Posted on Mar 31, 2015
Do you think politicians should have to read bills out loud in the chamber before voting on them?
3.77K
42
14
2
2
0
In a recent topic regarding Indiana's new bill supporting religious freedom, the arguments on both sides are inflammatory, but a reading of the bill reveals it is completely incomprehensible. Should we require legislatures to read bills out loud in the chambers before voting on them? Wouldn't this serve to make bills shorter, and more understandable to politicians, and to the citizens who have to live under these laws.
Law
Voting
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
3
3
0
The survey has a flaw in that the first two choices are substantially different from the third choice. Speaking only for my time as a Congressional Fellow and not having served in state legislatures, there is far too much legislation that is voted on on a daily basis to be able to read them out loud. Let alone the length of some of the bills. There is no way to be able to read all of the bills that are voted on, especially because not all of the bills are voted on while on the floor.
Politics and personal beliefs aside, there is a massive contingent of staff who write these bills and are responsible for making sure their Member understands them while also carrying the water of their member. The bills get lengthy for a myriad of different reasons: the need to change several titles in the US Code, ensuring the 'purpose' of the bill is met, attempting to avoid loopholes, etc.
By no means is it a perfect process.
Politics and personal beliefs aside, there is a massive contingent of staff who write these bills and are responsible for making sure their Member understands them while also carrying the water of their member. The bills get lengthy for a myriad of different reasons: the need to change several titles in the US Code, ensuring the 'purpose' of the bill is met, attempting to avoid loopholes, etc.
By no means is it a perfect process.
(3)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
LCDR (Join to see) , I will agree with you that I should have better and more consistently worded the poll.
That being said, you made a slew of great points about our legislative process. You are again correct that it is not a perfect process.
The point of my suggestion is that the process is clearly broken, when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence it fit on 1 large sheet of paper. When Madison drafted the Constitution defining the size, scope and limitations of our entire system, it ended up able to fit on 10 typewritten pages. The first ten amendments on a page and a half. I agree, the way our Federal government NOW works, there is no time to read bills that range from 10 pages up to thousands of pages. THAT is the problem.
Congress, the Executive branch, AND the huge bureaucracy that accompanies them, operates far afield from the constraints and limits placed upon the Federal government by the Constitution. IF our government were acting under it's enumerated powers, they would have MUCH less to do, i.e. they would have far fewer bills in number to consider, to read, and on which to vote.
Clearly the size, scope, and powers of the Federal government have strayed, not just off the intended path, but rather through a black hole, and into another universe. As Madison told us...
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”
There is little doubt that the Federal government has wormed it's way far to close to the lives, liberties, and properties of the common people.
Of course I realize the bill we're discussing IS a State bill (as it should be) since the First Amendment tells us "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" (though apparently it has, and it was signed by Pres. Clinton), but this doesn't change the state of our Federal affairs.
Next, a few prescient quotes:
Alexander Hamilton and James Madison
Federalist No. 62 — 1788
Category: Law
"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow."
AND now some Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
letter to William Johnson — 1823
Category: Law
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."
I read that Indiana law, and there were very few coherent, and unbroken sentences that didn't reference another section, paragraph, code, or precedent. 90% (estimated) of the wording on that bill were meaningless, without a flowchart to follow all of the references. If this is how our laws MUST to be written today, then perhaps we should follow the advice of Voltaire
“If you want good laws, burn those you have and make new ones.”
― Voltaire
So, I am in agreement with you. Clearly there is NO WAY our politicians can be expected to read every bill, and, of course, if they had to be read aloud on the House and Senate floor our Congressional Representatives would likely feel foolish doing so, particularly when they come to the parts of the bill that have nothing to do with the actual title, or purpose of the bill. Best to save them the embarrassment of saying such things aloud. All this just makes one wonder when such growth will reach critical mass and self-destruct. A little Constitutional restraint would go a long way in this regard.
Respectful regards to you, and for your informative and thoughtful answer, and for your well meaning constructive criticism regarding my poll. Points well taken.
That being said, you made a slew of great points about our legislative process. You are again correct that it is not a perfect process.
The point of my suggestion is that the process is clearly broken, when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence it fit on 1 large sheet of paper. When Madison drafted the Constitution defining the size, scope and limitations of our entire system, it ended up able to fit on 10 typewritten pages. The first ten amendments on a page and a half. I agree, the way our Federal government NOW works, there is no time to read bills that range from 10 pages up to thousands of pages. THAT is the problem.
Congress, the Executive branch, AND the huge bureaucracy that accompanies them, operates far afield from the constraints and limits placed upon the Federal government by the Constitution. IF our government were acting under it's enumerated powers, they would have MUCH less to do, i.e. they would have far fewer bills in number to consider, to read, and on which to vote.
Clearly the size, scope, and powers of the Federal government have strayed, not just off the intended path, but rather through a black hole, and into another universe. As Madison told us...
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”
There is little doubt that the Federal government has wormed it's way far to close to the lives, liberties, and properties of the common people.
Of course I realize the bill we're discussing IS a State bill (as it should be) since the First Amendment tells us "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" (though apparently it has, and it was signed by Pres. Clinton), but this doesn't change the state of our Federal affairs.
Next, a few prescient quotes:
Alexander Hamilton and James Madison
Federalist No. 62 — 1788
Category: Law
"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow."
AND now some Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
letter to William Johnson — 1823
Category: Law
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."
I read that Indiana law, and there were very few coherent, and unbroken sentences that didn't reference another section, paragraph, code, or precedent. 90% (estimated) of the wording on that bill were meaningless, without a flowchart to follow all of the references. If this is how our laws MUST to be written today, then perhaps we should follow the advice of Voltaire
“If you want good laws, burn those you have and make new ones.”
― Voltaire
So, I am in agreement with you. Clearly there is NO WAY our politicians can be expected to read every bill, and, of course, if they had to be read aloud on the House and Senate floor our Congressional Representatives would likely feel foolish doing so, particularly when they come to the parts of the bill that have nothing to do with the actual title, or purpose of the bill. Best to save them the embarrassment of saying such things aloud. All this just makes one wonder when such growth will reach critical mass and self-destruct. A little Constitutional restraint would go a long way in this regard.
Respectful regards to you, and for your informative and thoughtful answer, and for your well meaning constructive criticism regarding my poll. Points well taken.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Great idea, in theory. But people who complain about HB's and SB's wouldn't take the time to actually read/listen. And then assume the worst because there's words in the title which may offend them, with no legitimacy.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Capt Richard I P.
SSG Gerhard S. Its an internal costumer focus forcing mechanism. It means using your own product. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food
Eating your own dog food - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Eating your own dog food, also called dogfooding, is a slang term used to reference a scenario in which a company uses its own product to test and promote the product.[1]
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google