...wtf?!

Riders, or in this case a wrecking amendment, like this always confuse the hell out of me. Surely when some random congressman proposes an amendment to a bill then the amendment is debated and voted on as a separate issue. You say, 'All those in favour of the amendment say, "Aye"', and then you dismiss the amendment and the bill continues unchanged; right? I mean, that's how a sensible debating chamber works; right?

Surely just because some random guy proposes an amendment doesn't mean that it is now irrevocably glued to the original bill without a separate vote?

Can someone explain to me what I'm missing?

I don't know either.
>> ^Arg:
...
Can someone explain to me what I'm missing?

>> ^Arg:
Can someone explain to me what I'm missing?

Here's what wikipedia says on the matter:
"The use of riders is prevalent and customary in the Congress of the United States, as there are no legal or other limitations on their use.

When the veto is an all-or-nothing power as it is in the United States Constitution, the executive must either accept the riders or reject the entire bill. The practical consequence of the custom of using riders is to constrain the veto power of the executive.

To counteract riders, forty-three of the fifty U.S. state constitutions allow the use of line item vetos so that the executive can veto single objectionable items within a bill, without affecting the main purpose or effectiveness of the bill. In addition, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was passed to allow the President of the United States to veto single objectionable items within bills passed by Congress, but the law was struck down by the United States Supreme Court as unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York."

It sounds like there is nothing stopping someone from adding whatever rider they want to any legislation. I'd be interested to hear otherwise.