If a bill was rejected it should have some kind of exponential backoff that wouldn't allow it to be brought up, otherwise fatigue ensues and it will pass at some point.
Not needed. Thousands of bills are introduced each Congress and almost none of them ever pass. No matter how many times they are reintroduced.
The danger with EARN IT is that it has some support and interest. That’s not a function of how often it’s introduced, it’s the subject matter and ideas in the bill. You can’t fight that with legislative mechanics; you have engage with the substance (true of all bills, not just this one).
> A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.
> Whether the second motion is substantially the same as the first is finally a matter for the judgment of the Chair; in coming to a decision, the Chair may take into account external developments which may change the effect of an otherwise similar motion.
> Some motions, however, have been framed with sufficient ingenuity to avoid the rule.
> However, a question which has not been definitely decided may be raised again.
EARN IT died in committee multiple times, but so do plenty of bills that probably should make it to the statute book.
But if they just rephrase it, or take key elements from it, rewrite it and put it in another bill... you're still dealing with the same thing.
It's one major flaw in the current legal / government system, I think, in that there's no codified and simplified way to process new rules and laws; for example, a gun ban may never pass, but a number of smaller changes that make it more difficult for people to get guns may over time pass. May have the same effect in the long run, but it' s not a gun ban.
that's exactly the plan. Try many times, and as long as it passes once, it can't be removed forever because no politicians will ever touch it. That's why the current system of law-making is completely gamed against citizens.
