This is a little pedantic, but ratify isn’t the right term here. That’s usually reserved for treaties or constitutional amendments and reflects, I think, a certain level of finality. I think “passed into law” has a different meaning, and it will still need to go to the Senate even if it passes the House this coming week.
I think the reason I’m being pedantic is because this is only a bill that will have* *passed* and therefore it would only require a simple majority to rescind. Democrats need to be held to the fire on it, if this passes into law, if/when they win back the houses.
On your last point, absolutely. What’s important is that in the future if they have the numbers, they need to be held to the fire on reversing it. Too often they have not reversed these sorts of laws, creating a ratchet effect.
This is a little pedantic, but ratify isn’t the right term here. That’s usually reserved for treaties or constitutional amendments and reflects, I think, a certain level of finality. I think “passed into law” has a different meaning, and it will still need to go to the Senate even if it passes the House this coming week.
I think the reason I’m being pedantic is because this is only a bill that will have* *passed* and therefore it would only require a simple majority to rescind. Democrats need to be held to the fire on it, if this passes into law, if/when they win back the houses.
Thank you for clarifying! I didn’t fully understand, all I understood was it wasn’t final.
What I do understand is that even if every democrat votes against, they won’t have a majority. We saw that with another thing that sadly went through.
On your last point, absolutely. What’s important is that in the future if they have the numbers, they need to be held to the fire on reversing it. Too often they have not reversed these sorts of laws, creating a ratchet effect.