Should Lawmakers, Um, Read the Laws They're Voting On?:

[tombogan03884]

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 ?

[MikeBjerum]

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 

[tt11758]

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.

[ericire12]

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

[PegLeg45]

Make 'em read it....then write an essay on it....before getting their paychecks.   




Useless Bastards.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

 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

[MikeBjerum]

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?

[tombogan03884]

At election time.

[tombogan03884]

 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