Simone Lawson
While the term rider is not explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution, the document does grant the president the power of veto, which can be used in response to rider bills. Riders are amendments to legislation that are often controversial and can be used to delay or prevent the passage of a bill. They are considered a problem as they can force presidents to enact laws they would have otherwise vetoed and can endanger health and environmental protections. While there is no legislative regulation to prevent riders, some constitutions, including those of 43 out of 50 US states, allow the use of line-item vetoes, which enable the executive to veto individual items within a bill, thus counteracting riders.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Mention of bill riders in the US Constitution | No explicit mention |
| Use of bill riders | To advance controversial measures without building specific coalitions in support |
| Bill riders in the House of Representatives | Rare, amendments must deal with the substance of the parent bill |
| Bill riders in the Senate | More common, rules are more tolerant |
| Bill riders in West Virginia | Unconstitutional, due to a provision in the Constitution limiting bills to one topic |
| Bill riders in the Czech Republic | Unconstitutional, per the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic |
| Bill riders in France | Considered unconstitutional by the Constitutional Council of France |
| Bill riders in Greece | Unconstitutional, per Article 74, Paragraph 5 of the Greek Constitution |
| Bill riders in Hungary | Unconstitutional, per a 2005 ruling by the Constitutional Court of Hungary |
| Bill riders in the UK | Prevented by the long title of a bill that describes its full purpose |
| Counteracting bill riders | 43 of 50 US state constitutions allow the use of line-item vetoes to veto objectionable items within a bill |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The US Constitution does not explicitly mention bill riders
The absence of a line-item veto at the federal level further contributes to the effectiveness of riders. Without the ability to selectively veto parts of a bill, the president must either accept the entire bill, riders included, or reject it altogether. This significantly dilutes the president's veto power, especially when vetoing a spending bill could have severe consequences. To counter this, 43 out of 50 US states have granted their governors the power of the line-item veto, enabling them to veto specific items within a bill while preserving its main purpose.
While the US Constitution does not directly address riders, some states, such as West Virginia, have provisions in their constitutions or legislative procedures that effectively prevent the use of riders. West Virginia's constitution limits bills to a single topic, rendering riders de facto unconstitutional in the state. Similarly, the British Parliament's practice of including a long title describing the full purpose of a bill acts as a safeguard against riders.
In other countries, constitutional courts have taken a strong stance against riders. For example, the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic has ruled that wild riders, amendments unrelated to the main subject of a bill, are unconstitutional and violate legislative procedure. In 2005, the Constitutional Court of Hungary struck down the yearly national budget law after finding that nearly half of its paragraphs were unrelated to state fiscal matters and instead modified other areas of legislation.
The impact of riders on the legislative process highlights the complexities and challenges of lawmaking in the US. While riders can facilitate the passage of certain measures, they can also undermine the democratic process by attaching controversial or unrelated provisions to essential legislation. As a result, riders have become a contentious aspect of the legislative process, with some calling for their opposition or regulation.
Stay-at-Home Orders: Are They Legal?
You may want to see also
Riders are amendments to bills
In the US government, a rider is a controversial method of getting Congress to pass bills that are opposed by most lawmakers. Riders are amendments to bills that are often unrelated to the subject matter of the main bill. They are commonly used to introduce unpopular provisions. For example, a rider to stop net neutrality was attached to a bill relating to military and veteran construction projects. Riders are also known as "wrecking" or "poison pill" bills and are used to prevent the passage of the parent bill or to ensure its veto by the president.
Riders are most often used in the Senate because the Senate's rules are more flexible about them than House rules. In the House, amendments to bills must generally be related to the subject of the parent bill. Senators can add unrelated amendments to House bills, some of which may give tax benefits to special interest groups in the Senators' home states and major campaign contributors.
In some legislative systems, such as the British Parliament, riders are prevented by the existence of the long title of a bill that describes the full purpose of the bill. Any part of the bill that falls outside the scope of the long title would not be permitted. However, legislators often bypass this limitation by naming a bill vaguely, such as by appending "and for connected purposes" to the name.
In the US, the presidential veto is an all-or-nothing power. The president must either accept the riders or reject the entire bill. The use of rider bills dilutes the president's veto power. To counteract riders, 43 of the 50 US states have provisions in their state constitutions allowing the use of line-item vetoes, so the executive can veto single objectionable items within a bill without affecting the main purpose or effectiveness of the bill.
In the Czech Republic, the practice of wild riders has been deemed unconstitutional and contrary to the law of legislative procedure and its principles. The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic has ruled that a single law amending several laws that are not directly related to each other in terms of content does not correspond with the purpose and principles of the legislative procedure.
Wyoming's Historical Constitutions: A Journey Through Time
You may want to see also
They are often used to pass controversial measures
While there is no specific mention of "bill riders" in the US Constitution, the document does outline the powers of Congress to create and modify laws, as well as their authority over financial and budgetary policy. This legislative process has been exploited through the use of riders, which are amendments or additions to bills that can include controversial measures.
