• 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

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

Then why don't you fix that first!? Why would you try to implement something when it wouldn't work? You should learn to prioritize. The way the system is it wouldn't work at all.
 
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.

And everyone that voted no doesn't know what personal responsibility is?

If you're hired to do the job, then you do that job. You don't foist it off to someone else and expect to know everything that you need to know when crunch time comes.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

And everyone that voted no doesn't know what personal responsibility is?

If you're hired to do the job, then you do that job. You don't foist it off to someone else and expect to know everything that you need to know when crunch time comes.

Good try, but no. I voted no (and probably some others to) because even though I like the idea and wishes that it were workable, it's not. The way the system is people wouldn't have the time to do this. Also, how can you enforce it? The only way to enforce it is to waste other people's time too. Another point, how would this get voted in?! Congress certainly wouldn't vote for this. I understand you're point about personal responsibility and agree with it but the only way to enforce responsibility is to vote out people who are irresponsible however the incumbents almost always win (I'm talking Congresspeople, state officials, and local officials) unless the opposite of coattails occurs (which happened this past year's elections because of Bush).

Once again, I agree with your statement regarding personal responsibility but that doesn't change the fact that the way the system is this idea isn't doable.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Then why don't you fix that first!? Why would you try to implement something when it wouldn't work? You should learn to prioritize. The way the system is it wouldn't work at all.


Then sir, why don't YOU tell us how the system works then since you are coming off as a know it all snob with these comments.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Then sir, why don't YOU tell us how the system works then since you are coming off as a know it all snob with these comments.

You could look at previous comments or the rest of comment that you quoted but I'll repeat the problems with this idea again.

1. Congress would never vote this in.
2. It would take way too much time since there are a large number of bills that are hundreds of pages.
3. The only ways to enforce this are too time consuming.

Can people read more of a thread before they comment?
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Good Lord, Man, NO!

Next you will be asking if, not only should they read these bills but actually understand them. You must be crazy. What good would that do?
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

We fully understand how government works,do no insult out intelligence by pretending we do not know how.



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





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






No they don't.It is no one else's job but the person elected to office to do his job.


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.




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.





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



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




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?

I explain once, I get no substance. I explain a second time with even more detail, I get called a jizzbag, I explain a third time with bewilderment, and see, yet again, the same incredibly baseless comments. This is like a blind backseat driver complaining about the driver's performance because he feels some bumps.

Of course it affects Americans, and of course in some vague terms, this is their job, but until anyone, I repeat, anyone, tries to dramatically alter the inner workings of the entire United States government with hardly any ill effects, I would congratulate them for accomplishing the nearly impossible and consider them a political demi-God.

Until then, I will flat out say this: the suggestion is such a bad idea, that it nearly floors me to think that after considerable time addressing individual concerns, the same naive statements or insinuations keep coming out: "It's their job", "I elected you", and my personal favorite, "there is no such thing as too much paperwork". The only thing that interested me, in this entire thread, has been the idea of a new writing style, but when I prod for a little more explanation, it's as if the whole discussion ended with "stop the legal language that no one understands". How would we do that? What consequences would result from trying to design a system of language? How long would it take to come up with that system? Would there be any consequences that would follow with legislation in a less wordy, more common language?

Until there is a lot more substantive discussion, I'm calling it absolutely naive to suggest that we could accomplish this.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

I explain once, I get no substance. I explain a second time with even more detail, I get called a jizzbag, I explain a third time with bewilderment, and see, yet again, the same incredibly baseless comments. This is like a blind backseat driver complaining about the driver's performance because he feels some bumps.

Of course it affects Americans, and of course in some vague terms, this is their job, but until anyone, I repeat, anyone, tries to dramatically alter the inner workings of the entire United States government with hardly any ill effects, I would congratulate them for accomplishing the nearly impossible and consider them a political demi-God.

