Talk:Santorum Amendment

message: ::The Senate version of the bill H.R. 1 did not contain the amendment, which meant that a conference committee had to decide its ultimate fate.
Isn't the Senate version where Senator Santorum put in his amendment?  Should that say that it was the House's version that didn't contain the amendment?  I'm confuzled... 208.247.73.130 01:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I changed "This was hailed as a major victory by creationists; for instance an email newsletter by the Discovery Institute..." to "This was hailed as a major victory by proponents of intelligent design and creationists; for instance an email newsletter by the Discovery Institute..."  Creationism and intelligent design are different, and the Discovery Institute does not support creationism; it supports intelligent design.  Therefore, by adding "proponents of intelligent design," it then makes sense to mention the Discovery Institute in the next part of the sentence.
:Thanks. ID is a form of creationism though, both academically and legally. FeloniousMonk 03:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change 

message: This entire article needs checking for general accuracy.
1.  The amendment was not proposed as a "sense of the Senate" resolution originally -- so the "sense of the Senate" language is in error if it's to show what was originally proposed.  My understanding is that the original proposal was to make this law, and binding.  That is not shown.
2.  To be accurate, the article should note that as an amendment, it was rejected.  What passed was the "Santorum Sense of the Senate Resolution," which was not an amendment to the proposed law.
3.  Chief sponsor of the NCLB legislation, Sen. Ted Kennedy, would not allow the amendment.  The backup position was a scripted colloquy between Kennedy and Santorum (probably available from the Congressional Record at the Library of Congress's Thomas site) in which the issue was discussed, and the amendment was downgraded to a non-binding, not-attached-to-the-bill Sense of the Senate Resolution.  In that form, it passed.
4.  The "amendment" was never an amendment, and no conference committee had to decide its fate.  A sense of the house resolution does not go to conference committee.  This is a fundamental error in congressional procedure, and the description as it stands marks this article as written by unknowing amateurs, or partisans.  See comments under #2 above -- the Santorum Amendment died.  What passed was a Sense of the Senate Resolution, which is non-binding.
5.  To maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, stunts like listing the Discovery Institute as "The Congressional Record" in references to the main article should be stopped.  The reference should be to the Discovery Institute.  The language of the resolution, and the amendment before it, is probably available from the Congressional Record on-line version -- any link that purports to be to the Congressional Record should be to the Congressional Record, and not to a partisan organization that is not a part of Congress.Edarrell 18:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article still doesn't seem clear on the distinction between the amendment and the sense of the Senate resolution. Was there an amendment text different from that proposed on June 13, 2001? If so it should be quoted. The resolution text that is quoted doesn't seem particularly creationist. It could be interpreted as a call to prepare students to deal with religiously inspired nonsense such as ID. Qemist (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  General accuracy -- Santorum resolution, not amendment 

message: Given that:
#As far as I can tell, no source has discussed the effect that the Amendment's presence in the joint conference report would have in the interpretation of the No Child Left Behind Act; and
#Given that the material contained in the Amendment is highly peripheral to the contents of this Act, meaning that it is unlikely to affect its interpretation,
...I see no reason why this material is relevant. I am therefore proposing the removal of "Language in such a joint conference report is is considered highly reliable legislative history when courts interpret a statute." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a lot of the article should be removed or edited.88.166.32.210 (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think specific passages and specific reasoning is needed for such a recommendation (that's what I did -- why shouldn't you?). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legislative history 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Santorum Amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060910141925/http://www.bemidjistate.edu/dsiems/ID/teach.html to http://www.bemidjistate.edu/dsiems/ID/teach.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified