Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Forum Resident
Original Poster
#1 Old 8th Jul 2009 at 3:16 PM
Default Passing unread laws
We all now the joke of what this Democratic congress has become. Passing bills that have not been read, or even more fully, not fully written yet.

Quote:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's House of Representatives. The "people's House" is now a place where bills are voted on not only before legislators or the public have read them, but also before parts of the bills even have been written.

Such was the case with a 300-page amendment to the cap-and-trade bill the House passed on June 26. The House leadership could not even produce this amendment on paper, in final form, before it was voted on.



Now this has been a growing problem for some time going back many years, in both Republican control, as well as Democratic, but this congress seems to be getting worse at it.

After the fallout from the joke from passing the Stimulus Bill without reading any of it, and the ridicule that resulted for passing it without reading it. That prompted Dems to hire a speed reader to read them their next bill so they could claim they read it, but even with that, they didn't allow him to fully read the bill as it would take too long.


Not only that, we do have Obama's broken promise that he will make sure that on the White House web site, all bills will be posted before he puts pen to them so the public may read them and comment on them for 5 days.

So as a result, a new campaign has formed to try and get this Congress to be more honest.

Quote:
Campaign Asks Congress to ‘Pledge to Read’ Bills Before Voting on Them

(CNSNews.com) – Members of Congress are being asked to pledge that they will read the bills that come before them before voting to enact them into law.

“We think the American public expects their legislators to know what’s in a bill before they support it and we’re urging legislators to sign a pledge to that effect,” Colin Hanna, president of Let Freedom Ring, told CNSNews.com.


What a novel idea, reading the laws that you are voting on before you pass them.

Todate a total of 12 Republicans and NO Democrats have signed the pledge. Surprise surprise there.

To that such a novel idea of reading bills or knowing what is in them before voting on them, Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) laughed at the idea of reading bills before voting on them. Stating “If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,”

Another words, if they knew what they were really voting for, they wouldn't like it and wouldn't vote for it.

Translation, the Democratic leadership is saying they are passing laws through ignorance and they like it that way. They don't want people to know what is being passed.

So here is the debate, should Congress actually take the time to read and know what they are voting on, or is it better as the DNC leadership is saying, that its better that Congressmen don't know what they are voting for?

Erasing One Big Astounding Mistake All-around
Advertisement
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
retired moderator
#2 Old 8th Jul 2009 at 3:42 PM
It sounds like a lot of the problem is the bills themselves being too long to be read by the people who are voting on them. If even a speed reader can't get through the whole thing, then I think it's unreasonable to expect a person who reads at normal speed to both get through it as well as think critically about what all of it means in the grand scheme of things. Several-hundred-page bills, all written in brain-bending legalese, are not exactly easy to get through. Sure, legislators should read the whole thing, but it doesn't sound like that's feasible with the length, complexity, and all the unrelated crap that usually gets tacked on.

my simblr (sometimes nsfw)

“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
Panquecas, panquecas e mais panquecas.
Inventor
#3 Old 8th Jul 2009 at 3:59 PM
I have come to the conclusion that the problem is not a republican and or democrat problem, more like a system problem. As well meaning as the forefathers were with the system they put in place, it has become unsustainable as all the lines have been blurred.

There is too much contention in the system and for the wrong reason. The ideologies has gone stale/rot and really has less to do with the people and more to do with competing parties with one focus in mind, and that is to secure their jobs by any means necessary. At the moment they are unrecognizable and unprofitable.

It has turned into a game to where the people are the losers and they themselves have become part of the problem by taking sides against their own interest and that is not good.
Forum Resident
#4 Old 8th Jul 2009 at 11:16 PM
Let's lay some ground rules to stay fair, okay? When we quote something, let's link to the quote so we can identify it. Like, the quote at the top was from a Tony Blankley editorial in the Washington Times, which I wouldn't have found out without some googling. Fortunately, the second quote at least names CNS news, which describes itself as "an alternative to the liberal media" in their google description. When I link to liberal news websites like Rawstory.com or a Huffpost commentary, I try to at least give a heads-up so I won't be criticized for being misleading.

Now, as to bills not being read, doesn't anybody remember that scene in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911, where he asks Rep. John Conyers if anybody in the House read the Patriot Act before they voted for it?

