Amendments

The difference between the amendments is the Cornyn version takes the funds from a surcharge on illegal immigrants applying for legal status – the Clinton version takes the funds from the usual source: American Taxpayers ❋ Unknown (2006)

He was much better tempered when he went off to business by the nine o'clock omnibus every morning; and before he had given himself such ridiculous airs, and put himself on all kinds of committees he didn't understand anything about, and taken to make himself disagreeable to his neighbours in the vestry-hall, and moving what he called amendments and riders, for the mere pleasure, she verily believed, of opposing somebody, as he did everybody in his own house, and of hearing himself talk. ❋ W. Blanchard Jerrold (1855)

“The net effect of [the amendments] is to virtually bring down this bill,” [Sen. Chris] Dodd said. ❋ Unknown (2009)

Lincoln was gone by then, but the ratification of the Reconstruction amendments is a lot more politically complicated than it looks from this distance — for one thing, as noted above, the Confederate states had never legally seceded. ❋ Unknown (2010)

The point of mentioning the 2nd and 3rd amendments is anything but self-evident. ❋ Unknown (2010)

Each house can thus determine how much debate to permit, whether to allow amendments from the floor, and even to require supermajority votes for some types of proceeding. ❋ Unknown (2010)

The Federalist majority even voted to expunge any mention of defeated motions for amendments from the journal of the proceedings. ❋ Michael W. McConnell (2010)

Why those MoDems would be so gullible as to fall for this trick when the real obstacle to those amendments is in the Senate, which this tactic does nothing to address, is beyond me. ❋ Unknown (2010)

The ability to propose amendments is very limited now, and seems to be so for a good reason (it is somewhat an indicator of broad social acceptance of the proposed change). ❋ Unknown (2010)

The liberals in the House won this fight, which we outlined in early March when the House passed its budget with a slew of amendments from the progressive caucus, including securing the $65 million for state worker health care. ❋ Unknown (2010)

Not only did they obtain amendments, which we call the Bill of Rights, but the critics also won a host of other assurances: states would retain their autonomy; the federal government would be allowed to impose few taxes other than tariffs; and the nation would rely mostly on state militias rather than a large standing army. ❋ Michael W. McConnell (2010)

No. Therefore, the offering of amendments is not ‘debate’, nor is voting onthem. ❋ Unknown (2010)

The approval of the Lambrinidis report and the rejection of the French amendments is the third consecutive time that the European Parliament has rejected the French graduated response, since the approval of the Bono amendment to the report on cultural industries3 and the well-known Bono/Cohn-Bendit/Roithova Amendment 1384. ❋ Unknown (2009)

Kuanyshbek Yesekeyev, the head of IT and Communications Agency, who initiated these amendments, is worried [ru]: ❋ Unknown (2009)

* You can read the motion backing the recommendations of the Majority report of the FPC Trident working party, together with the proposed amendments from the Peace and Security group, over at Lib Dem Voice here. ❋ Stephen Tall (2007)

The long analysis of the proposed Texas Constitutional amendments is here (PDF) including the full text of the bills. ❋ Unknown (2007)