Until then, I will flat out say this: the suggestion is such a bad idea, that it nearly floors me to think that after considerable time addressing individual concerns, the same naive statements or insinuations keep coming out: "It's their job", "I elected you", and my personal favorite, "there is no such thing as too much paperwork". The only thing that interested me, in this entire thread, has been the idea of a new writing style, but when I prod for a little more explanation, it's as if the whole discussion ended with "stop the legal language that no one understands". How would we do that? What consequences would result from trying to design a system of language? How long would it take to come up with that system? Would there be any consequences that would follow with legislation in a less wordy, more common language?

Until there is a lot more substantive discussion, I'm calling it absolutely naive to suggest that we could accomplish this.

Murder bill:

Do not kill. You kill you get sent to prison.

First degree first offense - 15 to life, out in 15 for good behavior. Paroled for rest.
First degree second offense - 25 to life, no parole, whichever is longer. Death Penalty in states that allow it if they want.

Second degree first offense - 10 to 25, out in 10 for good behavior.
Second degree second offense - 25 to life, no parole, whichever is shorter.

Third Degree first offense - 8 to 15, out in 8 for good behavior. Paroled for rest.
Third Degree second offense - 15 years no parole.

Manslaughter first offense - 8 years straight, no parole.
Manslaughter second offense - 15 years, no parole.


See easy to write a simple, understandable bill. Straight and to the point.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Murder bill:

Do not kill. You kill you get sent to prison.

First degree first offense - 15 to life, out in 15 for good behavior. Paroled for rest.
First degree second offense - 25 to life, no parole, whichever is longer. Death Penalty in states that allow it if they want.

Second degree first offense - 10 to 25, out in 10 for good behavior.
Second degree second offense - 25 to life, no parole, whichever is shorter.

Third Degree first offense - 8 to 15, out in 8 for good behavior. Paroled for rest.
Third Degree second offense - 15 years no parole.

Manslaughter first offense - 8 years straight, no parole.
Manslaughter second offense - 15 years, no parole.


See easy to write a simple, understandable bill. Straight and to the point.

Not really.

Now define "murder".

Define "kill".

The devil is always in the details.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

They should be forced to attend a class on the bill in question followed by an exam.


No pass no vote.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Not really.

Now define "murder".

Define "kill".

The devil is always in the details.

That is a job for the judiciary branch, not the legislature.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Absolutely they should. They are hired for a job, and reading the goddamn bull**** they sign into law should be part of that job.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Not really.

Now define "murder".

Define "kill".

The devil is always in the details.

Kill: To deprive one of life.

Murder: The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

See not that hard. Just check any dictionary.
 
Last edited:
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.

What like kissing babies, spewing BS, and accepting bribes from special interests? All of things things are of miniscule importance compared to making sure the laws they are signing are necessary and fair in their entirety.

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

Considering the number of libertarians here, I am guessing that would be one of the major perks to many voters. (:)

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

The system works? lol
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

What like kissing babies, spewing BS, and accepting bribes from special interests? All of things things are of miniscule importance compared to making sure the laws they are signing are necessary and fair in their entirety.
Amazing how 6 or 7 people seem to be the only ones who do not get that. These bills they write and vote for affect this nation.Not only should the politicians be forced to read these bills they should also understand these bills due to their impact on the country,they should be questioned on these bills and have to explain to the voters on camera why they are voting for,against or abstain from voting for it.

Considering the number of libertarians here, I am guessing that would be one of the major perks to many voters.
I think there is a lot of people here besides libertarians who do not see crippling the legislative branch as a bad thing. No politician should be allowed to vote for a bill without first reading it. If that means they spend extra time in office and if that means they do not get pass a lot of other bills which means they have to either prioritize or shorten bills as a result then how can anyone honestly say that a bad thing?
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Can people that voted yes answer these questions for me?

How will it get passed?

How will it be enforced?

How will it not take a very long time to read the bills?
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Can people that voted yes answer these questions for me?

How will it get passed?

