Supporting Legislation You Don't Understand

Hypothetical

A piece of legislation is proposed that will change our country forever. Is it acceptable to support that legislation if you have little to no understanding of it?

I say it's not acceptable for anyone with a brain.

This should be obvious, until you get to specific examples then people think it's okay to change their minds.

They should make all Congress Humans take comprehension tests before they are allowed to vote on it.

Arch Enemy said:

They should make all Congress Humans take comprehension tests before they are allowed to vote on it.

Click to expand...

How about Congressional Dogs?
:mrgreen:

Not to mention voting for a bill that you understand and support but has had last minute things added that you may or may not have bothered reading.

I suspect so many of our officals will turn a blind eye to things added if they support the bill that it has been attached to. They simply want the main items passed and could care less whats been added that may not be right for the country.

It should never be acceptable for any politician to vote for a bill that they do not understand and it should also be unacceptable for anyone to support legislation that they themselves didn't read.

jamesrage said:

It should never be acceptable for any politician to vote for a bill that they do not understand and it should also be unacceptable for anyone to support legislation that they themselves didn't read.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect any politicians to read bills. It would be a waste of their time. I would expect however for their staffers to read it and explain to them what the bill does.

That would be idiotic, happens a-plenty though.

phattonez said:

I wouldn't expect any politicians to read bills. It would be a waste of their time. I would expect however for their staffers to read it and explain to them what the bill does.

Click to expand...

Last I check I never saw a staffer's name on any ballot and if I wanted that staffer to do the politician's job then I would have voted for that staffer instead. It is their job to read and understand the bills they are voting for, not someone else's job. Some staffer giving them a summary of the bill does not equal that politician knowing what exactly is in the bill. So it is moronic to say it is a waste of their time. That is what they are supposed to do and if the bills are too damn long for them to read then they can vote no or request more time to read it. And if that bill is too damn complicated for them to read then request that the bill be written in layman's terms or maybe the job is too difficult for them to do and shouldn't be doing it at all and resign.

I think it's completely unacceptable for a politician to vote on a bill they haven't read. Maybe if there was a rule that required politicians to actually read the bills they were voting for, they'd quite writing bills that were 2,000 pages long.