, because unlike a single bill with some Latin (?), the Constitution (as you yourself have said) is the "Supreme Law of the Land"  the law that "nothing is above".

[Travis Retriever]

Don't get me wrong, if this acts as the much needed chemotherapy to GovCo, I'll gladly eat my words. Until then, yeh...no.

[AnCap Dave]

To be honest, I don't see this getting passed. If it does, I wouldn't be surprised if they attached something horrible to it.

[MrBogosity]

To be honest, I don't see this getting passed. If it does, I wouldn't be surprised if they attached something horrible to it.

If they did, wouldn't it be invalidated by the act itself?

[AnCap Dave]

If they did, wouldn't it be invalidated by the act itself?

Not exactly. If anything, the law would probably apply to every other new incoming law after that, but it wouldn't necessarily invalidate one attached directly to it at the time. I mean sure, you would think so, but it wouldn't surprise me if they pulled that kind of stunt.

[evensgrey]

I'm not sure how you could get a law like this that would mean anything.  No mere act of a legislature can restrict the future actions of that legislature in any meaningful way, since it can be undone with no more effort than any other action.

[MrBogosity]

I'm not sure how you could get a law like this that would mean anything.  No mere act of a legislature can restrict the future actions of that legislature in any meaningful way, since it can be undone with no more effort than any other action.

Again, read the bill: it provides a remedy in court for anyone aggrieved by the enforcement of such an act. The legislature may be able to ignore it all they want, but the courts can't.