Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Read The Bills Act  
User currently offlineDrDeke From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 830 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 934 times:

There is a (presumably small) movement afoot in the United States to get Congress to pass a law which would require all bills to be voted on in Congress to be read out loud in Congress prior to the vote, and would also require each voting Congressperson to sign an affidavit that he or she had either attended the reading or personally read the text of the bill before voting.

While I think this has about a snowball's chance in Hell of ever coming to pass, it seems like a rather good idea to me at first glance. Here is the website of the organization promoting this bill:

http://www.downsizedc.org/read_the_laws.shtml

Take a look if you're curious. I'll be interested to hear what you all think.

DrDeke


If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMaidensGator From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 945 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 924 times:

Quoting DrDeke (Thread starter):
While I think this has about a snowball's chance in Hell of ever coming to pass, it seems like a rather good idea to me at first glance.

I agree with your odds of it passing... I don't think you could read the annual US Budget cover to cover if you spent the whole year that it applies to. And that's only one of many Bills...



The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 924 times:

Sign an affidavit that they read the bill?

Uh no.

Get the full congress in there and read the full bill from begining to end.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20640 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 924 times:

Quoting DrDeke (Thread starter):
Take a look if you're curious. I'll be interested to hear what you all think.

I think it's interesting, to say the least. I have the feeling that most in Congress barely read the executive summary for most bills. This part, though, would be the most difficult to enforce:

"Each bill, and every amendment, must be read in its entirety before a quorum in both the House and Senate."

I doubt with their schedules we could get a quorum long enough for every bill to be read aloud.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 918 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 3):
I doubt with their schedules we could get a quorum long enough for every bill to be read aloud.

I guess we'll just have to cut out some congressional breaks then won't we?

Wouldn't it be nice to see a session of congress that was actually in session?


User currently offline767Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 915 times:

Wow...I did not realize the extent at which bills were not being read or understood before voting.

This seems like a good idea, if nothing else to curtail the amount of time/energy/resources spent on such legislation as renaming Post Offices and federal buildings.


Bills will shrink, be less complicated, and contain fewer subjects, so that Congress will be able to endure hearing them read.

Maybe this will prevent things sort of being hidden in bills.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20640 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 907 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 4):
Wouldn't it be nice to see a session of congress that was actually in session?

Yes, in fact it would!



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 890 times:

Theres a reason politicians have staff, and this is one of them - the actual elected official doesnt need to have read or even understood the entire bill before voting, all he has to do is have a trusted staff that have read and understood the bill that also understand the elected officials stance on issues. The staff then give a 'highlights only' verson, and suggest voting one way or another, or who needs to be talked to prior to voting. Thats how it works.

What is a requirement to read a 10,000 page legal document going to change? You really think a single person is going to remember what was at the start of that document when they reach the end?


User currently offlineFumanchewd From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 886 times:

I have an Uncle who helps write the bills. He says that many are hundreds of pages. They also tag all kinds of irrelevant crap onto them just to supplicate the various parties voting on them. A bill on highways might have a 10 page portion talking about beaver hunting.

User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 884 times:

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 8):
I have an Uncle who helps write the bills. He says that many are hundreds of pages. They also tag all kinds of irrelevant crap onto them just to supplicate the various parties voting on them. A bill on highways might have a 10 page portion talking about beaver hunting.

Those are called 'riders', and need to be dealt with as a seperate issue.

Now what does need close scrutiny is the ability for a Congressional member to 'extend and revise the official record', which goes far beyond the mere grammatical amendments - they can rewrite their entire remark, add information or remove information from the official record.

In short, the 'official record' is anything but an accurate record, they can monkey around with it considerably.


User currently offline767Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 865 times:

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 8):
beaver hunting.

Well now you've done it. This thread is going to rapidly deteriorate.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 862 times:

You guys want to know the real dirty little secret about Congress. Most of the time on bills of any real size that have to go through the conference process, there is nothing to read because they are passing the bill before it's even been printed. Technically, on most appropriation bills there isn't anything that can even be read. On tax bills, the Joint Committee on Taxation doesn't even issue its "blue book" (the committee's interpretation of what the bill contains) until weeks or months after the bill has been enacted. If the committee doesn't even know what's in the bill, how is a member of Congress who isn't on the committee and therefore hasn't attended a single hearing on the matter supposed to know?

When I interned on the hill, summers of '91 and '92, when the bells rung to signify a floor vote, the member of Congress's beeper would go off and contain a message which usually only had one word - YEA or NEA. It's how the party whips would communicate what the party's position was on the matter. I would bet that 95+% of the time most MoC's had absolutely no idea what they were voting for.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 853 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 3):
Quoting DrDeke (Thread starter):Take a look if you're curious. I'll be interested to hear what you all think.
I think it's interesting, to say the least. I have the feeling that most in Congress barely read the executive summary for most bills. This part, though, would be the most difficult to enforce:

"Each bill, and every amendment, must be read in its entirety before a quorum in both the House and Senate."

I doubt with their schedules we could get a quorum long enough for every bill to be read aloud.

It would be a perfect way to grind Congress to a halt. Given the length of most pieces of legislation, I doubt the sponsors have a viable bill. Besides, reading wouldn't accomplish much. Staff drafts legislation, not the average representative or senator. I'd bet many congressional sponsors of legislation haven't read the bills they propose.


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 853 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 11):
I would bet that 95+% of the time most MoC's had absolutely no idea what they were voting for.

That's absolutely effing disgusting. No wonder 'our' government is no longer 'ours'.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 848 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 11):
Most of the time on bills of any real size that have to go through the conference process, there is nothing to read because they are passing the bill before it's even been printed.

Yep.

Real story from yesterday on the hill. we are trying to attach some language to a bill drafted by a committee in the House. It is competing with a bill that has some subject matter overlap with a bill coming from another committee. So our leg affairs people go up and meet with both staff, and get an agreement from both staffs to include our language. So yesterday the first bill is reported out of committee - in a race to beat the competing measure - and when we read it, the language isn't there. Seems the staff, in a hurry to get their bill reported out, sent the wrong version to the Clerk.

Your government hard at work once more!


User currently offlineDrDeke From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 830 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 779 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 12):
It would be a perfect way to grind Congress to a halt.

I think that's more-or-less the idea. We have a ridiculous number of federal laws in this country, and if Congress had to pay attention to laws they create, maybe we wouldn't have as many unnecessary ones.

DrDeke



If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Cope Act, Poised To Destroy The Internet? posted Sun May 14 2006 21:10:02 by LHMARK
Dear Americans - The Patriot Act! Whats Next? posted Fri Mar 3 2006 12:44:49 by Aviationfreak
Has Anybody Read The Book "Red Horizons"? posted Fri Oct 7 2005 23:44:25 by Vio
Read The Bible To Be A Good Dad posted Mon Jul 11 2005 18:57:23 by Tbar220
Should The Patriot Act Be Modified? posted Thu Jun 16 2005 06:03:05 by KC135R
Anyone Read The Cider House Rules? posted Sun May 15 2005 01:45:36 by SRQCrosscheck
Read The Label On Your Heinz Pickle Jar posted Thu Oct 28 2004 15:45:19 by PHLBOS
"Read The Signs" posted Fri May 28 2004 13:39:20 by Pe@rson
Anyone Read The Glorious Appearing Yet posted Tue Mar 30 2004 16:37:45 by N6376m
What Is The Riot Act? posted Sat Apr 5 2003 05:00:00 by Airworthy