The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: tombogan03884 on September 23, 2009, 02:06:05 PM
-
Posted by David Post:
Should Lawmakers, Um, Read the Laws They're Voting On?:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_20-2009_09_26.shtml#1253732467
Sounds like something you'd ask in a third-grade civics class. But an
odd [1]editorial in today's Washington Post, takes to task "a group of
well-meaning professional activists -- and, so far, over nearly 60,000
online petitioners" who have demanded that members of Congress [2]sign
a pledge "never to vote on any bill unless they have read every word
of it." While the activists "have a point," the Post concedes, their
"proposal would bring government to a standstill." No reasonable
functioning human being, the Post (correctly) points out, could
possibly read every word of every bill that comes out of Congress, and
legislators need time to do other things -- to "hammer out
legislation, draft amendments, interact with constituents, lead
hearings . . . At some point, it's fine for members of Congress to
rely on expert staff members."
I suspect that there's a fairly clear divide among people on this
question. Some, like me, think it's pretty obvious: you can't know
what a law means unless you've read its language, and you shouldn't be
voting on a law if you don't know what it means. Seems pretty basic,
actually. It's a task that, I would think, is primary -- drafting
amendments, and interacting with constituents, and the many other
things members of Congress do, are secondary; Law-Making is what they
are in Washington (or, for that matter, in Albany, or Harrisburg, or
Springfield) to do, and the idea that they should "rely on experts" to
do their job is pretty spectacularly wrong. But I know that there are
plenty of people who agree with what the editorial is saying, and who
think that there's no point in demanding the impossible.
I'm not a fool - I know full well that not a single member of Congress
read every word of, say, the 1,427-page Waxman-Markley energy bill.
But I think we give up something valuable if we accept that as
acceptable behavior. I guess it didn't occur to the editorialists at
the Post that if members of Congress actually tried to live up to this
most basic obligation, that 1,427-page long bills would no longer be
introduced, which would surely, all other things being equal, be a
good thing for the Republic.
References
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/22/AR2009092203473.html
2. http://readtovote.org/
This is bad how ?
-
Maybe if this would become law it would stop all the crap flowing out of DC, and it would reduce what does flow to common sense and understandable.
But then again you are assuming that law makers can actually read ::)
-
Maybe if this would become law it would stop all the crap flowing out of DC, and it would reduce what does flow to common sense and understandable.
But then again you are assuming that law makers can actually read ::)
Not to mention comprehend what they are reading.
-
Glenn Beck points out that not only are they not reading the bills..... they are not writing them either:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeuNRZ1ZuNw
More here:
(9:00 mark, but watch the whole thing)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgcbIoIRi5s
-
Make 'em read it....then write an essay on it....before getting their paychecks. >:(
Useless Bastards.
-
More from VC
Posted by Orin Kerr:
Questions for Those Who Want Legislators to Pledge To Read Every Word of Every Bill Before Voting:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_20-2009_09_26.shtml#1253738409
As a follow up to [1]David Post's post below, I have some practical
questions for those who think that legislators should "never vote on
any bill unless they have read every word of it."
1. Would you also require the legislator to understand the bill? Or is
mere reading, with no comprehension, enough? And if comprehension is
required, how much comprehension is required, and how would you test
that?
2. Imagine a particular bill is a long list of amendments to prior
sections of the U.S. Code -- perhaps hundreds of pages of amendments
such as, "Insert 'and affects' after 'channels' in 5 U.S.C.
1040(a)(7)(C)" Would you also require the legislator to read the law
that is being amended?
3. Imagine that a legislator has promised to vote against legislation
of that general type -- for example, he has promised to vote against
all tax increases, and the bill includes a tax increase. Does he still
have to read every word of the bill even though he has promised to
vote against it?
4. Imagine a bill is up for a vote, and the bill is overwhelmingly
popular: No one opposes it. It is also hundreds of pages long. Should
the legislator have to read every word anyway? Or is there some
threshold of controversy or importance that needs to be crossed before
the reading requirement is triggered?
5. Does the reading requirement apply to procedural votes, like
cloture, or is it only on the passage of the legislation itself?
References
1. http://volokh.com/posts/1253732467.shtml
Keep it short and in plain English it should not be a problem
-
More from VC
Posted by Orin Kerr:
Questions for Those Who Want Legislators to Pledge To Read Every Word of Every Bill Before Voting:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_20-2009_09_26.shtml#1253738409
As a follow up to [1]David Post's post below, I have some practical
questions for those who think that legislators should "never vote on
any bill unless they have read every word of it."
1. Would you also require the legislator to understand the bill? Or is
mere reading, with no comprehension, enough? And if comprehension is
required, how much comprehension is required, and how would you test
that?
2. Imagine a particular bill is a long list of amendments to prior
sections of the U.S. Code -- perhaps hundreds of pages of amendments
such as, "Insert 'and affects' after 'channels' in 5 U.S.C.
