The phrase "the amendment in question" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when referring to a specific amendment that is being discussed or analyzed.
Example: "The committee will review the amendment in question during the next session."
Alternatives: "the amendment at hand" or "the amendment being discussed".
Because of what's at stake tonight, and because of the urgent nature of the bill, I am forced to withdraw the amendment in question.
At one point during last Monday's all-night session, Baron Trefgarne, a Conservative, drew gasps from other Lords when, saying he was fed up with the "abuse of the procedures of this house," set in motion a procedural tool to bring an end to debate on the amendment in question — the first time such a tool has been used in 40 years, and only the sixth or seventh time since 1900.
We live in a country where one of the 100 most powerful people in government, the cosponsor of the amendment in question, has no clue how it got removed in the Senate-House conference committee -- or if it was taken out of the legislation even before it made it into conference.
Some 48percentt of the delegates did not vote and the amendments in question were not even the most important ones.
One particularly vexatious stalling tactic, to insist that all amendments be read aloud on the Senate floor, will be banned provided the amendments in question have been publicly available for three days.
The amendments in question, from Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Idaho) and Rep. Melissa Bean (D-Ill), would scrap the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency and forbid states from enforcing stricter financial regulations than the federal government's, respectively.
The Senate passed the amendment in April 1864.
South Carolina ratified the Amendment in 1797; New Jersey and Pennsylvania did not ratify the Amendment.
Fred G., Iowa City When the sacred Second Amendment is in question, with its implied right to own an assault rifle, the gun owners get all up in arms (no pun intended), but when a newspaper exercises its First Amendment rights by publishing public record, they want these rights restricted.
They have only resorted to the filibuster so often, they add, because the Democrats have prevented them from offering amendments to the bills in question (although the Democratic trio's proposal would guarantee them at least three amendments on every bill).
Now comes the news -- reported by the columnist Robert Novak -- that John Huang, the convicted Clinton-Gore fund-raiser, repeatedly took the Fifth Amendment in November when questioned in court about his alleged fiscal ties to Republicans, including Senator Mitch McConnell, the No. 1 opponent of the John McCain crusade for campaign finance reform that Mr. Bush has yet to credibly embrace.
