@SonnyTheWhiteDwarf I think the idea is that they would have been more likely to choose it without that bit on the end. I dunno. After some 20,000 questions were submitted, the chances were against it anyway.
@AntiCitizenX Read it and see. It's enforced in the courts by virtue of the fact that, if a law wasn't passed that way, someone can argue in court that it's not the law and they're not guilty.
Yes, but the onus is on you to prove that Mr. Senator did not read the bill. What happens when he simply says "yes I read it?" How do you prove in court that he did not?
@AntiCitizenX The bill requires him to have either sat through a reading before a quorum--where roll would have been taken--or sign an affidavit saying he read it. In the absence of either of these, what he says doesn't mean a blasted thing under this bill.
@AntiCitizenX The bill requires him to have either sat through a reading before a quorum--where roll would have been taken--or sign an affidavit saying he read it. In the absence of either of these, what he says doesn't mean a blasted thing under this bill.
Oh hey, there's a link in the crotch bar. Now I see what you meant by "read it and see."
Yes, I can see how requiring them to sit through the damn thing will encourage simplification of the law. No more of this 1300 page nonsense.
Downside... suppose they just play Freecell on their laptops while the bill is read? Remember, everything you devise to make the world better can just be twisted or circumvented.
Perhaps, at least, it can slow down the damage they inflict?
@AntiCitizenX the upside is if someone puts through a bill with thousands of pages, congress can't get anything done until the reading is finished. This gives congress an incentive not to create bills the size of phone books. If congress wants to get anything done as quickly as they currently do, they'll need to keep their bills to a reasonable length.
im pretty sure a 1300 page bill would take a full 24 hours to read. it's not realistic to think anyone has actually read them.
Your questions are great. The sad thing is that they'll most likely ignore questions like this and instead ask the candidates something stupid like "what kind of guns they own."
@Vamavid Well, no, because if you spot one thing in the bill that's unconstitutional you're duty-bound by your oath of office to vote against it. You don't need to read the rest of it at that point.
@AFrightfulDream No, because rules can be suspended at any time. This would be a part of the US Code, with the full force of every other Federal law.
"Would a member be forbidden from casting a vote before he has read the bill aloud to some examiner?"
He would either have to sit through the reading in front of a quorum or sign an affadavit saying he read the bill on his own. And no, he won't be arrested, the bill just won't be valid.
I hear they have recently found a gene which tells if you have psychopathic tendancies, apparently quite a large %age of top executives have it. It makes them insensitive to other peoples feelings. Rich Perry must have a double dose.
@Wordavee1 P.J. O'Rourke took the criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder (a form of psychopathy) and removed the heading, replacing it with "Politicians." Everything still fit.
@TheOnlyGodIsZeus Also, last-minute revisions are made all the time without many in Congress being aware of it, and so the bill they're voting on is vastly different than the one they THINK they're voting on.
@TheOnlyGodIsZeus "all politicians would have to do is not read this law before passing it and by your logic it would be void."
No, because the law isn't in place before it's passed, and the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.
The system doesn't give them any TIME to read the laws! For an egregious example, the Patriot Act came up for a vote before the bill was even AVAILABLE to read! And this happens all the time.
I know! Get your congressman to add that on to a bill that is sure to pass. Those who read bills will favor it. Those who don't read bills will pass it without ever knowing the provision was there!
All western countries suffer from ignorant lawmakers. In Denmark for example, 70% of the laws that are passed is legisaltion coming directly from non-elected EU Commision bureaucrats. At least american politicians have a chance of passing truly home-grown laws. The least they could do is read them!!
"if you don't think your congressperson is actually reading the bills and you think this is a problem, then vote for someone else when the time comes. thats what elections are for."
By that logic, should not the Constitution be superfluous, or even vicious?
The idea is that, because voting is generally ineffective in stopping politicos from expanding and abusing state power, you have to have some legal limits and penalties on what they can and cannot do. Given the assumptions that such limits are useful and practically applicable, don't you think that we could benefit from one that keeps the law simple and transparent enough for even a below-average citizen to grasp?
I would have to support the idea behind this question, whole heartedly. Though making it a law seems a little too far. Politicians who do vote in favor of stuff they haven't read should be publicly shamed.
@shanedk Yeah. True. The shaming stops and the public seems to forget the reason for the shaming shortly after, thanks to the pathetic short term memory the public has about these kinds of things.
The rules that mandate how Congress and the House go about their proceedings... Are those, in fact, laws? Or more like rules? A law/rule that falls under the same category as the rest of the things that govern how they act would be entirely reasonable.
@TheOnlyGodIsZeus It's enforced by the fact that if this requirement isn't met, the law is void and anyone arrested for violation of the law would be able to use that as a defense in court.
How perverse is it to insist that citizens know the law (since we're charged with obeying it under threat of force) and the lawmakers don't? If there aren't enough hours in a day to read them then THERE ARE TOO MANY LAWS!
