XXXXXX Act of XXXX: Congress not even bothering to name new law. (thomas.loc.gov) 8 points by yummyfajitas 15y ago ↗ HN
[–] javanix 15y ago ↗ I'm sure this is far from the first time something simple got messed up because of a mistake with data entry.Implying that Congress "didn't even bother to name it" seems a bit unnecessary.
[–] fugue88 15y ago ↗ To be fair, naming a bill is a lot of work, maybe over half of what goes into the whole package.
[–] elbenshira 15y ago ↗ I don't understand why this was submitted. This isn't very interesting at all. [–] eli 15y ago ↗ For some reason it garnered a bunch of angry comments on slashdot. I couldn't figure it out either.
[–] eli 15y ago ↗ For some reason it garnered a bunch of angry comments on slashdot. I couldn't figure it out either.
[–] eli 15y ago ↗ Not really much of a story here. The bill was amended and renamed several times and at one point it briefly had a placeholder title. Plenty of reasons to be made at Congress, but I don't see how this is one of them.It passed the house as "Aviation Safety and Investment Act of 2010." You can read the text here: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1586/text
6 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 25.3 ms ] threadImplying that Congress "didn't even bother to name it" seems a bit unnecessary.
It passed the house as "Aviation Safety and Investment Act of 2010." You can read the text here: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1586/text