Also this should be amended to include an explanation in compliance with the law that passed the Senate. Even though it has not been signed into law yet, such could be different by the time that this amendment is sent to the regions.
I'm curious as to whether we can actually do that, considering it's still to pass the House and then be signed into law. Can we actually add an explanation even though such explanations are not formal part of the law yet?
Well informally you can include whatever you want, it just won't carry with it the strict processes that the Senate bill included, which may or may not be modified in the house as well.
Certainly the objective statement type explanations, though short, would be possible (we have been including them in the "outer quote box" of the bill format for over a year now).
So for example something like this:
[/quote]
Edit (Notices SB in the topic line):
Also, technically speaking, a Constitutional amendment is not a bill, it is a resolution of each chamber. When certified as being passed by both chambers it becomes a Joint Resolution of both Houses of Congress meeting the constitutional requirements for Congress to "propose" an amendment, which is then ratified or rejected by the regions.
The difference with a bill is that when passed by both chambers it becomes an Act of Congress and depending on how much classical "whiggery" one wants to bring to bear in terms of legislative supremacy, can indeed by considered a final action (though not currently in the forth constitution, the previous constitution allowed for bills to become law if the President did not act within a certain time frame) and of course you have overrides. So it is possible for Congress to go it alone on statutes, and thus an Act (which a bill evolves into) has more finality to it, whereas that can never happen with a constitutional amendment and thus it is treated as a resolution.
At least that is my dime store lawyerly explanation at work.