Here's a thought: Concerned citizens may quiz congresscritters on their knowledge of recently passed laws, but not laws which are rejected. Politicos can still issue and enforce arbitrary decrees on the general population, but they have to keep them dirt-simple, or they might find themselves shipped to their own prisons. Ignorance is no excuse, remember? : D
@TheOnlyGodIsZeus Many members of congress gets more than 40% of their time in office, actually outside of congress, either on vacation or on campaigns to tell people why they're a great candidate. Not reading the bill because it's "too long" is just an excuse.
@shanedk That questions aren´t softballs. Only softballs are allowed to be asked in Fox to GOP candidates (except for Ron Paul, he is too rational for softballs)
@shanedk Well, I've looked through all of their video questions and can't find either of the questions you submitted. You can get a direct link by middle clicking and using "copy link location". But since I can't find the question to begin with, I can't link it or vote it up.
@SonnyTheWhiteDwarf I think the idea is that they would have been more likely to choose it without that bit on the end. I dunno. After some 20,000 questions were submitted, the chances were against it anyway.
shanedk 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Are you homosexual?
DistortedFaiths 5 months ago
should have cut this video at 0:12
solitary200 5 months ago
How would you enforce such a bill?
AntiCitizenX 5 months ago
@AntiCitizenX Read it and see. It's enforced in the courts by virtue of the fact that, if a law wasn't passed that way, someone can argue in court that it's not the law and they're not guilty.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
Yes, but the onus is on you to prove that Mr. Senator did not read the bill. What happens when he simply says "yes I read it?" How do you prove in court that he did not?
AntiCitizenX 5 months ago
@AntiCitizenX The bill requires him to have either sat through a reading before a quorum--where roll would have been taken--or sign an affidavit saying he read it. In the absence of either of these, what he says doesn't mean a blasted thing under this bill.
shanedk 5 months ago
@AntiCitizenX The bill requires him to have either sat through a reading before a quorum--where roll would have been taken--or sign an affidavit saying he read it. In the absence of either of these, what he says doesn't mean a blasted thing under this bill.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
Oh hey, there's a link in the crotch bar. Now I see what you meant by "read it and see."
Yes, I can see how requiring them to sit through the damn thing will encourage simplification of the law. No more of this 1300 page nonsense.
Downside... suppose they just play Freecell on their laptops while the bill is read? Remember, everything you devise to make the world better can just be twisted or circumvented.
Perhaps, at least, it can slow down the damage they inflict?
AntiCitizenX 5 months ago
@AntiCitizenX the upside is if someone puts through a bill with thousands of pages, congress can't get anything done until the reading is finished. This gives congress an incentive not to create bills the size of phone books. If congress wants to get anything done as quickly as they currently do, they'll need to keep their bills to a reasonable length.
im pretty sure a 1300 page bill would take a full 24 hours to read. it's not realistic to think anyone has actually read them.
TheYoo2b 1 month ago
Suggesting that government officials actually know what they are doing is asking just a little bit too much, don't you think?
JaguarJ0nes 5 months ago
Your questions are great. The sad thing is that they'll most likely ignore questions like this and instead ask the candidates something stupid like "what kind of guns they own."
mrplow8 5 months ago
yes
sebek23b 5 months ago
Would you support a bill that would allow all states to be able to recall their politicians should they feel they are not representing them properly?
Why isnt that question asked.
crackerkiller89 5 months ago
@crackerkiller89 States used to be able to do that with Senators before the 17th Amendment passed.
I think it would be a bad idea to do it with House members, though, but since they're only elected to 2-year terms it's less of an issue.
shanedk 5 months ago
Thumbs up for this one!
bamboo4tameshigiri 5 months ago
I can't find your video question on their channel to vote on. Anyone else have any luck?
lambedan 5 months ago
@AFrightfulDream There's a whole section of the bill about the Constitutional justification for it.
shanedk 5 months ago
Also reading a bill before voting against it.
Vamavid 5 months ago
@Vamavid Well, no, because if you spot one thing in the bill that's unconstitutional you're duty-bound by your oath of office to vote against it. You don't need to read the rest of it at that point.
shanedk 5 months ago 3
@shanedk Is it possible to be constitutional but dumb?
Vamavid 5 months ago
@Vamavid I guess so, yeah.
shanedk 5 months ago
@AFrightfulDream No, because rules can be suspended at any time. This would be a part of the US Code, with the full force of every other Federal law.
"Would a member be forbidden from casting a vote before he has read the bill aloud to some examiner?"
He would either have to sit through the reading in front of a quorum or sign an affadavit saying he read the bill on his own. And no, he won't be arrested, the bill just won't be valid.
shanedk 5 months ago
Stanley eh? Hickory myself.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@lhvinny Cool! I'm actually closer to Denver.
shanedk 5 months ago
And take an intelligence test.
I hear they have recently found a gene which tells if you have psychopathic tendancies, apparently quite a large %age of top executives have it. It makes them insensitive to other peoples feelings. Rich Perry must have a double dose.
