Read the Bills act

Dejavu

Quis custodiet ipsos cust
Adventurer
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
2,555
Age
42
Location
somewhere...
Main Job
Bard-Male
Secondary Job
Monk-Male
Third Job
Thief-Male
Server
Quetzalcoatl
FFXI
Dejavu
FFXIV
Won't play this game
The following is the full text version of what i think may be the most important legislation that desperately needs to be passed. What it states is basically that if you want to vote yes on any bill put before congress or the senate you must promise that you have actually read it. It sounds like a mere technicality that you would require them to read the bills but it is something that is rarely done in practice. The person who proposed the cap and trade legislation recently was not even aware of all of the previsions that were in it yet the congress passed the cap and trade bill which was 1200 pages long in one day.

Sadly no congressman or woman has been willing to sponsor this legislation so far so i am looking to perhaps get some of your opinions on how necessary you believe it is for legislators to read the bills.

If you actually feel the need to get involved the group that is spearheading this bill is Downsize DC

110TH CONGRESS
2ND SESSION
H.R. ________

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. __________ introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on Rules
A BILL

To require before final passage of any Bill, other than a private Bill, the printing and full verbatim reading of the text of such Bill, and each and every amendment attached thereto, to each house of Congress called to order with a quorum physically assembled throughout, the entry of such a printing and reading in the journal of each house of Congress, and the verbatim publication of every such Bill, and each and every amendment thereto, on the official Internet web site of the Senate and the House of Representatives at least seven days before floor consideration and final passage of any Bill, and each and every amendment thereto by each house of Congress; and to provide for enforcement of the printing, reading, entry, publication, recording and affidavit requirements herein.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

This Act may be cited as the “Read the Bills Act of 2006.”

SECTION 2. FINDINGS

(a) The United States Constitution vests all legislative powers granted therein to the United States Congress, members of which are elected by the people, with each member accountable to represent the people of either the State or of the House District in the exercise of legislative power.

(b) To the end that Congress be politically and legally accountable to the people, Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution requires each House of Congress to keep a journal of its proceedings and from time to time publish the same.

(c) To the end that no legislation be passed without effective representation of the people’s interest by the elected members of the Congress, Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution states that only a “Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate ... shall ... become ... a Law....”

(d) According to Section I of Thomas Jefferson’s 1812 Manual of Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the Senate of the United States (“Jefferson’s Manual”), “nothing tended more to throw power into the hands of administration and those who acted with the majority ... than a neglect of, or departure from, the rules of proceeding [which] operated as a check and control of the actions of the majority [and] a shelter and protection to the minority.”



(e) According to Sections XXII and XL of Jefferson’s Manual, it was the rule of the Senate that every bill receive three readings, two full readings by the Clerk of the Senate, and a third reading of the title of the bill only provided that “every member of the Senate had a printed copy [of said bill] in his hand.”

(f) According to Sections XXIV, XXV, and XL of Jefferson’s Manual, it was the rule of the House of Representatives, following the parliamentary procedure of the English House of Commons, that every bill receive two full readings by the Clerk of the House, and a reading of the whole contents of the bill verbatim by the Speaker of the House before the House voted on each bill.

(g) Under current Senate rules, the Senate has departed from its original practice of a full first and second reading of each bill, and of ensuring that each Senator has a printed or other verbatim copy of each bill before passage thereof, having by Rule XIV limited each reading of a bill to the reading of the bill’s title only, unless the Senate in any case shall otherwise order.

(h) Under current House rules, the House of Representatives has, by Rule XVI (8) and Rule XVIII (5), embraced its original practice of full first and second readings of each bill, but has regularly departed from this practice by unanimous consent of the House, and has dispensed altogether its original practice of a verbatim third reading of each bill before passage, limiting such third reading to the reading of the title only, even when members of the House have no printed or other verbatim copy of a bill before passage.

(i) Although Section 106, Title 1, United States Code, requires a bill to be made available in written form to each member of Congress before final passage, Congress has by statute conferred upon itself the power, during the last six days of a session of Congress, by concurrent resolution, to vote for passage of a bill that is not in form at the time of final passage.

(j) As a direct consequence of the departure by the Senate and the House of Representatives from the salutary practice of full, verbatim readings of each bill before final passage, and further, as a direct consequence of Congress, by concurrent resolution, having permitted certain appropriation and budget bills to be enacted into law without such bills being printed and presented to Congress in written form prior to final passage, Congress has: (i) imposed upon the American people excessively long bills, largely written by an unelected bureaucracy, resulting in generally incomprehensible, cumbersome, oppressive and burdensome laws, containing hidden provisions for special interests; (ii) deprived the American people and their elected Senators and Representatives of a full and fair opportunity to examine the text of said bills, and all amendments thereto, prior to passage; (iii) undermined the confidence of the American people by its failure to give adequate notice to the people before a vote is taken on said bills and their amendments in the bills; and (iv) has called into question the integrity and reliability of the legislative processes in both houses of Congress by its failure to ensure that each member of the Senate and each member of the House, prior to passage, either has listened attentively to the reading of the full text of each bill, and its amendments, or has personally read the text thereof.