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_...transcript.html
Quote:
“No one read it. That's the whole point.

They wait till the middle of the night, drop it in the night, print it in the night.

And the next morning when we come in, it passes."

How could Congress pass this Patriot Act without even reading it?

"Sit down, my son.

We don't read most of the bills.

Do you really know what that would entail... if we were to read every bill that we passed?”


So this is nothing new. The fact that a bill that so radically curtailed the freedom and privacy of Americans could be passed in a rush without having time to be read is pretty bad. It should not be therefore very surprising that domestic spending bills, which are very long and full of tedious details, are read completely by few in Congress.

My take: It's a problem, but it's rather silly to hear Republicans complain about this now as if it's a new phenomenon. And during the last administration, we saw that the same Republicans complaining about this now so loudly, like Rep. John Boehner, had no hesitation to rush through Bush's spending bills that hugely increased our deficit.
Forum Resident
Original Poster
#5 Old 8th Jul 2009 at 11:25 PM
Ah, but isn't it more silly that now the same Dems who criticized the Bush Admin for doing just that, are now doing the same them selves Doc. Wouldn't one expect that if they had a problem with it then, they wouldn't be doing it now with every bill?

In addition, wouldn't it be proper to have a fully written bill first before passing it?

And last I checked, Obama has totally blown away any wasteful spending Bush did in his total 8 years in less then 6 months.

Erasing One Big Astounding Mistake All-around
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
retired moderator
#6 Old 8th Jul 2009 at 11:34 PM
It would kinda be nice if the topic could be kept to the actual topic rather than becoming yet another "dems suck/no they don't/reps suck/no they don't" thread - this is enough of a topic of its own without pulling it into that again.

my simblr (sometimes nsfw)

“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
Panquecas, panquecas e mais panquecas.
Moderator of Extreme Limericks
#7 Old 8th Jul 2009 at 11:57 PM
Quote: Originally posted by HystericalParoxysm
It would kinda be nice if the topic could be kept to the actual topic rather than becoming yet another "dems suck/no they don't/reps suck/no they don't" thread - this is enough of a topic of its own without pulling it into that again.


HP, don't be silly! EVERY political debate in here must eventually boil down to democrats suck/republicans suck. Didn't you read the rules?!

There's always money in the banana stand.
Forum Resident
Original Poster
#8 Old 9th Jul 2009 at 12:37 AM
Quote: Originally posted by jhd1189
HP, don't be silly! EVERY political debate in here must eventually boil down to democrats suck/republicans suck. Didn't you read the rules?!
LOL...

Yea your right, we tend to get heated in such arguments, and in doing so, carried away.

No defense in it, but this is the "Debate Room", and if we didn't feel strongly in what we were debating, then what is the point of debating?

Erasing One Big Astounding Mistake All-around
Theorist
#9 Old 9th Jul 2009 at 12:53 AM
I am less concerned with them reading or not reading the bills as I am them trying to avoid taking responsibility for voting for something that they didn't read. What I mean is, a Senator or Representative of either party votes for a bill, then the bill ends up being really bad, and they then want to claim it isn't their fault, because they didn't read it. As long as their vote is recorded, they need to own responsibility for that vote. If you cast a vote, that vote is yours. Trying to claim it wasn't your fault later when that bill ends up screwing your constituents over doesn't fly with me. You voted, you get the credit or blame.

Voting for a bill isn't like voting for a candidate. A Bill is permanent, what you vote for is what you get. With a candidate, you are only voting for what they represent at election time. Meaning, you can vote for someone, and then AFTER that vote, they can do something that would make you feel like you shouldn't have voted for them, ie, the circumstances can change. With a bill, its more of a permanent one time vote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Instructor
#10 Old 9th Jul 2009 at 12:55 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Amish Nick_SC
LOL...

Yea your right, we tend to get heated in such arguments, and in doing so, carried away.

No defense in it, but this is the "Debate Room", and if we didn't feel strongly in what we were debating, then what is the point of debating?

