Mandatory Minimum Amount of Time prior to voting on a bill?

[BigBarney]

should the government enact a mandatory minimum amount of time prior to the vote on a proposed state or federal legislative bill?

say like, 30 minutes per page?

this would allow us to actually hold our elected officials accountable for their actions as they would have had sufficient time to actually read and properly understand the legalese that is contained within a bill.

yay/nay?

 

[DominionSeraph]

New fillibuster: Tack 100,000 blank pages onto a bill. Hooray for a new procedural rule for Republicans to misuse!

 

[BigBarney]

New fillibuster: Tack 100,000 blank pages onto a bill.

10 seconds per word? do you want to define it as 'word contained within the oxford english dictionary'?

 

[michal1980]

New fillibuster: Tack 100,000 blank pages onto a bill. Hooray for a new procedural rule for Republicans to misuse!

or we get Obamacare which everyone votes on, but no one reads.

"we have to pass it to know whats in it".


brilliant government leadership. Why are you so afraid of showing the public what your law writing is?

 

[fskimospy]

It's pointless. Congressmen don't read bills anyway, their staffers do.

I see Pelosi misquoted so often it must be on purpose. She was saying to pass the bill to the American people would find out what was in it, not Congress.

 

[dank69]

Or, you could read it after it has been passed and still hold them accountable.

 

[PokerGuy]

Or, you could read it after it has been passed and still hold them accountable.

.... but then it's already law and much more difficult to fix. It also takes a lot of time, so in the meantime you end up with crappy legislation often crafted to suit the whims of the lobbyists.

Personally, I'd be in favor of a mandatory 5 business day publicity period -- any law to be passed in the house or senate must be available in its entirety to the general public for a full 5 business days (on a website) before lawmakers can vote on it. Transparency is a good thing.

 

[thraashman]

or we get Obamacare which everyone votes on, but no one reads.

"we have to pass it to know whats in it".


brilliant government leadership. Why are you so afraid of showing the public what your law writing is?

Or there's the other side where the GOP held up the NDAA until the absolute last minute so that Obama had one day to decide to sign it, contentious portions and all, or veto it and have the military without funds and soldiers without pay.

 

[nehalem256]

If we have to let bills be posted for 5 days before voting how will Congress by able to come to last minute agreements on raising the debt ceiling, the fiscal cliff, etc...

 

[Matt1970]

New fillibuster: Tack 100,000 blank pages onto a bill. Hooray for a new procedural rule for Republicans to misuse!

Every bill was supposed to be available for 5 days online before Obama signed it.

 

[Matt1970]

Or, you could read it after it has been passed and still hold them accountable.

It's too late by then.

 

[FerrelGeek]

We already have transparency, Obama promised.

I like your idea though. A measure like that 'should' be pretty abuse free, unless the dems decide to interpret what a 'day' is.

.... but then it's already law and much more difficult to fix. It also takes a lot of time, so in the meantime you end up with crappy legislation often crafted to suit the whims of the lobbyists.

Personally, I'd be in favor of a mandatory 5 business day publicity period -- any law to be passed in the house or senate must be available in its entirety to the general public for a full 5 business days (on a website) before lawmakers can vote on it. Transparency is a good thing.

 

[airdata]

There absolutely needs to be change.

I believe Herman Cain talked about a maximum page count on bills so that people do read them.

The current practice is simply bullshit and we all know it. We make jokes about senators hiding pieces of legislation inside of unrelated legislature which has a higher chance of passing a vote.

It sounds criminal and in 2013 we should know bullshit when we see it.

 

[rudder]

Six minutes seems to be fine. If the 150+ page fiscal cliff bill can be distributed and voted on within 6 minutes... and pass. Do congressmen really need any more time than that?

 

[stormkroe]

I say require a signed summary of the bill, written in the politician's own words, so that his/her understanding of the bill (and areas that stand out more to that person) are on public record. It would be an even more accurate view of their politics than their voting history. Do this, and no waiting period will be necessary, it just can't be voted on until the last summary is filed.