Riders are often used to pass controversial measures by attaching them to must-pass bills, which are crucial pieces of legislation that must be passed to avoid negative consequences, such as government shutdowns. Members of Congress can use these must-pass bills as an opportunity to attach controversial riders, knowing that other members will be pressured to support the overall bill to prevent a shutdown. This tactic is especially effective when the president lacks line-item veto authority, which would allow them to selectively veto parts of a bill. Without this authority, the president must either accept the entire bill, including the rider, or reject it and risk the consequences of not passing a critical piece of legislation.
Riders can also be used to limit the use of funds or appropriate funds for specific projects, steering the executive branch in a certain direction. For example, Trump's request for funding for a US-Mexican border wall was attached as a rider to an appropriations bill necessary for government funding. In another instance, the REAL ID Act, which had little support on its own, was attached as a rider to a military spending bill that allocated money to pay troops and fund the war on terror. This tactic allowed the REAL ID Act to pass with overwhelming support.
In some cases, riders are used not to be passed themselves but to prevent the passage of the parent bill or ensure its veto by the president. These are known as "wrecking" or "poison pill" riders. Additionally, Christmas tree riders are bills that gather numerous, often unrelated, amendments, providing benefits to various special interest groups.
While riders can be a problematic aspect of the legislative process, some states have implemented safeguards to counteract them. For example, 43 out of 50 US states have provisions in their constitutions allowing the use of line-item vetoes, giving governors the power to veto individual items within a bill without affecting its main purpose. Similarly, the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic has taken a hard stance against "wild riders", ruling that legislative additions that are not substantively related to the bill in question are unconstitutional.
A Quorum of Justices in Florida: How Many?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
They can be prevented by describing the full purpose of a bill
In the US Congress, a rider is a type of amendment to legislation. Riders are often used to advance controversial measures without building specific coalitions in support of them. They can be used to delay or prevent the passage of a bill, or to ensure its veto by the president.
Riders can be prevented by describing the full purpose of a bill. In the British Parliament, for example, riders are prevented by the existence of a long title that outlines the bill's full purpose. This makes it difficult for unrelated amendments to be added.
Similarly, the Greek Constitution stipulates that a bill that contains provisions unrelated to its main subject cannot be introduced for discussion. This prevents riders from being attached to bills, as any additions or amendments must be related to the bill's main subject.
In the Czech Republic, the Constitutional Court has taken a hard stance against wild riders, which are amendments that are not substantively related to the bill in question. The Court's role is to determine whether a bill has been adopted and passed in a constitutionally-conforming manner, and it has ruled that wild riders are unconstitutional and contrary to the law of legislative procedure.
To counteract riders, many US states have provisions in their constitutions allowing the use of line-item vetoes. This gives the executive the power to veto single objectionable items within a bill without affecting its main purpose or effectiveness.
Exploring the Constitution: SparkNotes for Beginners
You may want to see also
43 of 50 US states have provisions allowing line-item vetoes
In the US, a rider is a type of amendment to legislation. Riders are often used to advance controversial measures without having to build specific coalitions in support. They are also used to prevent the passage of a parent bill or to ensure its veto by the president.
Riders are rarely allowed in the House of Representatives, where amendments must deal with the substance of the parent bill. However, they are more common in the Senate, where the rules are more tolerant.
To counteract riders, 43 of the 50 US states have provisions in their state constitutions allowing the use of line-item vetoes. This gives the executive the power to veto single objectionable items within a bill without affecting the main purpose or effectiveness of the bill.
The line-item veto, also known as the partial veto, is a special form of veto power that allows a chief executive to reject particular provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire bill. While the US Constitution does not grant this power to the president, 44 states—all except Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont—give their governors some form of line-item veto power. The Mayor of Washington, D.C. also has this power.
The first line-item veto, the "digit veto", was used by Governor Patrick Lucey in 1973. He vetoed the digit 2 in an appropriation for $25 million, resulting in an appropriation of $5 million. Other notable examples of line-item vetoes include the "editing veto", the "Vanna White veto", and the "reduction veto".
While the US Constitution does not explicitly mention bill riders, the practice of riders has been used by members of Congress to advance controversial measures.
Power Abuse: Is It in the Constitution?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
A rider is a type of amendment to legislation. Members of Congress use riders to attach controversial measures to must-pass bills, which forces members to accept the measure as they want the entire bill to pass.
The US Constitution does not explicitly mention bill riders. However, the Constitution grants the president the power of veto, which can be used to reject a bill in its entirety. As riders are attached to must-pass bills, the president must either accept the rider or reject the entire bill.
The Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funding for elective abortions in programs like Medicaid, is a common policy rider attached to the Labor-HHS bill. Another example is when the REAL ID Act was attached as a rider to the "Emergency, Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief" bill.
While there is no legislative regulation specifically preventing the practice of bill riders, certain safeguards exist to prevent the use of wild riders or unrelated amendments. For instance, the British Parliament's long title of a bill describes the full purpose of the bill, preventing riders. The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic has also taken a hard stance against wild riders, declaring them unconstitutional.
Bill riders are criticised for being sneaky and causing problems in funding the federal government. They are also often controversial and can endanger health protections, such as clean air protections.
