Reading of US Constitution in US Senate

[Innoc]

If you haven't heard about this and need to know more may I suggest http://www.google.com?

Does anyone see this as anything other than idiotic grandstanding? Do you know anyone who really expresses that they think this is useful?

If this was going to have ANY impact on how those morons perform the duties for which they were elected I might view this differently. For now it just seems like more Bread and Circuses.

[Crazycarl]

"If any of you have any objections to this stuff, now's the time to speak up"

[Iggy]

Well, at least we know they're reading something. I still can't fathom how anyone can read an 1100 page bill in a few days, understand it, and vote on it. Especially considering how many bills are pushed through quickly. There is no way anyone can read that much in a short time.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Iggy

Well, at least we know they're reading something. I still can't fathom how anyone can read an 1100 page bill in a few days, understand it, and vote on it. Especially considering how many bills are pushed through quickly. There is no way anyone can read that much in a short time.

Your post is something with which I completely agree.

Frankly I'd love to see a validation mechanism in Congress. A committee comes up with test questions for a bill to be considered. Members who expect to vote must take and pass that test on the bill to demonstrate that they've read it. Failing X number of tests or missing X number of votes causes that member to have their role as a member of Congress suspended for a month, a note to be pinned to said member's shirt and that member gets sent back to their constituents for a month. Get convicted of fraud related to the testing and it's an automatic 30 prison sentence.

Perhaps that would put their feet to the fire and force them to get more involved with the legislation that comes before them.

[Iggy]

I like that idea(see? We can agree on some things )... but think how much that would slow the system down.

Might be easier to just write the shit in plain English, and be done with all that mumbo jumbo. It's kinda like the law books. They take up half a room, when they really only need to be the size of a comic book.

[GenghisTron]

I agree it's just grandstanding, especially considering the GOP is barely discernible from the Democrat party right now. They have a couple issues where they're opposed to the Dems, that serve as political wedge issues, but aside from that, they're practically one in the same.

Originally Posted by Iggy

Well, at least we know they're reading something. I still can't fathom how anyone can read an 1100 page bill in a few days, understand it, and vote on it. Especially considering how many bills are pushed through quickly. There is no way anyone can read that much in a short time.

Politicians don't read shit, you kiddin? They have armies of junior staffers (ergo a bunch of brown-nosers looking to climb the ladder) who read the bills and brief the Politicians on the content of the bill. Everything with Politicians is a euphemism.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Iggy

I like that idea(see? We can agree on some things )... but think how much that would slow the system down.

Might be easier to just write the shit in plain English, and be done with all that mumbo jumbo. It's kinda like the law books. They take up half a room, when they really only need to be the size of a comic book.

I'm ok with slowing down the pace of Govt. Look at NV. We're one of the few states where the legislature meets every other year and only for 120 days.

The balance with legalese is that some of it is necessary. However, look at the people drafting bills/laws...no...not the elected officials but their staff. Seriously...how many bills are actually written by Senators/Representative? My guess is "none". I suspect that has more to do with it than anything else.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

I agree it's just grandstanding, especially considering the GOP is barely discernible from the Democrat party right now. They have a couple issues where they're opposed to the Dems, that serve as political wedge issues, but aside from that, they're practically one in the same.



Politicians don't read shit, you kiddin? They have armies of junior staffers (ergo a bunch of brown-nosers looking to climb the ladder) who read the bills and brief the Politicians on the content of the bill. Everything with Politicians is a euphemism.

That was exactly my point. Sad part is, the politicians themselves are also brown-nosers who want to simply be reelected and keep getting paid. I think there are a few politicians who actually want to do a good job, but they are outnumbered so bad it's not funny.

Originally Posted by Innoc

I'm ok with slowing down the pace of Govt. Look at NV. We're one of the few states where the legislature meets every other year and only for 120 days.

The balance with legalese is that some of it is necessary. However, look at the people drafting bills/laws...no...not the elected officials but their staff. Seriously...how many bills are actually written by Senators/Representative? My guess is "none". I suspect that has more to do with it than anything else.

Slowing it down a bit is one thing.... but I think your idea will almost bring it to a complete halt. You are right, though... those elected probably only vote on what is drafted, and their only input into what is created is the general idea, and whatever earmarks they want to put into it. God alone knows if the people who do the "supositions" that the elected ones read are being paid off to leave out certain details of said bill.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Iggy

Slowing it down a bit is one thing.... but I think your idea will almost bring it to a complete halt. You are right, though... those elected probably only vote on what is drafted, and their only input into what is created is the general idea, and whatever earmarks they want to put into it. God alone knows if the people who do the "supositions" that the elected ones read are being paid off to leave out certain details of said bill.

As I tend to view the requirements of the Fed through the lens of Constitutional limitations I really do not believe that there is this huge volume of items on which we need them acting. Slowing them down and forcing them to pay attention to their work is important. Making them accountable...even more so. I'm tired of them behaving differently than common sense dictates.

Budget is another area. Personally, if you are certain you only have $20.00 to spend...you don't spend $100.00. It doesn't matter how much you believe something should be done...if you don't have the money...you don't spend it. Raising the debt ceiling just irritates me to no end. Pay for it from cashflow or don't fvcking do it. Period.

And here's where the thread unravels into disagreement on what things the Fed SHOULD be spending money on...

[Etzell]

Hey, if something was written on the thing you're about to wipe your ass with, you'd probably read it as well.

[Crazycarl]

Originally Posted by Innoc

Budget is another area. Personally, if you are certain you only have $20.00 to spend...you don't spend $100.00. It doesn't matter how much you believe something should be done...if you don't have the money...you don't spend it.

