• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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


  • Total voters
    86
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

No, it wouldn't work. Good idea though.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

No. Unenforceable, unrealistic, and cripples the legislative branch.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

To a point, I agree.
But they should learn how to write a bill that is readable, without extraneous wording. Take some lessions from our founding fathers...

Some of our incredibly well known Founding Fathers could not write without including various amounts of distinctions and exceptions. Many of whom were also trained in the law, which from a distanced perspective, seems to breed awareness of complications in these matters.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

No. Unenforceable, unrealistic, and cripples the legislative branch.

If they're passing bills without reading them, they're not doing their job and they should be crippled.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

If they're passing bills without reading them, they're not doing their job and they should be crippled.

Thus causing imbalance in the branches, leading to a discouraged and irritated American public seemingly confused with Congressional inability to efficiently legislate and govern.

Really, it sounds great, but this is why we have staffers.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Thus causing imbalance in the branches, leading to a discouraged and irritated American public seemingly confused with Congressional inability to efficiently legislate and govern.

There is no imbalance between the branches caused by the legislative branch only doing those things which it is capable of being aware that it is doing.

Really, it sounds great, but this is why we have staffers.

Staffers aren't elected and they're not accountable.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

I cannot see that there should be any controversy in that the legislators should be reading the bills.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

There is no imbalance between the branches caused by the legislative branch only doing those things which it is capable of being aware that it is doing.



Staffers aren't elected and they're not accountable.

Except that by slowing down the process at which Congress can respond (unless one is to figure out a reasonable way to cut down on legal language without all that much sacrifice on addressing complications of the legislation-but as one person said themselves-legislation impacts Americans on a daily basis, right?), then we kind of create an imbalance on the ability for the congress to try to compete with the other branches or government agencies.

Staffers aren't elected, and their accountability is less in the hands of the public than the congressmen themselves (though there are ways to get around this issue), but the reality is that legislators need aids to provide summarizations, to fight the fight for the elected official, as he/she cannot be present everywhere and anywhere that the government, or the public deem necessary.

It is indeed good practice that legislators keep informed and be incredibly active in their job, but it is in my view reactionary naivety to resort to a line by line reading of everything that crosses their desks for every single man or woman in that position.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Heck yes they should be reading the dang bills. How hard is it to buy off staffers? Even if the staffers don't get bought they can never provide a complete enough summarization of a 1500 page bill. (if they even read the whole thing themselves) Staffers may skip over a pork bill meshed in with the real bill. (accidently or not)

Our bills should be shortened...big time. A bill should only be about one subject and not a dozen smaller ones mixed in.

Someone said (I can't recall if it was in this thread or somewhere else ((perhaps in another forum even)) that they should be required to read the whole bill out loud before the whole congress/senate. I agree with that whole heartedly. Not only would that reduce pork barrels but it would also make them shorten the bills to contain only one subject.

I don't mind the government going a bit slower when it comes to introducing new bills. The only thing that would really require fast action is if another country bombed us or invaded us. And even then there's a bit of time before congress or the senate has to respond as the President can react immediately without their approval for a few months.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Thus causing imbalance in the branches, leading to a discouraged and irritated American public seemingly confused with Congressional inability to efficiently legislate and govern.

Really, it sounds great, but this is why we have staffers.

I never voted for any staffers nor has any American. It is not the staffer's job to do the politician's job it is the politician who was elected to office to do his or her job.

No. Unenforceable

It can be enforceable in the sense that they are given a certain amount of time based on the number of pages of the bill in order to read it before they even debate or sign any other bills and that they have to sign a waiver stating they themselves read the whole entire bill in its entirety.

unrealistic,

It is not unrealistic for elected officials to do there job. I do not know about you but I didn't vote for politicians just so they can pass bills without reading them. Why bother electing them if they are not going to do their damn job?

and cripples the legislative branch.

If by crippling you mean destroys their ability to sneak in pork and pass legislation without first reading it themselves then I guess you are right.





Staffers aren't elected, and their accountability is less in the hands of the public than the congressmen themselves (though there are ways to get around this issue), but the reality is that legislators need aids to provide summarizations, to fight the fight for the elected official,as he/she cannot be present everywhere and anywhere that the government, or the public deem necessary.

No they don't. I didn't vote for the staffer,neither did you.It is the politician's job to read the bill. If I we as voters wanted the staffers to read the bills then we would have elected the staffer to office,not the politician too damn lazy to read the bill.


