Why A Truth-In-Legislation Amendment?

 And why it will never happen.

I have mentioned this before as an improvement for the federal Constitution and think it needs a fuller explanation. You will see why it will not come to pass.

Indiana's constitution requires the title match the subject matter of all legislation.

Any amendments must match the legislation's title and subject. Earmarks not having anything to do with the original bill makes the law unconstitutional.

No politician can poison good legislation with a non-germane amendment. That ability in the federal constitution has blocked legislation – including federal budgets. That this gives power to cranks and partisans will keep it from being adapted into the federal constitution.

However, if you, dear reader, think this is a good idea, then give your Senators and Congressperson a message to amend the federal constitution. Maybe I will be surprised to find out the politicians move on making this change.

sch

[Ah, how pleasant it is to have an internet connection! The following is the language of the Indiana Constitution, referred to above, plus its following provision for plain English in statutes:

 Section 19. An act, except an act for the codification, revision or rearrangement of laws, shall be confined to one subject and matters properly connected therewith.
(History: As Amended November 8, 1960; November 5, 1974).
    Section 20. Every act and joint resolution shall be plainly worded, avoiding, as far as practicable, the use of technical terms.

If anyone should reach out to their legislators because of this note, please feel free to put their response into the comments below. sch 2/18/23.]