…it’s too long to pass:
This sort of behavior — passing bills that no one has read — or, that in the case of the healthcare “bill” haven’t even actually been written — represents political corruption of the first order. If representation is the basis on which laws bind the citizen, then why should citizens regard themselves as bound by laws that their representatives haven’t read, or, sometimes, even written yet?
To quote someone else, indeed. As I’ve noted before, this issue is ripe for a new Contract with America. I think that it would find a lot of resonance with the voters.
Was anyone complaining about this before it was the Democrats writing the bills?
Yes.
But as with deficit spending, they have taken it to grand new heights, to the point that they’re voting on bills that haven’t even been written, let alone read. Sometimes, quantity has a quality all its own.
Jim, of course, remembers nothing that happened before he woke up this morning.
I don’t recall hearing this complaint before 2009. It sure seems like an example of: if you can’t win the argument, change the subject (in this case, from the substance of legislation to the process).
I don’t recall hearing this complaint before 2009.
Either you weren’t paying attention, or you have a very selective memory.
if you can’t win the argument, change the subject (in this case, from the substance of legislation to the process).
So since you are not winning the argument on healthcare, you are trying to change the subject to whether or not we complained 3 years ago?
If the bill is too long to read, it is too long to heed.
Either you weren’t paying attention, or you have a very selective memory.
My memory isn’t great, but Google’s is pretty good. I looked through ten pages of hits on “read bill site:transterrestrial.com”; about 20 hits were about Congress passing bills without reading them. All of them were posted after the Democrats took control in 2007, and all but a couple were from 2009.
So your point Jim is that Obama brought up the issue of a Sunshine provision based on no complaints about reading bills?
Leland:
If you are referring to Obama’s promise to not sign bills for five days, I think that was about letting the public weigh in, not about forcing Congressmen to read bills before voting.
If you are referring to Obama’s promise to not sign bills for five days, I think that was about letting the public weigh in, not about forcing Congressmen to read bills before voting.
What good is it for the public to weigh in after the Congressional vote? (Not that Obama was ever serious about it, anyway, given the record since he’s taken office.) So they could flood the White House, instead of their own representatives?
What sophistry. What a con artist.
What sophistry
I agree that a five day period before signing wouldn’t accomplish much, and that it’d be better to have a break between publishing the bill and congressional votes (not that Obama has any say in that). But I don’t think that having Congressmen swear to have read every bill would accomplish more than just having a waiting period.
I don’t think that having Congressmen swear to have read every bill would accomplish more than just having a waiting period.
And you think that the value of that would be zero? That no constituents would read it, and not try to influence their representatives?
That would fit in with your notion of the elite versus the kulaks…