SECTION 3. READ THE BILLS BEFORE PASSAGE

(a) Chapter 2 of Title 1, United States Code, shall be amended by inserting at the end of the first sentence of Section 106, the following: “provided however, that, other than a private bill, no bill — including, but not limited to, any bill produced by conference between the two houses of Congress and any bill or resolution extending, modifying, or otherwise affecting the expiration date of a bill previously passed and enacted into law by Congress — shall pass either house of Congress: (i) without the full text of said bill, and the full text of each and every amendment thereto and — if the bill or resolution extends, modifies, or in any way affects the expiration date of a bill previously passed and enacted into law — without the full text of such bill or resolution and the full text of the bill previously passed and enacted into law having first been individually read verbatim by the Clerk of each house to the body of each house called to order and physically assembled with a quorum present throughout the time of the full textual reading of said bill, as well as the full text of any bill previously passed and enacted into law, if any, that is the subject of a bill or resolution extending, modifying or in any way affecting the expiration date of such previously passed bill enacted into law; and (ii) without the full text of said bill, and the full text of each and every amendment thereto, and the full text of the previously passed bill and enacted into law, if any, having been published verbatim on the official Internet web site of each house at least seven days prior to a final vote thereon in each house, together with an official notice of the date and time on which the vote on the final version of said bill and its amendments will take place.”

(b) Chapter 2, Title 1, United States Code, shall be further amended by striking the last sentence of Section 106, and substituting therefor: “With respect to each bill, other than a private bill, and each and every amendment thereto, and each bill previously passed and enacted into law, the expiration date having been extended, modified or in any way changed by a bill or resolution, each house of Congress shall cause to be recorded in its journal of proceedings that: (a) the reading, printing, and publishing requirements of this section have been met; and (b) the names of those members of the Senate and of the House present during the reading of each bill and each and every amendment thereto. No member of the Senate, and no member of the House whether acting in the House or in the Committee of the Whole, may vote for passage of any such bill or resolution, or any amendment thereto unless, prior to voting in favor of passage, such member shall have filed with the clerk of the Senate or House, respectively, a signed and sworn written affidavit — such affidavit being executed under penalty of perjury as provided in Section 1621, Title 18, United States Code — attesting that such member either was personally present throughout the entire reading of each such bill, and of each such amendment, and listened attentively to such entire reading, or has personally and attentively read such bill or amendment in its entirety. Neither house of Congress, nor Congress jointly — by concurrent resolution, or by unanimous consent, or by any other order, resolution, vote, or other means — may dispense with, or otherwise waive or modify, the printing, reading, entry, publishing, recording, or affidavit requirements set forth herein.”

(c) Chapter 2, Title 1, United States Code, shall be further amended by renumbering Sections 106a and 106b to 106b and 106c, respectively, and adding a new Section 106a as follows: “Enforcement Clause. No bill, other than a private bill, shall become law, nor enforced or applied as law, without Congress having complied fully with the printing, reading, entry, publishing, recording, and affidavit requirements of Section 106, Title 2, United States Code and any person against whom such a bill is enforced or applied may invoke such noncompliance as a complete defense to any action, criminal or civil, brought against him. Any person aggrieved by the enforcement of, or attempt or threat of enforcement of, a bill passed without having complied with the printing, reading, entry, publishing, recording, and affidavit requirements of Section 106, Title 2, United States Code, and any member of Congress aggrieved by the failure of the house of which he or she is a member to comply with the requirements of Section 106, and any person individually aggrieved by the failure of the elected Senator of the State in which the aggrieved person resides, or elected member of the House of the District in which the aggrieved person resides, to fulfill that Senator’s or House member’s obligations under Section 106, shall, regardless of the amount in controversy, have a cause of action under Sections 2201 and 2202, Title 28, United States Code and Rules 57 and 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against the United States to seek appropriate relief, including an injunction against enforcement of any law, the passage of which did not conform to the requirements of Section 106.”

SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE

If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid for any reason in any court of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or any other application of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provison or application, and for this purpose the provisions of this Act are declared severable.
 
Not fookin' likely, mate. Bills are so lengthy that nothing would get done if they had to read the entire thing. This will not pass.
 