1.Call,write,fax and email our elected officials to read bills before signing them and to make law. This is how a lot of laws get passed or fail(like the McCain,Kennedy, Bush amnesty plan)for illegals.

2sign up with a political action group to make it easier to push the agenda onto our elected officials.

3.Vote for those who will vote to require politicians to read bills before signing them.

4.Demonize those who do not support such laws or vote against such laws.



How will it be enforced?

1.Ban politicians from using staffers and anyone else to read the bills for them.After all we didn't elect a staffer or aid to do the job.Would you continue to employ a house keeper who used a bum off the street or an illegal to do the job for him?Why not just fire the housekeeper and just hire the bum or illegal at the rate the housekeeper was paying them instead of continuing to employ the same housekeeper?

2.Allot time based on length of bill,the longer the bill the more time allowed in order to read the bill and increase that time every time adds an amendment. This will ensure that no one can sneak a last minute amendment to a bill.

4.Require bills be posted online in it's entirety at least 72 hours or more prior(depending on length of bill) before being voting on, if an amendment is added restart the 72 hour waiting period. This will ensure that the public can call,email or fax their elected officials if they find the bill to be messed up.



5.Require politicians to explain why they voting for,against or take the chicken **** route of abstaining from voting for the bill. This is like having the student write a book report after he read the book so you can make sure he actually read it.



How will it not take a very long time to read the bills?

Totally irrelevant. It is their job to read the bills before signing them regardless of the length.These bills effect our nation and tax payers so it is extremely important that they know exactly what they are signing. Would you sign a contract that can have effect on your life for 20 plus years without first reading it? If they do not wish to read encyclopedia size bills then they shouldn't write encyclopedia size bills in the first place and they should demand their colleges write shorter bills.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

1.Call,write,fax and email our elected officials to read bills before signing them and to make law. This is how a lot of laws get passed or fail(like the McCain,Kennedy, Bush amnesty plan)for illegals.

2sign up with a political action group to make it easier to push the agenda onto our elected officials.

3.Vote for those who will vote to require politicians to read bills before signing them.

4.Demonize those who do not support such laws or vote against such laws.





1.Ban politicians from using staffers and anyone else to read the bills for them.After all we didn't elect a staffer or aid to do the job.Would you continue to employ a house keeper who used a bum off the street or an illegal to do the job for him?Why not just fire the housekeeper and just hire the bum or illegal at the rate the housekeeper was paying them instead of continuing to employ the same housekeeper?

2.Allot time based on length of bill,the longer the bill the more time allowed in order to read the bill and increase that time every time adds an amendment. This will ensure that no one can sneak a last minute amendment to a bill.

4.Require bills be posted online in it's entirety at least 72 hours or more prior(depending on length of bill) before being voting on, if an amendment is added restart the 72 hour waiting period. This will ensure that the public can call,email or fax their elected officials if they find the bill to be messed up.



5.Require politicians to explain why they voting for,against or take the chicken **** route of abstaining from voting for the bill. This is like having the student write a book report after he read the book so you can make sure he actually read it.





Totally irrelevant. It is their job to read the bills before signing them regardless of the length.These bills effect our nation and tax payers so it is extremely important that they know exactly what they are signing. Would you sign a contract that can have effect on your life for 20 plus years without first reading it? If they do not wish to read encyclopedia size bills then they shouldn't write encyclopedia size bills in the first place and they should demand their colleges write shorter bills.

Those are good ideas but they aren't going to happen/ won't work. And the time thing is very relevant since there are so many bills and Congress would have even less time to go over them.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Those are good ideas but they aren't going to happen/ won't work

Never know until you try.Those in office a couple of summers ago thought they were going to pass the McCain/Kennedy/Bush amnesty for illegals but the flood of angry calls and faxes put stop to that.


And the time thing is very relevant since there are so many bills and Congress would have even less time to go over them.

