Single Subject Limitation
By: Patrick Goggins
Everyone wants to reign in the size of government and make it operate more efficiently. An effective way to do that would be to adopt a single subject limitation. Forty-two states have single subject limitations in their constitutions, the federal government does not. What is a single subject limitation? Simply said, it is a constitutional requirement that each law only address one subject. So a law about transportation can't also have provisions dealing with agriculture. That way, say if there is an urgent need for the transportation law, a controversial agriculture provision can't be tacked on to it.
Make sense? Of course it does. What doesn't make sense is the fact that the U.S. Constitution does not have a single subject limitation. Congress is forever passing laws that tack unrelated and controversial provisions on to otherwise urgently needed measures. A U.S. single subject limitation would also eliminate riders on appropriations bills, unrelated earmarks, and a fair amount of pork barrel spending. These are legislative practices that Americans of every political stripe abhor, and they could be stopped by adopting a single subject limitation.
It has been twenty-one years since the Constitution was last amended. Only twice has the U.S. gone this long without altering its founding document. The longest span is still the sixty-one years from 1804 to 1865 when the 13th Amendment was ratified, abolishing slavery. The second longest is the forty-three years from 1870 to 1913 when the 16th Amendment was passed, paving the way for a Federal income tax.
The last Constitutional Amendment to pass was in 1992. The 27th Amendment prevented laws affecting Congressional salaries from taking effect until the beginning of the next session of Congress. Maybe it's time to visit the Constitution once again. I propose that we adopt as the 28th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States the following single subject limitation:
"Every law shall embrace but one subject which shall be expressed in its title, general appropriations laws shall only embrace appropriations, and other appropriations shall be made by separate law, related to the appropriation, embracing but one subject."
People's faith in government is rather low these days. Only half of the country has a favorable view of the President and the Supreme Court. Seventy five percent of Americans positively disapprove of Congress' job performance.
Perhaps changing things up would improve things, giving people more of a sense that they are involved in the process. How about an amendment clearing up gun ownership rights? How about an amendment addressing abortion? How about taking up the death penalty, or the rights of illegal immigrants? Ah, but these are controversial topics and therefore are unlikely to meet the Article V requirements for passage. It is simply unrealistic to think that two thirds of Americans could agree on anything unless it is completely uncontroversial.[1]
A single subject limitation would be completely uncontroversial, partly because so few people know what it is, but mostly because it is policy that everyone can agree on, regardless of political persuasion. The states have found that a single subject limitation is an effective way to reign in the size of government. Again, almost every state in the union has a single subject limitation in its state constitution, yet there isn't a single subject limitation in the U.S. Constitution.
What is the single subject limitation? Again, it is simply a requirement that each law covers only one subject. For instance, Article III Section 6 of Florida's Constitution says: "Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title."
A single subject limitation would simplify the legislative process. Each bill would address only one subject, and that the subject of the bill would be expressed in its title. It would also eliminate the alarming practice of adding unrelated riders to otherwise meritorious bills.
Seems uncontroversial, right? It is, and most everyone would support it. More to the point, who would oppose it? Some may say it would slow down the legislative process. The reality is a single subject limitation would speed up legislation, as it would eliminate unrelated amendments which are the real culprits in slowing down the process. Some may say it would encourage litigation, but if a law complies with the single subject limitation (which all laws should, even without a constitutional requirement) then there would likely be less litigation. Bulky, confusing laws keep judges very busy.
What specific benefits would come from a single subject limitation? There are three: it would eliminate bills that address more than one subject, it would eliminate misleading bill titles, and most importantly it would reign in unrelated riders and appropriations abuses.
So, for instance, on September 14, 2006 when the Senate took up the Security and Accountability For Every (SAFE) Port Act in the wake of the Dubai Ports World controversy, the bill addressed port security, and only port security. It passed the Senate and was forwarded to the House. On September 29, 2006 (at 9:20 p.m.), on the eve of the House vote, in an arcane procedural move known only to Capitol Hill insiders, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA) was inserted at the end of the SAFE Port Act by means of appending it to a "conference report." UIGEA addressed internet gambling, it had nothing to do with port security. On September 30, 2006, the House passed the SAFE Port Act, with UIGEA tacked on. The passage was with the unanimous consent with the Senate, which had previously waived reading of the conference report. So UGIEA became law without the Senate ever even having seen it.
