Remember how the process works: a bill needs to pass both houses of Congress, and also be signed by the president, before it becomes law.
When the Senate and the House pass slightly different versions of the same bill, there's what's called a reconciliation conference, where lawmakers from both houses of Congress hammer out the dissimilarities. I haven't heard of one of those happening yet -- but one would have to, before the bill could be sent up to the White House for the president to sign.
Maybe I'm just being dim, but if you were going to set out to create such a bill to make the day all official, wouldn't you want to take that into consideration and thusly place the date in say April or May? I mean that way you'd factor in the time it would take for the bill to make its way through the entire process and onto the desk of the president, where he'd happily sign it. Am I missing the bigger purpose here, or is this along the same lines as the whole "Freedom Fries" thing?
I suspect it's being done out of symbolism. Regardless of where you stand on the whole is-this-good-government question, there is a long and distinguished history of various domestic and international leaders asking for prayer and/or divine intercession when things hit a rough patch; I imagine this is in that same vein.
Like much of what Congress does, it's a waste of time.
I suspect it's being done out of symbolism. Regardless of where you stand on the whole is-this-good-government question, there is a long and distinguished history of various domestic and international leaders asking for prayer and/or divine intercession when things hit a rough patch; I imagine this is in that same vein.
Like much of what Congress does, it's a waste of time.
Well nice to know our tax dollars are being well spent. Wonder if I wrote to Mike Honda and just asked him what the logic was behind all this if I'd get something more than a canned response..hmm...
Well nice to know our tax dollars are being well spent.
It's the government. :) Of course it's an inefficient waste of money and time. :)
Wonder if I wrote to Mike Honda and just asked him what the logic was behind all this if I'd get something more than a canned response..hmm...
I dunno. I've written a gaggle of letters to congresscritters over the years. The most honest one I ever got was from the late Joe Moakley, after the travesty that was the Communications Decency Act. In as many words, the response read, "This was asstastic legislation that I oppose, but it was packaged with a lot of other stuff that I support, and so I didn't have a lot of choice but to hold my nose and vote yea."
On the other hand, I get a lot of very gaseous responses back from the Gun Control Gals, Feinsten and Boxer, whenever I write them to protest their latest bit of foolishness.
no subject
Date: 2003-04-01 02:55 pm (UTC)When the Senate and the House pass slightly different versions of the same bill, there's what's called a reconciliation conference, where lawmakers from both houses of Congress hammer out the dissimilarities. I haven't heard of one of those happening yet -- but one would have to, before the bill could be sent up to the White House for the president to sign.
Re:
Date: 2003-04-01 03:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-04-01 03:34 pm (UTC)Like much of what Congress does, it's a waste of time.
Re:
Date: 2003-04-01 03:44 pm (UTC)Like much of what Congress does, it's a waste of time.
Well nice to know our tax dollars are being well spent. Wonder if I wrote to Mike Honda and just asked him what the logic was behind all this if I'd get something more than a canned response..hmm...
no subject
Date: 2003-04-01 03:53 pm (UTC)It's the government. :) Of course it's an inefficient waste of money and time. :)
Wonder if I wrote to Mike Honda and just asked him what the logic was behind all this if I'd get something more than a canned response..hmm...
I dunno. I've written a gaggle of letters to congresscritters over the years. The most honest one I ever got was from the late Joe Moakley, after the travesty that was the Communications Decency Act. In as many words, the response read, "This was asstastic legislation that I oppose, but it was packaged with a lot of other stuff that I support, and so I didn't have a lot of choice but to hold my nose and vote yea."
On the other hand, I get a lot of very gaseous responses back from the Gun Control Gals, Feinsten and Boxer, whenever I write them to protest their latest bit of foolishness.
So I think it's a crapshoot.
no subject
Date: 2003-04-01 03:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-04-01 03:32 pm (UTC)