It is indeed good practice that legislators keep informed and be incredibly active in their job, but it is in my view reactionary naivety to resort to a line by line reading of everything that crosses their desks for every single man or woman in that position.
It is the job of the politician to read every dame line in a bill before they sign it. You wouldn't sign a contract without reading it would you?
 
Last edited:
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

I see some of the usual suspects don't think a legislator should be accountable for the legislation he legislates, I wonder when the other jizzbags are going to vote NO. Our legislators have more important things to do then worry about mundane tasks such as understanding legislation and knowing any of the details. Some of those more important things could be meeting with union lobbyists, attending union getaways in far off tropical resorts, planning the calendar of important Senate hearings to impune the innocent, receiving campaign contributions in Buddhist temples.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

"by law" involves an interesting piece of circular logic.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Thus causing imbalance in the branches, leading to a discouraged and irritated American public seemingly confused with Congressional inability to efficiently legislate and govern.

Really, it sounds great, but this is why we have staffers.

Do we really want Congress doing anything? I mean anything? Like, do we really want Congressmen to wake up tomorrow?
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Except that by slowing down the process at which Congress can respond (unless one is to figure out a reasonable way to cut down on legal language without all that much sacrifice on addressing complications of the legislation-but as one person said themselves-legislation impacts Americans on a daily basis, right?), then we kind of create an imbalance on the ability for the congress to try to compete with the other branches or government agencies.

Staffers aren't elected, and their accountability is less in the hands of the public than the congressmen themselves (though there are ways to get around this issue), but the reality is that legislators need aids to provide summarizations, to fight the fight for the elected official, as he/she cannot be present everywhere and anywhere that the government, or the public deem necessary.

It is indeed good practice that legislators keep informed and be incredibly active in their job, but it is in my view reactionary naivety to resort to a line by line reading of everything that crosses their desks for every single man or woman in that position.

I'm waiting for you to say something true. Great skills as a writer, though.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Operate a gay prostitution ring in their basement?

This is the one I'm most looking forward to.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

I don't know what to say, really. I'm practically overwhelmed in trying to figure out a way to say this so people can understand how government actually works, and how it's not some lazy plot by legislators to avoid work, but rather, an almost natural consequence.

There simply is not enough time to be caught up in all details, all the time. We have members of the legislative government who become experts in particular issues and like anyone who has a best friend that is an expert in something, you move to them for some guidance. This is not the only way, of course, there's meetings with constituents, interest groups, the legislator's own staff, and consulting polling data. Staff are not exactly flakey individuals, but often come in with a strong sense of mission and attempt to serve their boss in the way they believe he should and or actually does.

You vote for the legislator, but you would be foolish to think the man by himself would be able to carry the weight expected to be dealt with from the office. The legislator needs to delegate authority in order to accomplish goals, but quite often, there simply is not enough time to keep caught up. Legislators often make repeated attempts to read the bills, but complain they have not enough time to do so or to further consider the weight upon them. It's not a pretty thought, but that is what happens, and why political scientists consistently emphasize the problem of limited resources with limited time, and immense pressure when it comes to decision-making.

Indeed, you may think it more important that your legislator spend time honing his reading skills, and become a masterful writer himself, but the realities of the office also stress from one varied degree to another, being immensely aware of re-election. They are constraints-oriented, and thus, constraints dominate the thought process rather than pure domination. So, indeed he has to meet with constituents, interests groups, and individual lobbyists.

And a note about pork. It has a bad reputation, but pork is essentially everything that we enjoy as a citizenry. We make calls to our local districts about it all the time, and communities think it is money well spent for the most part. "Porking" is generally a rare entity where indeed pork money, as it is called, is not wisely spent. Nevertheless, one never lost a vote by declaring pork wrong and evil, although all politicians do it, and a large majority of the public demand it at one time or another.

These things are complicated, and I'd appreciate it if I wouldn't be insinuated for being a "jizzbag" because I gave a bit more thought to my replies.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

No it would not be even possible to read tens or hundreds of thousands of pages.

ow many pages would bills collapse to if all pork were cut out and the bills were written in clear language and not contrived legalese?
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Enforcement should be pretty simple, if not to actually read the bill, then to at least be present while it's read.

Schedule a reading, require absolute silence in the Hall, and make presence for the entire reading mandatory to vote.

This is the sort of requirement we place on students, Congress should be able to live up to it.

People will of course say that such a requirment will never be implimented. It certainly won't.

Unless we demand it.