True, but it does get rather dull when each political topic ends up being about the same thing every time. In this case, the topic seems to be less about not reading bills and more about complaining about Democrats. That's fine, but say so up front next time. Not fully reading really long and boring things is a shortcoming that pretty much every human being falls prey to, not just liberals or politicians.
Theorist
#11 Old 9th Jul 2009 at 1:01 AM
The problem Wild Missingno, is that those Congressmen and Congresswomen are ultimately responsible for those unread bills. Yes they are really long and boring, but, they have a responsibility to understand what they are voting on, in order to best serve their constituents. It isn't like someone picking up War and Peace, where, if they don't finish it (excepting cases where it is a requirement in a literature class or something) they can put it down, never attempt to read it again, and move on with their life. With politicians, they are accountable for what they read or don't read and vote on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Instructor
#12 Old 9th Jul 2009 at 1:29 AM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
The problem Wild Missingno, is that those Congressmen and Congresswomen are ultimately responsible for those unread bills. Yes they are really long and boring, but, they have a responsibility to understand what they are voting on, in order to best serve their constituents. It isn't like someone picking up War and Peace, where, if they don't finish it (excepting cases where it is a requirement in a literature class or something) they can put it down, never attempt to read it again, and move on with their life. With politicians, they are accountable for what they read or don't read and vote on.

That applies just as much to average humans, actually. They are responsible for contracts that they sign, even if they don't read them. Not reading long documents, even important long documents, falls under the category of "wrong, but everybody does it".
Theorist
#13 Old 9th Jul 2009 at 2:12 AM
Absolutely the principle applies. But, for you and me, we are bound by the terms of those contracts, and we can't claim that we shouldn't be held accountable because we didn't read it. Its in the contract, we signed it, we are bound by it. Politicians don't want to be bound by it. Like I said, I am not even objecting so much to the not reading of the bills, my objection is to the attempts at deflecting responsibility for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Banned
#14 Old 9th Jul 2009 at 2:13 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Wild Missingno
That applies just as much to average humans, actually. They are responsible for contracts that they sign, even if they don't read them. Not reading long documents, even important long documents, falls under the category of "wrong, but everybody does it".


Except I doubt that everybody does it when speaking of the general public. Those in the government should read every last word of each bill imo, but it would take longer for bills to be passed(which wouldn't bother me). I can see why they wouldn't read it as well, those in the legislative branch have a lot on their plates so reading everything word for word would be best left to someone else and the reps and govs be briefed on what is in the bill.
Instructor
#15 Old 9th Jul 2009 at 2:15 AM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
Absolutely the principle applies. But, for you and me, we are bound by the terms of those contracts, and we can't claim that we shouldn't be held accountable because we didn't read it. Its in the contract, we signed it, we are bound by it. Politicians don't want to be bound by it. Like I said, I am not even objecting so much to the not reading of the bills, my objection is to the attempts at deflecting responsibility for it.

Somehow, I actually don't think we're disagreeing here.
Instructor
#16 Old 9th Jul 2009 at 4:19 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Safyre420
Except I doubt that everybody does it when speaking of the general public. Those in the government should read every last word of each bill imo, but it would take longer for bills to be passed(which wouldn't bother me). I can see why they wouldn't read it as well, those in the legislative branch have a lot on their plates so reading everything word for word would be best left to someone else and the reps and govs be briefed on what is in the bill.


I agree with you because most of the people that written those bills may be crooks in disguise. It doesn't matter if they're democrats or republicans, it matters because the system is corrupt and it depends on which lobbyist is sincere with his or her promise and ideals to uphold the freedoms we love. Now that the freedoms are decreasing and decreasing, I wonder why we live in the fascist society with no respect for freedoms.

God, please protect me from your idiot followers for they have blinded themselves with bleach.

Money doesn't buy you happiness but it buys you beer and coffee.

Life is like Go. Its takes smart and amoral people to make decisions based on their strategies of living.
Alchemist
#17 Old 9th Jul 2009 at 5:00 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Amish Nick_SC
Another words, if they knew what they were really voting for, they wouldn't like it and wouldn't vote for it.

Translation, the Democratic leadership is saying they are passing laws through ignorance and they like it that way. They don't want people to know what is being passed.

So here is the debate, should Congress actually take the time to read and know what they are voting on, or is it better as the DNC leadership is saying, that its better that Congressmen don't know what they are voting for?


first thought: D'OH

second thought: ...WHA?

third thought: are you serious? this is stupid! of COURSE they should fully read it! what the crap are they there for if they dont like to READ things?

