View Poll Results: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing them

Voters
99. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    87 87.88%
  • No

    12 12.12%
Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 153

Thread: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing them

  1. #121
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    02-12-11 @ 12:32 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    939

    Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Who said they think this plan could work?

    You still don't understand the difference between SHOULD and WILL do you?
    You really aren’t a big reader are you? That’s what this while debate has been about, where’ve you been? Everyone likes this idea but we disagree on whether it could work or not, can you read the thread before posting next time?

  2. #122
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    02-12-11 @ 12:32 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    939

    Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

    *whole not while

  3. #123
    Frankernaut peepnklown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-16-15 @ 04:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    607

    Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

    DOWNSIDE DC WOOT!
    Read the Bills Act
    (RTBA)
    'The whole universe is going to die!'

  4. #124
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,635

    Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

    A slight note about an odd thing or two I saw a while ago, and I probably won't revisit this thread again after this. Libertarians would not necessarily enjoy a crippled legislative branch, as the executive branch has over time quite expanded beyond the legislative branch's expectations. The executive branch had over time sought to expand its usefulness and knowledge in many areas, and thus, grew exponentially, leaving Congress trying to catch up. In order to do so, it created a great many committees, with the intention to be informed and able to do its job to combat the executive.

    A slow, inefficient (in this sense, inefficiency in politics) congress, would allow the executive branch to be further seen as the responsive and responsible branch of the American government.

    Lastly, should and will distinctions become slightly difficult to maintain once one says "law". Ought congressmen to be informed and responsible for legislation they vote on? Surely. Should we pass a law to make the ought become a measured reality? This is where the idealism stops, and reality comes into play.
    Last edited by Fiddytree; 07-26-09 at 07:51 PM.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  5. #125
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post

    Lastly, should and will distinctions become slightly difficult to maintain once one says "law". Ought congressmen to be informed and responsible for legislation they vote on? Surely. Should we pass a law to make the ought become a measured reality? This is where the idealism stops, and reality comes into play.
    Why is it idealistic for people who vote for bills to actually read the bills themselves before actually voting for it?
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  6. #126
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Why is it idealistic for people who vote for bills to actually read the bills themselves before actually voting for it?
    Well, I won’t say that I speak for Fiddytree, but here’s what I get from his post.

    Steadily, over time, the Executive Branch in the form of the office of the President has slowly been asserting more and more control and authority over government functions that the Departments and Agencies enact. This power is being taken away from the Legislative Branch made up of the committees and subcommittees of the Senate and House of Representatives that has the power of oversight of executive Departments and Agencies.

    Now, one pro of more the President to have more authority over the government and independence from Congress is that the government can act quicker and with more decisiveness. This is because the Executive Branch has only one person as it’s head, the President, who has enormous authority over the Departments and Agencies. One person can make decisions much faster than any group of people.

    The con of this is that the powers of the President goes more and more unchecked. There are fewer balances against his authority and therefore more potential for abuse of power. While one man can execute government functions quicker than a group, it is easier for one man to become corrupted by that power than a group. This was why a system of checks and balances was instituted in the Constitution.
    This is what civil libertarians fear: that eventually the office of the President will assert, take, or be given more and more powers over the government that Congress will no longer have the ability to act as a proper check against it. Without a proper check, the President will become less of an office of executive power and become more of a democratically elected temporary dictator.

    I use the term “dictator” here in the strictest sense - that is, whoever is President dictates how the government functions and it will be so without opposition. The earliest term for dictator was during the time of the Roman Republic; the Republic had the ability during times of emergency to appoint a person a “dictator” who shall have total control of the government for 6 months before being required to relieve that power. This was because in case of an emergency the Senate or other government bodies made up of groups would act too slowly and with too much bickering. So “dictator” here means one who has absolute authority but for a limited amount of time.

    Nowadays, however, “dictator” has acquired negative connotations, especially in democratic countries. This is because it is quite rare for anyone who possesses absolute authority to give up that authority, or to use that authority without abusing it. Such abuse of authority from King George and his Parliament was why the Founding Fathers instituted a democratic republican government in which powers are explicitly separated and there are checks between them so no one branch acquires too much power to abuse it and engage in tyranny against the people.

    Now, with executive orders the President issues directives to executive Departments and Agencies by fiat - he knows how to interpret such orders and has no check to resist his commands. Basically, this doesn’t need to be applied to the President when he writes executive orders, which has the full force of law, because he knows what it means.

    With Congress, however, you have 100 Senators and 435 Representatives and they are all writing bills that are discussed and debated in subcommittees, committees, and Senate and House chambers. It’s hard enough just getting Congress to pass legislation - requiring them to read the entirety of a bill before voting would only increase the difficulty of Congress to do it’s Constitutional duties.

    And increasing the difficulty of Congress to do it’s Constitutional duties can only de facto increase the power of the Presidency, which, as has been said before, has overreached it’s authority.

    Personally, I think there are better reforms for such things. I think it would be better if Congress adapted a rule similar to what Parliament adopted in that the text of a bill can only deal with legislation that is alluded to the bill. For example, if the bill’s title is something like “The Fair Rivers and Waterways Act,” legislation in it can’t have defense appropriations or spending for roads. All the legislation can deal with is rivers and waterways.

    I think that such a reform would be better for reading legislation and making legislation more focused so Senators and Congressmen won’t be able to sneak minor line items into a bill that will obviously pass.

  7. #127
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,356

    Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

    Of course, I wish more politicians would have read the PATRIOT ACT. It might not be legislation if they did.

  8. #128
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    Of course, I wish more politicians would have read the PATRIOT ACT. It might not be legislation if they did.
    No, I'm pretty sure they knew what was being passed when they voted for it. And that's exactly why it got passed.

  9. #129
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

    What, and miss a chance to look tough on terrorism, without actually doing anything?

    Not a chance in the world.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  10. #130
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    What, and miss a chance to look tough on terrorism, without actually doing anything?

    Not a chance in the world.
    "Without actually doing anything?" I wouldn't say that about the PATRIOT ACT. There's the illegal search and siezures, illegal detainment of suspects, suspension of habeus corpus, etc., etc., etc.

Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •