Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Because a short and sweet legislative proposal is too easy for everyone to read and understand.I saw the pamphlet Boehner loves to hold up as an alternative to real health care reform. It was as thick as the Big Book of Jewish Sports Legends.
And a bill of few pages is a bad thing?
Obviously, it is direct and focused.....not sure why it would warrant ridicule....
They want it as thick as War and Peace so that no one, not even members of Congress, can read it and understand what's being voted on.
Well, the statement 'And the country did just fine for 150 years without all of them' is more than a bit disingenuous, isn't it? After all, for the first 150 years of this country we did just fine by keeping Blacks in their place. We did just fine by keeping women out of the seats of power in both government and the corporate world. We did just fine burning up fossil fuels with no regard to their supply, availability or the political problem securing them.OK. We can add Housing and Urban Development, Dept of Energy, and about 3/4 of Homeland Security.
None of those things are constitutional functions of government. And the country did just fine for 150 years without all of them.
We had no slums in the first 150 years, did we? Of course we did! That's why an agency like HUD became necessary. Not to cheese off the slum lords (although I know there are still slum lords getting cheesed off by having to maintain their properties to Housing Quality Standards).
Conservatives inevitably turn into Constitutional scholars when discussing federal agencies. None of the self-styled Constitutional scholars ever manage to successfully challenge the constitutionality of any of these agencies in court, however. Why is that?
Please point to one problem any of these agencies have solved that they were created for.
No one challenges the constitutionality because no one has standing.
Well, the statement 'And the country did just fine for 150 years without all of them' is more than a bit disingenuous, isn't it? After all, for the first 150 years of this country we did just fine by keeping Blacks in their place. We did just fine by keeping women out of the seats of power in both government and the corporate world. We did just fine burning up fossil fuels with no regard to their supply, availability or the political problem securing them.
We had no slums in the first 150 years, did we? Of course we did! That's why an agency like HUD became necessary. Not to cheese off the slum lords (although I know there are still slum lords getting cheesed off by having to maintain their properties to Housing Quality Standards).
Conservatives inevitably turn into Constitutional scholars when discussing federal agencies. None of the self-styled Constitutional scholars ever manage to successfully challenge the constitutionality of any of these agencies in court, however. Why is that?
Please point to one problem any of these agencies have solved that they were created for.
No one challenges the constitutionality because no one has standing.
Now you want someone to quote legal volumes for you? Forget it. You're just looking for a copout because your argument fails so badly.
Where do they figure the government is too large specifically? Too many consumer protections? Too many environmental protections? Too many financial protections? Too much worker safety protections?
I wonder which cops they want taken off the beat?
I wonder if they fully understand the consequences?
Because a short and sweet legislative proposal is too easy for everyone to read and understand.And a bill of few pages is a bad thing?
Obviously, it is direct and focused.....not sure why it would warrant ridicule....
They want it as thick as War and Peace so that no one, not even members of Congress, can read it and understand what's being voted on.
Once again, for all the idiots here, if it were short and sweet, it would soon become just a goddamned piece of paper, with absolutely no effect whatsoever. While I realize that short and sweet is how many of you got through school, it's different out here in adult-land where rules and laws need to be specific in order to cover all sorts of possible legal escape clauses.
They throw 'big government' like a Molotov cocktail. When they bomb Medicare they lose the retired and their health care providers.Where do they figure the government is too large specifically? Too many consumer protections? Too many environmental protections? Too many financial protections? Too much worker safety protections?
I wonder which cops they want taken off the beat? I wonder if they fully understand the consequences?
The funny part is, they believe government is too large, but don't you touch their MediCare and of course we have to have the largest and most expensive military in the fucking world, right? How else can we police the entirety of the rest of the world?
Because a short and sweet legislative proposal is too easy for everyone to read and understand.
They want it as thick as War and Peace so that no one, not even members of Congress, can read it and understand what's being voted on.
Once again, for all the idiots here, if it were short and sweet, it would soon become just a goddamned piece of paper, with absolutely no effect whatsoever. While I realize that short and sweet is how many of you got through school, it's different out here in adult-land where rules and laws need to be specific in order to cover all sorts of possible legal escape clauses.
Would you agree to limit every bill passed by Congress to no more than say 4,543 words? That's how many words are in the U.S. Constitution and it did a pretty good job of being more than a 'goddamned piece of paper' wouldn't you say?
Once again, for all the idiots here, if it were short and sweet, it would soon become just a goddamned piece of paper, with absolutely no effect whatsoever. While I realize that short and sweet is how many of you got through school, it's different out here in adult-land where rules and laws need to be specific in order to cover all sorts of possible legal escape clauses.
