Why we need the "Read the Bills Act", "One Subject at a Time Act" & "Write the Laws Act" by Darryl W. Perry
(libertarian)
Friday, August 8, 2008
It is a sad statement that career politicians and bureaucrats have become so ingrained in Washington DC, that we even need to mention passing these bills. But these "public servants" have strayed so far from the Constitution; the very things they swear to uphold; that they no longer understand the restraints that were placed on the Federal Government.
The first of these three bills, "Read the Bills Act", would require that all legislation be read before the FULL HOUSE & FULL SENATE seven days before a vote. In these seven days, the legislation will be posted online so that our "representatives" can get feedback from their constituents; and nothing can be added to OR taken away from the bill. Why do we need this? Quite simply, Congress keeps passing massively large bills, adding and deleting portions of the bills just before a vote and voting on bills with little or no debate and little to no input from their constituents.
Next is the "One Subject at a Time Act", which would require all pieces of legislation deal with one specific subject and not include unrelated riders or amendments. OSTA would also require that each bill be given a title that describes the purpose of the bill.
Why do we need this? Congress continues to pass unpopular legislation as part of a bill they know will pass. Examples include "REAL ID" which passed as part of the "Emergency, Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief" bill, that everyone was afraid to oppose. Most didn't know it was included, because they didn't read the bill.
Finally, we have the "Write the Laws Act" which would require Congress, not bureaucratic agencies, pass all "federal regulations".
Why do we need this? The Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws; Congress "loaned" that power to bureaucratic agencies. Downsize DC states, "Each year bureaucrats issue tens-of-thousands of new dictates. None of these rules are written by Congress, read by Congress, debated by Congress, or voted on by Congress. We grant judges and juries the power to decide guilt and render punishments. But Congress has loaned bureaucrats this power too. Groups of unelected bureaucrats serve the combined role of legislators, police, judges, juries, and punishers."
IF we elect people that support these Bills, we will see a drastic change in the way "business" is handled in Washington DC and Congress will be brought closer to the restraints put in place by the Constitution.
The views expressed
in this article are those of Darryl W. Perry only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Darryl W. Perry is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-08-08 17:02:08
Nope, not for me. I don't think the way to get a better government is to encourage a corrupt congress to pass more legislation.
Micro legislation designed to produce specific outcomes by constraining indivuals such that they cannot legally exercise common sense or adjust priorities to changing conditions is a bad idea. It is a bad idea when applied to TSA passenger screeners and it is a bad idea when applied to Congress. Legislating to a lowest acceptable standard of behavior is the best way to ensure that only those whose behavior is closest to that minimum will seek the position.
A much more powerful and effective strategy is to groom your candidates,starting at the local level, by not ever voting for someone who doesn't hold themselves to a higher standard than the minimum required by law. Hold every candidate's feet to the fire by asking hard questions at every public opportunity. Tell your peers why what you are doing is important. In my experience it catchs on like ... well, not like a wild fire I suppose but it does catch on with some people. They just need a responsible, rational example and a solid purpose. I have been so impressed with the numbers who have just started this behavior in the past year and who are still gathering momentum.
I will always support holding candidates to a higher standard over legislating a minimum standard for acceptable behavior.
Posted By: Darryl W. Perry
Date: 2008-08-09 08:18:08
Please tell me how requiring Congress to actually READ the bills they vote on, WRITE the laws & passing bills that deal with ONE SUBJECT isn't holding them to a high standard? How does this not help get us back within the CONTITUTIONAL bounds placed upon the government?
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