1040(a)(7)(C)" Would you also require the legislator to read the law
that is being amended?
3. Imagine that a legislator has promised to vote against legislation
of that general type -- for example, he has promised to vote against
all tax increases, and the bill includes a tax increase. Does he still
have to read every word of the bill even though he has promised to
vote against it?
4. Imagine a bill is up for a vote, and the bill is overwhelmingly
popular: No one opposes it. It is also hundreds of pages long. Should
the legislator have to read every word anyway? Or is there some
threshold of controversy or importance that needs to be crossed before
the reading requirement is triggered?
5. Does the reading requirement apply to procedural votes, like
cloture, or is it only on the passage of the legislation itself?
References
1. http://volokh.com/posts/1253732467.shtml
Keep it short and in plain English it should not be a problem
It seems to me that a large percentage of our fearless leaders are lawyers, have taken legal courses, and/or are lead by the nose ring by an attorney. Isn't one of the first pieces of legal advice we receive "Read and understand every thing before you sign it?" I don't sign a hotel registration form without reading it, I don't sign a rental car contract without asking question on what I read; and for as many background check forms I've filled out every year, I don't just go down the lines and sign on memory ... I read every line before marking and signing. Why should we accept that our elected officials are not aware of what they are signing onto or voting on?
On the same line, I know that in the face of our staggering budget numbers a million dollars is very little. But for Pres. BHO to say that five million dollars involved with ACORN is below the radar screen of the government is unacceptable. Five million dollars is five million dollars, and the last time I checked five million dollars is enough to provide an above poverty wage and very good benefits for one hundred families for a year. If the President and his crew don't think five million is enough, what is the threshold where we can expect him to start caring? At what point can we expect our elected officials to care about their job?
-
At election time. >:(
-
More on the subject from VC
Posted by Jonathan Adler:
Read the Bill - A Response to Orin:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_20-2009_09_26.shtml#1253748180
I won't speak for David, but as I've also [1]blogged in support of the
idea that legislators have an obligation to read legislation before
they vote on it, I'll answer [2]Orin's questions.
1. I believe no legislator should vote in favor of substantive
legislation that he or she has not read or does not understand. If
such a bill comes to a vote, the legislator should abstain or vote
against the bill. Why is it okay to vote against the bill and not for
it? Because a legislator should not act to alter or impose legal
rights or obligations without understanding the changes in legal
rights or obligations that he or she is imposing. A vote against
legislation is a vote to preserve the status quo, and by voting
against legislation a legislator is not altering anyone's rights or
obligations. [Note: This does suggest a status quo bias, more than a
libertarian one, as I think this principle should apply whether a law
would increase or decrease the scope of government.]
2. Where legislation is a string of amendments to existing laws, a
legislator should read what is necessary to understand the
legislation. This probably requires reading the bill and, if the bill
is unintelligible when read in isolation, some sort of before/after
comparison of every provision of the U.S. Code that would be revised.
3. If a legislator does not believe he or she can ever vote in favor
of legislation that contains a certain type of provision -- a tax
increase, a provision supporting or limiting abortion, or whatever --
it would certainly be sufficient to stop reading once a legislator has
reached an objectionable provision. As noted above, I also think it is
reasonable for a legislator to vote against any and all legislation
that he or she has not had the opportunity to read.
4. I would not excuse particularly popular legislation. If legislation
is that popular, a delay of a day or two won't prevent its passage. I
suppose there is an argument for excusing the failure to read lengthy
legislation in emergency circumstances. On the other hand, if the
nature of the emergency and length of the bill are such that a
legislator does not have time to read the bill I would be quite
suspicious about the wisdom of the legislation if for no other reason
than if there's not time to read the bill, how could there have been
time to draft a coherent and effective piece of legislation?
5. Since I think the legislators primary obligation is to read and
understand substantive legislation before voting in favor of it, I
don't think the standard applies to procedural votes. It would make
sense, however, for a legislator to vote against ending debate before
having read the bill, as this would provide time for legislators to
read the bill.
6. Yes. Even though I would like to see the size and scope of the
federal government shrunk dramatically, I think the legislators
obligation is to read and understand that which he or she would
legislate -- that is, that which he would do to alter existing legal
rights or obligations -- so I would apply it to measures that would
shrink the government as well.
Would my approach make it more difficult to enact legislation?
Probably. Would it make it more difficult to pass widely supported or
particularly important legislation? I doubt it. After all, if
legislation is that good or that popular (even if not both), it should
be able to withstand this requirement.
One final note: Of course this requirement is not enforceable. In an
ideal world, legislators would recognize that reading and
understanding legislation before they vote for it is a part and parcel
of their obligation as legislators, and voters would not reelect those
legislators that cannot or will not fulfill this obligation. I am
under no illusion that this will actually happen, but it is a
principle worth supporting nonetheless.
References
1. http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1246058209.shtml
2. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_20-2009_09_26.shtml#1253738409