Would you agree to limit every bill passed by Congress to no more than say 4,543 words? That's how many words are in the U.S. Constitution and it did a pretty good job of being more than a 'goddamned piece of paper' wouldn't you say?
Hardly. The Constitution was intentionally written in ambiguous language because the framers KNEW that it would be an evolving document as the nation evolved. There have been 17 amendments thus far and a gazillion USSC determinations.
Would you agree to limit every bill passed by Congress to no more than say 4,543 words? That's how many words are in the U.S. Constitution and it did a pretty good job of being more than a 'goddamned piece of paper' wouldn't you say?
Hardly. The Constitution was intentionally written in ambiguous language because the framers KNEW that it would be an evolving document as the nation evolved. There have been 17 amendments thus far and a gazillion USSC determinations.
Sigh. Well I certainly hope you are in minority in how you see the Constitution, Maggie, and also in your appreciation for disguising and obfusicating what the government does in mind-numbing tombs of legislation that batteries of competent lawyers have problems analyzing.
I prefer a government who operates in the open fresh air and doesn't try to control the people by not letting them know what is being done to them.
And PS: I have no clue what your last sentence has to do with the length of the Constitution.
And PS: I have no clue what your last sentence has to do with the length of the Constitution.
Well then kindly indulge me as I educate you.
However irrelevent you think the original Constitution to be, it apparently contained enough understandable concepts in 4,543 words to create a nation that was more free and offered more opportunity and prosperity than any other nation has accomplished in the history of the world. I appreciate that such a concept is not important to a liberal, but bear with me.
I am pretty darn sure that those who thrashed out concepts among themselves and formally debated for hours, compared notes, worked through problems, and put their reputation and fortunes on the line for that Constituion would be horrified at a 2000+ page piece of legislation that nobody voting on it fully understands or even knows what all is in it. Evenmoreso, they would be horrified at a government that thinks it is okay to pass legislation in which the public is not fully informed and does not understand.
They would consider you to be part of the British tyranny in thinking that government has the right to do whatever to the people including obscuring its method, intent, and purpose in mountains of paper that even the politicians admit they don't understand how it works.
Freedom loving people I think would agree. If it is too complicated to be explained in 4000 or so words or less, it should be returned to committee for some simplification. Nobody should be voting on matters affecting other people without fully understanding what they are doing.
You probably disagree.
I hope the majority of Americans don't disagree.
And PS: I have no clue what your last sentence has to do with the length of the Constitution.
Well then kindly indulge me as I educate you.
However irrelevent you think the original Constitution to be, it apparently contained enough understandable concepts in 4,543 words to create a nation that was more free and offered more opportunity and prosperity than any other nation has accomplished in the history of the world. I appreciate that such a concept is not important to a liberal, but bear with me.
I am pretty darn sure that those who thrashed out concepts among themselves and formally debated for hours, compared notes, worked through problems, and put their reputation and fortunes on the line for that Constituion would be horrified at a 2000+ page piece of legislation that nobody voting on it fully understands or even knows what all is in it. Evenmoreso, they would be horrified at a government that thinks it is okay to pass legislation in which the public is not fully informed and does not understand.
They would consider you to be part of the British tyranny in thinking that government has the right to do whatever to the people including obscuring its method, intent, and purpose in mountains of paper that even the politicians admit they don't understand how it works.
Freedom loving people I think would agree. If it is too complicated to be explained in 4000 or so words or less, it should be returned to committee for some simplification. Nobody should be voting on matters affecting other people without fully understanding what they are doing.
You probably disagree.
I hope the majority of Americans don't disagree.
PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop trying to "educate" me. I'm too educated, which is why I can see both sides of most issues, including this one. Since you can only see YOUR "side," your 'lessons' will always fail, especially since you make ridiculous assumptions like "don't know what they're voting on/don't understand it."
The legislators understand; I understand it. (Ain't rocket science.) Some members of the public don't understand bills; I suspect MOST people don't READ any of the bills that pass through the process! What is your point? Did the 75 million citizens read and understand the original Constitution? I seriously doubt it. So your POINT is moot.
Sen. Coburn Forces Reading of 767-Page Amendment - Sen. Baucus Admits Senators Dont Understand the Bill
Wednesday, December 16th at 12:44PM EST
(Note: After the exchange below, in response to the Republican effort to force a reading of the Sanders single-payer system amendment, Senator Sanders took to the floor and withdrew his amendment.)
A short time ago, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) objected to the the unanimous consent request that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with when Senator Bernie Sanders (admitted Socialist - VT) single-payer amendment (SA#2837), totalling 767 pages, was called up. According to one calculation, this could take 38 hours to read. It is notable that there are two co-sponsors: Sherrod Brown and Roland Burris.
