Talk:Rider (legislation)

Creation

I was surprised to see the red link under this term on the OCILLA page. However, I did create an basic entry for it. The cited Webster's 1913 dictionary is from the Debian package, which is freely distributable.

My temptation would also be to create a link to the appropriate Wiktionary entry as well. However, I lack the time for the moment.

---

Usage in US and elsewhere

The page, with references to the USA President and Constitution, makes it appear as if riders are a phenomenon primarily associated with the USA. Is this the case, or do other countries' legislatures also have this phenomenon?

Relevance

This is just an opinion, but I find it distressing that "riders" do not need to have relevance to the bill itself, that they can be tacked on in what amounts to opportunism.

GBC 22:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that kind of the whole point of the term - the provision is "riding" a Bill to which it doesn't "naturally" belong? Thankfully, this is not a common practice here in the UK (yet?) so I have only sources like this article to go on... - IMSoP 22:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it more distressing that instead of eliminating riders, we're considering making line vetos constitutional. Talk about treating the symptom, and not the problem.. BirdbrainedPhoenix 12:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Less Important"?

In legislative practice, a rider is an additional provision annexed to a bill under the consideration of a legislature, having little connection with the subject matter of the bill.[citation needed] Riders are usually created as a tactic to pass a controversial provision which would not pass as its own bill. Occasionally, a controversial provision is attached to a less important bill not to be passed itself but to prevent the bill from being passed (in which case it is called a poison pill).

It seems biased to say that poison pills are attached to "less important bills" when the truth is that they're attached to bills who certain interests in the legislature don't want to pass. That has nothing to do with the actual importance of the bill, which this article shouldn't be making judgment on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramorum (talk • contribs) 18:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the implication was that a poison pill wouldn't be effective at preventing an important bill from being passed anyway - but I suppose that depends on how powerful the poison is. Removing the "less important" anyway. Dcoetzee 19:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Situation in Europe

I've removed a paragraph claiming to state the situation in continental Europe. Let me explain why, should anyone be tempted to reverse it.

In continental Europe,

"Continental Europe" consists of some 40 odd nations, with rather varied backgrounds. To give just a few examples to underline my statement, consider the history of the revolutionary French Republic, the Scandinavian constitutional monarchies, the "everything, and I really mean everything, is decided by referendum"-confederation of Switzerland, the federal state of Germany, the lilleputian co-principality of Andorra, the province of Kosovo proclaimed republic only on February 17th 2008 and the former soviet states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. My absolute favourite is Belgium, a country with 1 federal, 3 regional and 3 community governments, all with their own set of rules and in a faboulos overlap. To what parts of that multitude of political systems does this passage refer, I wonder?

...rider activity is known as creating "salad laws" and the practice is generally unconstitutional.

The European Union (which only counts 27 of 48 European countries as its members) have 23 official languages, from four major language families: Romance, Slavonic, Germanic and Finno-Ugric. I'm pretty sure that terms like 'salad law' does not translate well into all of them, much less so if we add the languages spoken in the additional 20 nations (in which several other language groups are represented).

Upon appeal constitutional courts will closely evaluate the full body of the law as well as the title.

I am told that Germany has an excellent constitutional court, but my current country of residence, France, only has a constitutional council and my native Sweden has no such thing as a constitutional court.

Should the courts determine that certain "ingredients of the salad" have no connection or significance to the bulk of the law, those provisions will be annulled (in serious cases with retroactive effect).

I might be reading this the wrong way, but annulling a promulgated law and adding retroactive effect to that annulment seems to be the same as retroactive legislation, a no-no in democratic and free states. It would also be legislation by court rather than the expected repeal of a legislators decision, a no-no in the European version of separation of powers. I would very much like to see a reference that prooves this, before stating that all of Europe except Britain and Hungary disregard due process and the rule of law.

OJH (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As a Hungarian citizen and native speaker of Hungarian I can assert that the phrase "salad law" is indeed in use in journalism and discussion of politics. However, looking at the Wikipedia articles, the meaning would be closer to "Omnibus bill", understood as a law where a mixture (hence the name) of unrelated or almost unrelated topics are addressed. 2A01:36D:1000:E1A:B990:8395:2A4F:3C97 (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Who adds riders?

How is it decided (in the US House of representatives) if a rider will be attached to a bill, and how the rider is formulated? --Austrian (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the article, this does not happen in the House, but rather in the Senate. Still, the question is the same there. Apparently a majority is not needed (otherwise the majority could just vote on the rider as a separate bill). But somebody who knows what he/she is talking about should really add a few lines to the article. -- 79.177.51.43 (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

"Rider(politics)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Rider(politics) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 2 § Rider(politics) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

"Legal clause" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Legal clause and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 2 § Legal clause until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

"Salad law" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Salad law and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 2 § Salad law until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

"Nongermane Amendments" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Nongermane Amendments and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 2 § Nongermane Amendments until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)