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Alchemist
#18 Old 9th Jul 2009 at 5:02 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Xunixeon
I agree with you because most of the people that written those bills may be crooks in disguise. It doesn't matter if they're democrats or republicans, it matters because the system is corrupt and it depends on which lobbyist is sincere with his or her promise and ideals to uphold the freedoms we love. Now that the freedoms are decreasing and decreasing, I wonder why we live in the fascist society with no respect for freedoms.


if they cant at least identify when words are being drawn in circles to confuse or otherwise dazzle them, they shouldnt be in office. at all. ever. -_-
putting america in the hands of that type of person is only asking for trouble!

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Forum Resident
#19 Old 9th Jul 2009 at 5:11 AM
I don't think it matters too much, except when a congressman votes for something he later says he didn't intend to vote for, as Davious noted.

But it seems unrealistic to expect all of the members of Congress, or even just ONE of them, to read all the legislation that comes before it. Rather, the way the system works, for both parties, is that they have large staffs that sift through the fine details of bills and bring up to their bosses the parts that are the most pertinent or controversial or inappropriate. That's just the way it is.

And that's how the lobbyist's make their big bucks. For instance, if somebody from the pharmaceutical lobby reads something in a proposed bill that their industry doesn't like, they will make a big scene out of it and try to raise its importance relative to all the other things in the bill. The other lobbies do the same.

Oh well, this is all just a basic civics lesson.
Theorist
#20 Old 10th Jul 2009 at 1:41 PM
Congress staffers are the ones who do and should read the detailed extent of a law, though it's sort of lame when Congress doesn't even bother to read the summaries. But staffers, they're the people who are chosen for their skill and insight into the political process - Congress is chosen because they're good in front of people and can read speeches. It would be lovely if the convergence of skill sets were common enough that you could expect everyone in Congress to be able to wade through a 400 page bill, network with the requisite people to remain relevant politically, conduct interviews, fund raise, debate the subtext of the bills, and have some flavor of a home life and then do it many, many times over and over again while Congress was in session... but I'm not sure it's a credible or practical expectation. Furthermore, the more able to deal with the complexity of the task Congress were, the more onus there would be to inject more complexity into the process to perform the sorts of political obfuscations and small constituency favors that pretty much make up the meat of government life.

And before anyone comes down on the staffers, I think the alternative would be that the only people summarizing modern political life to Congress would be lobbyists.

It's the same as in any organization really. Orders roll downhill, but information summaries worm their ways upwards. Generals don't read the entire details of what's going on with their commands but what their subordinates (hopefully) summarize for them in order of importance and command concern.
Field Researcher
#21 Old 10th Jul 2009 at 4:45 PM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
Absolutely the principle applies. But, for you and me, we are bound by the terms of those contracts, and we can't claim that we shouldn't be held accountable because we didn't read it. Its in the contract, we signed it, we are bound by it. Politicians don't want to be bound by it. Like I said, I am not even objecting so much to the not reading of the bills, my objection is to the attempts at deflecting responsibility for it.



Actually, in some cases, people do get out of contracts, because they're written where it's virtually impossible for any average person to read the whole thing, comprehend each piece and the whole document, then actively stab their name at the bottom. Basically, those kinds of contracts are traps (you know, like the credit card you sign for, but don't know how to actually calculate the interest on? It wasn't always illegal to make it so you'd, literally, never pay it off.)

To carry that notion back to the point, no matter what the job is, nobody likes paperwork. Congress isn't so much lazy, as they are "not geniuses." I aim to say, the put all kinds of crap in these bills, and in the effort of covering every single loophole, and every possible thing that could counter it or go wrong after it's passed, they make it so twisted that it's impossible to dissect and take logically. Maybe they should just go and find a way to make one bill smaller pieces, so they'd have absolutely no excuses.

Though I have to agree with the secondary point here -- they should accept how they voted, and take their "whoops?" moment with honesty. Realistically, though, nobody wants to take the blame and say "Yep! It was me! I'm the one who screwed you over! No pictures, please... no pictures."
 
Back to top