Do you teach 8 year olds? Do you realize that your proposal is ridiculous? Why don't you rearead the paragraph's worth of text that you yourself wrote and then tell me how much it makes sense.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

It's self-enforcing -- no politician will ever again publicly claim that they "didn't know" about something in a bill without there being a direct consequence, and if they refuse to claim ignorance we can hold them responsible for their votes.

So they say that they did know, or that they needed to make some sacrifices to get the results that they wanted. Politicians lying and being idiots is not new. How do you enforce the actual reading of the bill? I think we should start with a multiple choice or essay question test. If they do not pass, they cannot vote.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

I dunno, politicians have other stuff to do than to read bills.
It'd kinda leave them no time for other kinds of work.

"Politicians" are not Congressmen. Congressmen are specific types of politicians designed to fulfill a specific role. Such role involves exclusively writing and passing laws. They have no other work that matters.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Not only that, but if it is found that a law or policy is not constitutionally protected and any economic damage is provable coming from it, all voting yea should be held economically culpable with no loss cap.

Why not just throw all of them in jail? I would be in favor of this just for fun, not related to their specific decisions. Politicians are so culpable. Get them ready for my naked pyramid choreography.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing them? This is pretty much a simple yes or no question.



I say yes they should they themselves read the bills before signing them,not hire a speed reader and not higher someone else to read the bill. I didn't vote for a speed reader or some staff members to do the job of someone who is supposed to be our employees.



Personally I also think those who author amendments and bills should be forced to read out loud word for word what they author in front of a tv camera and then explain in front of a tv camera in laymans terms not rat lawyer speak what the bill or amendment does and why we need it. This would cut down on the bills the size of encyclopedias because I am sure no one wants to sit there for several days to read out loud a several hundred or couple thousand page bill.

Will Congress Read Bills Before Voting? - Political Hotsheet - CBS News


Let Freedom Ring | News | EDITORIAL: Passing unread laws

I'm willing to bet that the Bills would no longer be 1000+ pages of assorted Pork,,,and actually written in standard English. Instead of "Legalize".:)
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

I don't know what to say, really. I'm practically overwhelmed in trying to figure out a way to say this so people can understand how government actually works, and how it's not some lazy plot by legislators to avoid work, but rather, an almost natural consequence.

We fully understand how government works,do no insult out intelligence by pretending we do not know how.
There simply is not enough time to be caught up in all details, all the time. We have members of the legislative government who become experts in particular issues and like anyone who has a best friend that is an expert in something, you move to them for some guidance. This is not the only way, of course, there's meetings with constituents, interest groups, the legislator's own staff, and consulting polling data. Staff are not exactly flakey individuals, but often come in with a strong sense of mission and attempt to serve their boss in the way they believe he should and or actually does.


The only who one whose job it is to read the bills are those voting for or against them.


You vote for the legislator, but you would be foolish to think the man by himself would be able to carry the weight expected to be dealt with from the office.


There is nothing foolish about expecting a politician to do his damn job.



The legislator needs to delegate authority in order to accomplish goals,


No they don't.It is no one else's job but the person elected to office to do his job.
but quite often, there simply is not enough time to keep caught up.

There is always time to read the bill,if they do not feel there is enough time to read the bill then they can say not they will not vote for it until they fully read the bill.


Legislators often make repeated attempts to read the bills, but complain they have not enough time to do so or to further consider the weight upon them.

I am sure garbage men from time to time complain about emptying trashcans in the trash truck and I am sure police men every now and then complain about having to write tickets or being shot at and I know for a fact lots of soldiers complain about work details but they do their jobs as that is what they signed on for when they applied for their job. Some one elected to office is no different. Part of a politcian's job is to read the damn bills which have a impact on this county before signing them. If they do not wish to read the bills themselves then they should quit.



Indeed, you may think it more important that your legislator spend time honing his reading skills, and become a masterful writer himself,

That is what they are there for, to read the bills before signing them. Those bills impact this country.

but the realities of the office also stress from one varied degree to another,

Their job isn't meant to be mentally easy.They are doing things that effect the country.

These things are complicated, and I'd appreciate it if I wouldn't be insinuated for being a "jizzbag" because I gave a bit more thought to my replies.


Should you who presumes we are idiots who have no idea how the system works ask that we not insinuate that you are a jizzbag?
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Everyone who voted "yes" obviously doesn't know how the system works. Try fixing that first.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Everyone who voted "yes" obviously doesn't know how the system works. Try fixing that first.

Or we don't LIKE how the system works... ever thought of that?
 
Back
Top Bottom