I cannot see that there should be any controversy in that the legislators should be reading the bills.
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 by Fiddytree; 07-19-09 at 09:54 PM.
"We all of us know down here that politics is a tough game. And I don't think there's any point in being Irish if you don't know that the world is going to break your heart eventually."-Daniel Patrick Moynihan, December 5, 1963
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.
I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang
My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang
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.No. Unenforceable
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?unrealistic,
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.and cripples the legislative branch.
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.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 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?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 by jamesrage; 07-20-09 at 09:10 AM.
"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
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 by American; 07-20-09 at 11:22 AM.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
"by law" involves an interesting piece of circular logic.
Let's figure it out.