So, let me get this straight. These guys want Congress to actually know what they’re doing before they do it? Won’t that cause, like, anarchy or, I don’t know, lower taxes and stuff?
We need your friends for the “Read the Bills Act”
Congress passes new laws nearly every week. Many of them are huge. Few of them are ever read. No one in Congress really knows what they contain. Sometimes these laws are not even printed before a vote is held. They are often written by lobbyists or staffers, and not by the people we elected. Sometimes they have secret provisions stuck in them at the last moment.
You have to pay for these laws, and live under them. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for you. Only the lawmakers can get away with not knowing what a law contains. THIS HAS TO STOP!
RTBA’s requirements are simple. Every word of every bill must be read before a quorum of the House and Senate before a vote can be held. Those in Congress planning to vote yes on a bill must sign a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that they have read every word of the bill in question. All bills must be posted in their final form on the Internet for 7 days before a vote can be held.
Congress objects because they wouldn’t be able to legislate as much, spend as much, tax as much, and borrow as much. If you’re a person who loves Big Government so much that you’re desperate to have more of it at any cost, even at the price of passing unread legislation, then you will not want to support RTBA.
This will never work – how will our governent be able to protect us if we actually know what they might be doing – at least that’s what their excuse will be.
I like the idea, but I think it might be to utopian for it to actually happen.
So what exactly ARE they doing if they’re not reading the laws they vote on? Sounds like they’ve lost sight of their priorities.
“Read the Bills Act” – you have my yea vote!
Would it count if someone read it to them? I am not sure literacy is a requiement for congress.
In Washington State, we have a “single-subject” rule that each bill must deal with a single subject. This eliminates a lot of sneaky provisions that are tucked in the deep recesses of an unrelated bill and also makes each bill a lot easier to read.
this is actually fairly common in State legislatures, for the very reasons it is being put forward here.
It will never pass, though. truth be told, most laws are gibberish anyway – “section 1015(c) of Article II shall be amended to include “corn-based food products.” and so on.
What I would also like to see is an End the Forced Law Name Acronym Act. No more naming laws so that the names make no sense, but their acronyms sound good ala PATRIOT Act. A specific provision that no law can have an acronym which spells out a word in the English language.
In the recent rush to appear honest, our congressional lords and masters have introduced a bunch of new bills. Seems one of them is very close to this idea. It doesn’t require a sworn affidavid, but it does require that a bill be read, and a waiting period of, I think 3 days, when the bill would be avalable to be read by the public.
It also has the *ear mark* practice included. Making it so if any member wants to *ear mark* a bill or whatever, they have to say why and it has to have their name on it, no more secret additions at the last minute.
As Martha would say……*It’s a good thing*
[begin rant]
The core problem is that we have gotten away from the very foundation on which the country was built: a republic with the States wielding most of the power. Does anyone remember the forgotten 10th Amendment?
The reason so much goes by without being read is that the Federal government is trying to manage too much. That problem is a direct result of the Federal government having FAR too much authority. A better solution IMO would be independent organizations comprised of State representatives focused on specific areas. For example, where in the Constitution does it give the Federal government the authority to manage education? That authority should rest solely with the States. A better solution would be an independent committee comprised of State representatives from the 50 states that manage education standards and such. The States of course would decide how those committee members are appointed (i.e. gubernatorial appointment or general election).
The States would agree that mandates from these committees would be binding. That would substantially reduce the amount of legislative material that would go to Congress as much of it would be handled by the States. Further, Congress would make it a rule that any Federal legislation that touches one of the areas these committees should first be reviewed by them. That would leave Congress with far less to review and thus give them a better ability to approve what was given to them.
Looking specifically at the President’s cabinet, I would eliminate the following in favor of these independent committees: Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, and probably Veterans Affairs. That would leave Defense, Homeland Security, Justice and State.
[end rant]
“So what exactly ARE they doing if they’re not reading the laws they vote on?”
Meeting with lobbyists, taking free trips courtesy of lobbists, playing golf, campaigning for their next election, speeches, running for president, meeting with lobbyists, taking payoffs, meeting with lobbyists. Anything, but what they were elected to do.
You are assuming most congressmen can read.
So if I understand you correctly gquaglia, if we get rid of the lobbyists completely, our elected officials would actually have time to read the laws they are voting on? Make it so!
Ah, well, that would probably work as well as outlawing prostitution did.
Thomas, it would never happen, todays Republicans only pay lip service to the Constitution and the Democrats don’t even know it exists except when one of their speech writers slips it into their next sound bite for the 6 o’clock news.
We read all our bills in Canada – three times! Yay for the true North strong and free!
Great idea. From what I have heard, nobody and I MEAN NOBODY read the whole original Patriot Act before it became law. Not even the people who wrote it!
I like the idea, but I’d call it the RTFB Act instead.
Why bother bringing attention to this? Wouldn’t it make more sense to just slip this in the pile and let it get passed before anyone reads it?
Then bring it to their attention after.
I want this to go through, and I’m not even a US citizen. I’m Canadian, but I know this happens here too.
Maybe I should try the “slip the bill” strategy here.
I just recently saw an article in the London Times that the Blair goverment is trying to pass new rules on Commons bills that would only allow for 24 hours to read the bill before having to vote on it, instead of the 3 readings presently required.
Seems it’s boring the MP’s to know what they are voting on.
Maybe we could switch rules with them before they make a change.
I agree, this proposed law should just be slipped into the next supplemental spending bill or the next vote to raise the ceiling on the National Debt. It is amazing what is slipped into bills at the last minute. A complete way around going through the process of becoming a nationalized citizen is to slip into a bill, “Jane Doe shall be granted US Citizenship,” and if the bill passes Jane Doe becomes a citizen.
Sen . Hank Brown changed his vote on GATT and WTO after reading the bill.