Talk:United States congressional conference committee

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) thing(s).

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

These two pages are virtually identical except for the short section on "Westminster System." The main information should be merged into a single page about US conference committees, and if necessary a new page on Westminster conference committees should be created. "Conference committee" is far too general a term for which to have a specific entry. ivan 14:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Staccato writing

This acticle has a strong staccato style. Is there anyone that can smooth the text out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Perm Dude (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Dissents aren't the best source

"This explanatory statement provides one of the best sources of legislative history on the bill. (See, e.g., Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6, 17-18 (1978) (Rehnquist, dissenting).)" Dissents for supreme court decisions are not binding precisely because they are a dissent from the majority opinion. A majority decision would be a much better source. Jon 14:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. But while not binding, they are nonetheless a good reference. Like scholarly articles which aren't binding either, dissents and concurrences are well thought out and well researched. A majority opinion would be better for some things, but not necessarily for others.—Markles 17:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replace "House" with "Chamber"

In the discussion of how a conference committee is formed, the text uses the term "House" to refer to a nonspecific chamber of Congress (either the House of Representatives or the Senate). In some places, the text even capitalizes the term, further implying a reference to the House of Representatives, rather than an abstract chamber in general.

I think it would aid clarity to replace these terms with the word Chamber. thoughts?75.31.241.51 (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to use "chamber" myself for precisely that reason, but the U.S. Constitution refers to each chamber as a House (both Houses, each House, etc., allowing for 18th-century capitalization conventions). Of course, one doesn't have to follow the Constitution's usage unless the context makes that the better choice. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failed Conference Committee

It may be interesting and appropriate to add a section on any conference committees that failed to reach an agreement on a bill. I personally do not know of any such bills that were unable to be reconciled, but I would definitely be interested. It is likely that the interest in this page and in that issue will be on the rise soon if the Senate passes the upcoming healthcare bill and a conference committee is created to resolve the major issues that are likely to arise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.185.21 (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

or a bill that wasn’t approved after the conference report. --evrik ^(talk) 16:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States congressional conference committee. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]