The time thing is a totally irrelevant thing because it is their job to know exactly what they are signing for not blindly sign things into law. If they have to miss a few extra bills or worker long then they need to decide which bills are the most important and work on those first.


Would you blindly sign a contract that can have an effect on you for 20 or years of your life?
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

That's not even really the point, speed reading is one thing and then having a staffer summarize the bill... But we have politicians that vote on bills to which even Think Tanks that have devoted the whole 42 hours they get to look at the thing, and even they only know bits and pieces; so you know the politician know nothing about it. The bill could at some point say " All people who owns a pet kitten is charged 400 dollars." and they would of just voted for it. On top of that were we not promised a transparent government? That's my 2 cents at any rate...
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Never know until you try.Those in office a couple of summers ago thought they were going to pass the McCain/Kennedy/Bush amnesty for illegals but the flood of angry calls and faxes put stop to that.




The time thing is a totally irrelevant thing because it is their job to know exactly what they are signing for not blindly sign things into law. If they have to miss a few extra bills or worker long then they need to decide which bills are the most important and work on those first.


Would you blindly sign a contract that can have an effect on you for 20 or years of your life?

1. The amnesty for illegal immigrants bill is a very rare case.
2. The time point is relevant because they only have a limited time to debate bills. As of know they don't get through a large chunk of bills and if this were implemented it would take away a lot of time therefore decreasing the limited number of bills they already go through.
3. One thing you misunderstand is I like this idea a lot but I don't think it's workable.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

You also didn't state a way to enforce this. Who's going to be there when the politician reads it? You're going to be wasting their time too. And your "book report" idea won't work because they can just read this first page and say they like the idea on the first page.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

You also didn't state a way to enforce this.

Mostly it would it be self enforcing. Politicians would police each other by using this ammo in elections against their oppenents


Who's going to be there when the politician reads it?
No one has to be there. Seeing how they no longer have the option of using a 3rd party to read it and they would be required by law to read they wouldn't be able to use the "I didn't" or I didn't know what was in it" excuse. Seeing how there would time allotted for each bill depending on length they would have plenty of time to read it.


And your "book report" idea won't work because they can just read this first page and say they like the idea on the first page.


All it will take is a reporter or political commentator asking the politician a question over something obscure in the bill to make politicians wary of not reading the bill before voting in order to avoid future embarrassment.


2. The time point is relevant because they only have a limited time to debate bills.

It is not relevant.As long as they read and fully understand what they signing I have no problem with them not voting for a bunch of bills they didn't bother reading.

As of know they don't get through a large chunk of bills and if this were implemented it would take away a lot of time therefore decreasing the limited number of bills they already go through.

What you said is not a problem.I would rather 1 bill they actually read get voted on than for 10 bills to be passed without them reading it. IF they do not have time to read then they shouldn't pass it.
 
Re: Should politicians be required by law to read the bill themselves before signing

Mostly it would it be self enforcing. Politicians would police each other by using this ammo in elections against their oppenents



No one has to be there. Seeing how they no longer have the option of using a 3rd party to read it and they would be required by law to read they wouldn't be able to use the "I didn't" or I didn't know what was in it" excuse. Seeing how there would time allotted for each bill depending on length they would have plenty of time to read it.





All it will take is a reporter or political commentator asking the politician a question over something obscure in the bill to make politicians wary of not reading the bill before voting in order to avoid future embarrassment.




It is not relevant.As long as they read and fully understand what they signing I have no problem with them not voting for a bunch of bills they didn't bother reading.



What you said is not a problem.I would rather 1 bill they actually read get voted on than for 10 bills to be passed without them reading it. IF they do not have time to read then they shouldn't pass it.

1. Regarding your self-enforcing point, opponents already criticize people now for what they vote for so it wouldn't be any different.

2. Regarding your political commentator point, a lot of elected officials don't get interviewed regularly by the press and if a question is about something obscure then the politician may have forgotten about it if it's just a trivial fact.
 
Back
Top Bottom