I don't have an army to keep debt collectors away. The government does.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by Innoc

As I tend to view the requirements of the Fed through the lens of Constitutional limitations I really do not believe that there is this huge volume of items on which we need them acting. Slowing them down and forcing them to pay attention to their work is important. Making them accountable...even more so. I'm tired of them behaving differently than common sense dictates.

Budget is another area. Personally, if you are certain you only have $20.00 to spend...you don't spend $100.00. It doesn't matter how much you believe something should be done...if you don't have the money...you don't spend it. Raising the debt ceiling just irritates me to no end. Pay for it from cashflow or don't fvcking do it. Period.

And here's where the thread unravels into disagreement on what things the Fed SHOULD be spending money on...

While I agree with this on a personal level, it's not entirely practical. It really depends on the situation at hand. On an everyday type of thing, I completely agree. However, there are "unforseen events" that can cause havoc to this ideology.

Several examples:

On the "homebound" front; You save what you can, live within your budget(even allowing for usual maintenance(sp) on your posessions)... then something you were not expecting happens, and you are forced to borrow money to repair/rectify. Not allowing for that eventuality leaves you vulnerable to more events you didn't prepare for(either through shortsightedness, or from "natural events" that were unforeseen. Hindsight is always 20-20.

On the national front; The government is primarilly responcible for the protection of it's citizens. That entails many things. From maintaining the infrastructure of roads and utilities, to the transport of goods from one place to another, to justice for criminal behavior, national defense, among many other things. The good of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Although this later became the desires of the many, outweigh the desires of the few.... and even later became the power of the few decide the destiny of the many. As stated in "Star Wars: Episode III": All those who gain power are afraid to lose it.

I can't tell you how much I believe this line is true. It's not just democrats or republicans.... it's ALL of them. Ever single politician.

This country, like every Empire in history, is going to fall. It's not my desire, but it's a fact. Many have lasted much longer than this one, but this one is deteriorating at a rate that will doom it much sooner than many of it's predecessors.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by Iggy

That was exactly my point. Sad part is, the politicians themselves are also brown-nosers who want to simply be reelected and keep getting paid. I think there are a few politicians who actually want to do a good job, but they are outnumbered so bad it's not funny.

Wanna know why? Knowledge is power. Politicians have screwed up incentives, and the capability for abuse. If incentives were skewed correctly, politicians and political problems would be solved.

[battery]

Originally Posted by Iggy

Well, at least we know they're reading something. I still can't fathom how anyone can read an 1100 page bill in a few days, understand it, and vote on it. Especially considering how many bills are pushed through quickly. There is no way anyone can read that much in a short time.

How? I will give you a hint: Staff.

A typical Congressmen have a team of advisors whose job is to go through complex bills, take a position, and point out the hidden issues. The elected official would make a decision based on their recommendation, along with his own wisdom.

The floors of the House and Senate are only tips of an iceberg. The lawmaking "industry" in Washington consists of tens of thousands of experts. The well-being of our nation is entrusted in the hands of these people.

[stray kitten]

I think if we all adopt a rule... never re-elect the same person to office for a few cycles - say a decade. They might get the point that they are public SERVANTS. Not pretend CEO's, directors or power brokers of the most evil nontransparent secretive corrupt corporation on earth: the US Government. It's hard to keep power when there are no long standing imperialistic power bases to manipulate it. Once that is broken perhaps we can start keeping around the really good ones but still hold them accountable. In fact elect the fucktard candidates. The more dissimilar and disorganized they are the better for us. It's been partisan politics all along anyway. They just pass hundreds of thousands of pages of toilet paper anyway just to be doing something to feel important . Or to get a pretty picture of them on the nightly news. "Hey look I did something!!!!"

fucking tossers. Oh sorry that's angry rhetoric we are just supposed to be quiet and go home to our fireproof houses and watch the tele.

[Iggy]

I'm WAY ahead of you, I haven't voted for an incumbant(except a very select few on the local level) since I was old enough to vote in '85.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by stray kitten

I think if we all adopt a rule... never re-elect the same person to office for a few cycles - say a decade. They might get the point that they are public SERVANTS. Not pretend CEO's, directors or power brokers of the most evil nontransparent secretive corrupt corporation on earth: the US Government. It's hard to keep power when there are no long standing imperialistic power bases to manipulate it. Once that is broken perhaps we can start keeping around the really good ones but still hold them accountable. In fact elect the fucktard candidates. The more dissimilar and disorganized they are the better for us. It's been partisan politics all along anyway. They just pass hundreds of thousands of pages of toilet paper anyway just to be doing something to feel important . Or to get a pretty picture of them on the nightly news. "Hey look I did something!!!!"

fucking tossers. Oh sorry that's angry rhetoric we are just supposed to be quiet and go home to our fireproof houses and watch the tele.

D.R.I.P.

Though not a guiding philosophy for me it turns out to be a good description of my typical voting pattern. Most elected officials tend to do things that overstep with me wherein I cannot, in good conscience, ever vote for them again.

[Lost]

Meh, there have been people saying that the U.S. is doomed since the 1800's. And while yes, technically, they haven't been proven wrong, there is a lot farther for the country to fall before it is taken apart and taken over. I imagine it will come in the form of revolution. Maybe even a relatively bloodless one, if we take a few pages from our British brethren.

But you know, we can essentially say that the U.S. was reformed after the Civil War even though we maintained our original documentation.

Originally Posted by Iggy

On the national front; The government is primarilly responcible for the protection of it's citizens.

I gotta disagree on this. The government's responsibility is protecting the government. Until there is no profit in being involved in the government, this will always be the case. We get protected by proxy because there must be warm bodies to fund the government and those involved with it.

[Iggy]

You're right, I worded that wrong. The government is supposed to protect it's citizenry.

[Lost]

I knew what your really meant