UGIEA was inserted into the SAFE Ports Act anonymously. No one knows who inserted the UIGEA into the SAFE Port Act, there was no public notice that the UGIEA was even being considered, there were no hearings, half of Congress never even saw it...and still today it is the law of the land.
One would think that any American would be outraged at this sort of legislative voodoo, but passage of UIGEA was met with a collective business-as-usual sigh, notwithstanding the fact that UIGEA was not even in the version of the Act voted on by the Senate. There's something sneaky and underhanded about tacking an unrelated piece of legislation, especially a controversial one, onto an emergency provision like the SAFE Ports Act. Why wouldn't Congress just pass UIGEA on its own merits? Apparently they tried in 1999, but that effort was beaten back by lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Congress doesn't even follow its own rules when a member wants to slip in an unrelated measure. The House of Representatives' rules provide that "[n]o motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." They go on to require that "[a]n amendment must relate to the subject matter under consideration," and the "fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill." Apparently no one in Congress saw fit to point out that UIGEA was clearly not germane to the SAFE Ports Act. The bill passed 409-2.
Another legislative oddity that a single subject limitation would correct is the misleading use of acronyms and incongruous names as the titles of bills. For instance, reading the title, one would have no clue that the "No Child Left Behind Act" established educational standards. Likewise, the "USA Patriot Act" was actually an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism." The acronym is more marketing than truth-in-labeling. It is fair to say that the American people are at least skeptical of these manufactured monikers. Good legislation should be positively boring.
A single subject limitation would also reign in government spending and eliminate notorious legislative appropriations abuses. Occasionally Congress will pass a law that has an unrelated spending rider, or a substantive provision will be added to an appropriations bill. Here are some examples of appropriations abuses that would be prevented by a single subject limitation:
•$2 million to repair non-hurricane related damage to the roofs of museums in Washington D.C., which was added as a rider to the 2012 Hurricane Sandy supplemental bill.
•A substantive rider preventing the EPA from limiting pollution from livestock production under the Clean Air Act, which was added as a rider to an Interior and Environment appropriation law.
•The so-called "Monsanto Protection Act," a substantive rider allowing the sale of genetically modified crops, which was added to the 2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act.
A single subject limitation is not a novel idea. A leading proponent of the idea is Jim Babka, co-founder and President of the Downsize DC Foundation. He proposed a "One Subject at a Time Act," which was taken up in the 112th Congress by Rep. Tom Marino (R. Pa.) as H.R. 3806. The bill included a single subject limitation, and a requirement that the subject be clearly expressed in the title. It was not a Constitutional Amendment, instead, it was a bill that would give "Any person aggrieved" of a law that violated the Act the right to sue for a judicial declaration that the law is unenforceable. The One Subject at a Time Act was referred to the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, and has not seen the day of light since.
Imagine that, Congress doesn't want to give up the keys to the candy store.
A single subject limitation is a good idea because it requires basic due process. When a law is being considered, there should be notice and an opportunity for the public to be heard. Each law should rise and fall on its own merits. The process of taking controversial provisions on to otherwise necessary legislation is antithetical to the American notion of democracy, and tears down public confidence in the system.
Can we convince Congress to save us from Congress? Who knows, but its worth a try. Pass this on to your Senator and your Congressman. Let's get a single subject limitation passed today.
Here's a sample letter:
Dear
I am writing to suggest that you introduce legislation proposing a single subject limitation as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Almost every state in the nation has a constitutional single subject limitation, and they have found it to be an effective way to reign in government.
A single subject limitation states that each law can only address one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. A single subject limitation can also prevent appropriations abuses and stealth legislation that is too often added anonymously to otherwise urgently required bills.
The language I propose for the 28th Amendment is as follows:
"Every law shall embrace but one subject which shall be expressed in its title, general appropriations laws shall only embrace appropriations, and other appropriations shall be made by separate law, related to the appropriation, embracing but one subject."
The benefits of adopting a single subject limitation are clear, the measure can easily be passed because it is completely non-partisan, and it prevents abuses that Americans of every political stripe want to prevent.
So please, make history and be the lawmaker who proposes adopting a single subject limitation as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Thank you,
[1] In 1916, an amendment was proposed that all acts of war would first be put to a national vote. People voting yes would have to register as volunteers for service in the U.S. Army. In 1933 an amendment was proposed limiting personal wealth to $1 million. In 1947 an amendment was proposed that would limit individual tax liability to 25%. Obviously, none of these passed.
View this video on YouTube
Let Jon Stewart explain why a single subject limitation is necessary.
Share This Article