Wordavee1 5 months ago
@Wordavee1 P.J. O'Rourke took the criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder (a form of psychopathy) and removed the heading, replacing it with "Politicians." Everything still fit.
shanedk 5 months ago
In politics, even the following question is not gonna be answered clearly and properly : Do you think productivity requires competent people?
newcoleco 5 months ago
I hope this question gets an answer.
jebus6kryst 5 months ago
@TheOnlyGodIsZeus Also, last-minute revisions are made all the time without many in Congress being aware of it, and so the bill they're voting on is vastly different than the one they THINK they're voting on.
shanedk 5 months ago
@TheOnlyGodIsZeus "all politicians would have to do is not read this law before passing it and by your logic it would be void."
No, because the law isn't in place before it's passed, and the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.
The system doesn't give them any TIME to read the laws! For an egregious example, the Patriot Act came up for a vote before the bill was even AVAILABLE to read! And this happens all the time.
shanedk 5 months ago
Another good question.
Thanks for posting this. I hope they use both of your questions.
SiriusMined 5 months ago
I know! Get your congressman to add that on to a bill that is sure to pass. Those who read bills will favor it. Those who don't read bills will pass it without ever knowing the provision was there!
Astrobrant2 5 months ago
All western countries suffer from ignorant lawmakers. In Denmark for example, 70% of the laws that are passed is legisaltion coming directly from non-elected EU Commision bureaucrats. At least american politicians have a chance of passing truly home-grown laws. The least they could do is read them!!
Clausfarre 5 months ago
@TheOnlyGodIsZeus
"if you don't think your congressperson is actually reading the bills and you think this is a problem, then vote for someone else when the time comes. thats what elections are for."
By that logic, should not the Constitution be superfluous, or even vicious?
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 5 months ago
-
The idea is that, because voting is generally ineffective in stopping politicos from expanding and abusing state power, you have to have some legal limits and penalties on what they can and cannot do. Given the assumptions that such limits are useful and practically applicable, don't you think that we could benefit from one that keeps the law simple and transparent enough for even a below-average citizen to grasp?
PanzerDivisionBOM 5 months ago
@TheOnlyGodIsZeus "actual bills usually have to be pretty much filled with legal jargon to make it a tight law"
No, they don't, in fact, the more they rely on legal jargon the easier they are to manipulate.
shanedk 5 months ago
I would have to support the idea behind this question, whole heartedly. Though making it a law seems a little too far. Politicians who do vote in favor of stuff they haven't read should be publicly shamed.
thecaneater 5 months ago
@thecaneater
Wouldn't that be all politicians though? :P
ebalosus2 5 months ago
@thecaneater Yeah, we've seen how well public shaming works with politicians...it doesn't!
shanedk 5 months ago 6
@shanedk Yeah. True. The shaming stops and the public seems to forget the reason for the shaming shortly after, thanks to the pathetic short term memory the public has about these kinds of things.
The rules that mandate how Congress and the House go about their proceedings... Are those, in fact, laws? Or more like rules? A law/rule that falls under the same category as the rest of the things that govern how they act would be entirely reasonable.
thecaneater 5 months ago
@thecaneater No, they're rules and Congress can suspend them whenever they want.
shanedk 5 months ago
Lawyers are in that mode...so yes
coldshot5555 5 months ago
but reading sucks
dirtywhores4cash 5 months ago
It's a good question. I think I might have to ask it if a politician has the nerve to show up to the local polytechnic ;)
ebalosus2 5 months ago
@TheOnlyGodIsZeus It's enforced by the fact that if this requirement isn't met, the law is void and anyone arrested for violation of the law would be able to use that as a defense in court.
How perverse is it to insist that citizens know the law (since we're charged with obeying it under threat of force) and the lawmakers don't? If there aren't enough hours in a day to read them then THERE ARE TOO MANY LAWS!
shanedk 5 months ago 3
@TheOnlyGodIsZeus
Here's a thought: Concerned citizens may quiz congresscritters on their knowledge of recently passed laws, but not laws which are rejected. Politicos can still issue and enforce arbitrary decrees on the general population, but they have to keep them dirt-simple, or they might find themselves shipped to their own prisons. Ignorance is no excuse, remember? : D
PanzerDivisionBOM 5 months ago
@TheOnlyGodIsZeus Many members of congress gets more than 40% of their time in office, actually outside of congress, either on vacation or on campaigns to tell people why they're a great candidate. Not reading the bill because it's "too long" is just an excuse.
PerfectionObsessive 5 months ago
Some of the laws are so long maybe this would put a stop to some of that shit..
no1saphead 5 months ago
great question
thetom54 5 months ago
That's a really good and fair question.
Which means that it will never get asked on Fox.
coladict 5 months ago 22
@coladict You can vote for the question if you can find it; there doesn't seem to be any way to link directly to it though.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk That questions aren´t softballs. Only softballs are allowed to be asked in Fox to GOP candidates (except for Ron Paul, he is too rational for softballs)
hedleypanama 5 months ago
@shanedk Well, I've looked through all of their video questions and can't find either of the questions you submitted. You can get a direct link by middle clicking and using "copy link location". But since I can't find the question to begin with, I can't link it or vote it up.
2000warrior 5 months ago
@2000warrior Maybe they have to pass some kind of moderator? I don't know.
shanedk 5 months ago