Right before he did that, Senator Coburn asked unanimous consent for an amendment that would, in effect, certify that all Senators have read and understand the bill.
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) objected. The specific excange, notable in its absurdity, can be seen here. The specific text follows, and you can see a general summary of todays floor proceedings here.
MR. COBURN: MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE ANOTHER UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST. FOLLOWING CONSENT REQUEST WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH A COBURN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD CERTIFY THAT EVERY MEMBER OF THE SENATE HAS READ THE BILL AND UNDERSTANDS IT BEFORE THEY VOTE ON THE BILL.
AND THE REASON I ASK THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THAT AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED IS THATS EXACTLY WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPECT US TO BE DOING. AND SO WE WE DONT HAVE A BILL RIGHT NOW. WE DONT KNOW WHATS GOING TO BE IN THE BILL. THE CHAIRMAN HAS A GOOD IDEA OF WHATS GOING TO BE IN THE BILL. BUT HE DOESNT KNOW FOR SURE. ONLY TWO SETS OF PEOPLE, SENATOR REID AND HIS STAFF AND C.B.O. KNOW WHATS GOING TO BE IN THE BILL. I SUSPECT SOMEBODY AT THE WHITE HOUSE MIGHT. BUT WE OUGHT TO WE OUGHT TO TAKE AND EMBRACE THIS IDEA OF TRANSPARENCY AND RESPONSIBILITY THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN EXPECT EVERY ONE OF US TO HAVE READ THIS BILL PLUS THE AMENDED BILL AND AND CERTIFY THAT WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING FOR WHAT WERE DOING TO HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA WITH THIS BILL. AN ID ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THAT BE ACCEPTED.
MR. BAUCUS: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION?
MR. BAUCUS: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM MONTANA.
MR. BAUCUS: RESERVING THE RIGHT TO OBJECT.
I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THE BASIC UNDERLYING IMPORT THAT WE SHOULD KNOW WHAT WERE VOTING ON HERE. I MUST SAY TO MY GOOD FRIEND THAT PRESUMES A CERTAIN LEVEL OF OF PERCEPTION ON MY PART AND UNDERSTANDING IN DELVING INTO THE MINDS OF THE SENATOR, THAT NOT ONLY DO THEY READ, BUT TAKE THE TIME TO UNDERSTAND? WHAT DOES UNDERSTAND MEAN? UNDERSTAND THE FIRST, SECOND LEVELS OF QUESTIONS?
I THINK IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CERTIFY THAT ANY SENATOR FULLY UNDERSTOOD. THEY HEY READ, BUT NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.
MR. COBURN: I WOULD CLARIFY MY REQUEST. THAT THE INDIVIDUAL CERTIFY THEMSELVES. IM NOT ASKING SOME GROUP OF SENATORS TO CERTIFY SOME OTHER SENATOR. IM SAYING TOM COBURN TELL HIS CONSTITUENCY IVE READ THIS PUPPY, IVE SPENT THE TIME ON IT, IVE READ THE MANAGERS AMENDMENT, AND I, IN FACT, CERTIFY TO THE PEOPLE OF OKLAHOMA, I KNOW HOW TERRIBLE ITS GOING TO BE FOR THEIR HEALTH CARE.
MR. BAUCUS: THE SENATOR IS ALWAYS FREE TO MAKE ANY REPRESENTATION HE WANTS. IF HE WANTS TO CERTIFY HE HAS READ IT, HE HAS UNDERSTOOD IT, THATS THE SENATORS PRIVILEGE.
MR. COBURN: THE SENATOR WONT ACCEPT THAT WE AS A BODY ON 1/6 OF THE ECONOMY OUGHT TO KNOW WHAT WERE DOING.
MR. BAUCUS: I CANT CERTIFY ANY MEMBER OF THE SENATE HAS DONE ANYTHING AROUND HERE. NEITHER CAN THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA. IF THE SENATOR WANTS TO CERTIFY IT, THATS GREAT. ON ANY MEASURE. BUT I CANT CERTIFY ON 100 DIFFERENT SENATORS. THATS UP TO THE DIFFERENT SENATORS. THATS UP TO THEIR MENTAL CAPACITIES AND CONSCIENCES AND SO FORTH. I CANT CERTIFY THAT.
(CNSNews.com) - During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill.
I love these members, they get up and say, Read the bill, said Conyers.
What good is reading the bill if its a thousand pages and you dont have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?
Link to video of Conyers making the statement here:
Rep. Conyers: Don’t Read the Bill — Making Government Transparent and Accountable - Sunlight Foundation Blog