 

[PokerGuy]

It's pointless. Congressmen don't read bills anyway, their staffers do.

That's true, it's the staffers that craft and read these things anyway. However, I think it's more important that the public have a chance to see exactly what is in the bill before it gets passed. I don't see why anyone would be opposed to that, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum.

 

[werepossum]

It's pointless. Congressmen don't read bills anyway, their staffers do.

I see Pelosi misquoted so often it must be on purpose. She was saying to pass the bill to the American people would find out what was in it, not Congress.

Pointless to allow enough time to read a bill before voting on it? Seriously? You're actually fine with one or a handful of lobbyists and staffers crafting a bill and Congresscritters voting on it based solely on its title and their party affiliation?

At one point in the 2009/2010 Congress Republicans called the Democrat leadership for vo9ting on bill without even one copy on the floor. Turns out the bill hadn't actually been written, so Pelosi had to extend the voting period to finish the bill and get one copy on the floor. Representatives were literally voting on making into law a bill not yet in existence.

If you're okay with this kind of behavior I can only conclude you think voting on laws is itself archaic and therefore that the Democrat leadership should simply be allowed to write laws without anyone reading them and voting on them.

 

[ShawnD1]

or we get Obamacare which everyone votes on, but no one reads.

"we have to pass it to know whats in it".


brilliant government leadership. Why are you so afraid of showing the public what your law writing is?

This crap does get really infuriating. Wasn't the patriot act heavily changed at like midnight or something, then it was voted on the next morning? wtf is this bullshit? Then Michael Moore had that 9/11 movie where he got a politician to flat out say they don't read most of the crap they vote on. This is why America is doomed.

 

[airdata]

This crap does get really infuriating. Wasn't the patriot act heavily changed at like midnight or something, then it was voted on the next morning? wtf is this bullshit? Then Michael Moore had that 9/11 movie where he got a politician to flat out say they don't read most of the crap they vote on. This is why America is doomed.

I know somebody who does read all of it.



Ron Paul

 

[airdata]

I say require a signed summary of the bill, written in the politician's own words, so that his/her understanding of the bill (and areas that stand out more to that person) are on public record. It would be an even more accurate view of their politics than their voting history. Do this, and no waiting period will be necessary, it just can't be voted on until the last summary is filed.

That sounds good. Should be their obligation to their constituents.

 

[dank69]

That sounds good. Should be their obligation to their constituents.

Sounds good? So if someone doesn't want a bill to pass they can just never submit a summary?

 

[stormkroe]

Sounds good? So if someone doesn't want a bill to pass they can just never submit a summary?

Give them a week to file their summery then dock them pay for not doing their job. The roadblockers will pay from their own pockets for not playing ball.

 

[dank69]

Give them a week to file their summery then dock them pay for not doing their job. The roadblockers will pay from their own pockets for not playing ball.

What's to stop them from having their staff write the summaries?

 

[ShawnD1]

I know somebody who does read all of it.



Ron Paul

God bless Ron Paul. I wouldn't want him to be president, but he's an important character. He keeps it real.

 

[werepossum]

What's to stop them from having their staff write the summaries?

I don't think it's important who writes the summaries. For that matter, I wouldn't trust the summaries any farther than I could hurl Rush Limbaugh with Barney Frank taking conversion therapy on his lap. The devil's in the details, such as when one finds that 85% of a "farm bill" is food stamps. The entire bill needs to be read, top to bottom. I don't even care if it's the Congresscritter or one staffer - delegation to capable subordinates is an important part of leadership - but every bill should be read and debated AND be presented to one's constituents before being voted up or down. Have to put a time limit though; we don't need a filibuster in the House too.

God bless Ron Paul. I wouldn't want him to be president, but he's an important character. He keeps it real.

Agreed, 100%. Ron Paul is possibly the only person who has read 100% of these bills when they are enacted. And I too would not want him to be President.