That's somewhat the point... the bills are so fucking bloated with pork and BS that it is nearly impossible to read it especially with any understanding. What is funny is that the most important piece of legislation in the history of our country was on a single... albeit large piece of paper.

If the people who are in the position of having to approve it are not able to read it or understand it how the fuck are they able to know if you should vote yes or no on it. Then you wonder why there are always the scandals with special stuff that no one was aware was in the bill.
 
As much as i'd love for this to happen, it won't.
 
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50677

Democratic Leader Laughs at Idea That House Members Would Actually Read Health-Care Bill Before Voting On It
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
By Monica Gabriel and Marie Magleby


House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.) (Congressional photo)
Washington (CNSNews.com) - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday that the health-care reform bill now pending in Congress would garner very few votes if lawmakers actually had to read the entire bill before voting on it.

“If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com at his regular weekly news conference.
 
If the people who are in the position of having to approve it are not able to read it or understand it how the fuck are they able to know if you should vote yes or no on it.

They have colleagues and staffers who tell them what it does, and then they vote accordingly. A summary tends to be enough to get the job done.
 
Yea obviously its intended to cut this bull shit regarding how long these bills are. I like this, but unfortunately I doubt it has a chance. I imagine the more influential, old school congressmen who like the status quo would definitely make sure this bill died.

They have colleagues and staffers who tell them what it does, and then they vote accordingly. A summary tends to be enough to get the job done.

That is the problem lol. Theres a lot of little shit in there that almost no one reads or knows about that ends up getting passed because its attached to a larger bill. This is all about cause and effect...they aren't trying to force politicians to read big bills, they are trying to force politicians to stop making thousand page bills with a ton of pork added in that just gets passed regardless of whether or not it is a good idea.
 
Last edited:
The following is the full text version of what i think may be the most important legislation that desperately needs to be passed. What it states is basically that if you want to vote yes on any bill put before congress or the senate you must promise that you have actually read it. It sounds like a mere technicality that you would require them to read the bills but it is something that is rarely done in practice.

I can't believe that they don't read the whole bill, word for word. I thought it goes without saying.

I would want my congressman or senator to read the whole entire bill themselves, not have someone reword it for me regardless how much I trust their honesty and skill.
 
Well with Bills as long as they currently are, its just impossible for them to read the entire bills. Congressmen are busy enough...I mean could you imagine adding a thousand (or more) pages to read every week that congress is in session?

I mean...just stop and think about how much shit must be in a 500 page bill. Its just retarded, there's no reason for a bill to be so utterly ridiculous in length.
 
The Libertarian desire to bring government to a screeching halt is always amusing, but back in the real world legislation these days tends to be more complex than "Don't steal thy neighbor's pig." That's not necessarily a bad thing.
 
While they're at it, they need to make it a law that A) only YOU can vote for yourself--you'd be surprised how often other party members will vote for absent members, and B) that you must attend every session of Congress. They only have two sessions per year, they don't even work a full year, it's not too much to ask for them to actually be present at their job. Yes I know they're often in committee meetings, meeting with lobbyists, blah blah blah...frankly I don't care. If I don't show up to my job I get fired, these people tend to get promoted.
 
It's too bad so many douche bad citizens and lawyers will try their hardest to find a loop hole in the documents. That's why they're so long.
 
Last edited:
What makes me laugh is how much this shit reminds me of the mortgage mess. You build a culture of people who are taught just to sign the dotted line without actually reading the fine print of the terms they are agreeing to and then you try to tell them that it is their fault when the default knowing full well that they could not have possibly understood everything that they were agreeing to.

Then at the same time the people who are running the country are also basically mortgaging it without reading the terms either and you wonder why we keep having things slip into bills that no one really knew about til after they happened.
 
The Libertarian desire to bring government to a screeching halt is always amusing, but back in the real world legislation these days tends to be more complex than "Don't steal thy neighbor's pig." That's not necessarily a bad thing.

What is amusing to me is that you can defend voting on something that no one has voted on... I mean hell if i were a staffer i could slip one line into a 1500 page bill saying that all retards need to be rounded up and executed and technically that would be the law. It wouldnt make the summary because the bill which was on environmental protection was far too complex and important for any one person to read it in the 5 hrs that they had to pass it.

While they're at it, they need to make it a law that A) only YOU can vote for yourself--you'd be surprised how often other party members will vote for absent members, and B) that you must attend every session of Congress. They only have two sessions per year, they don't even work a full year, it's not too much to ask for them to actually be present at their job. Yes I know they're often in committee meetings, meeting with lobbyists, blah blah blah...frankly I don't care. If I don't show up to my job I get fired, these people tend to get promoted.

Completely agree but that is a different issue... lol. What makes me laugh on this one is that on one bill a person who was a cosponsor on a bill was absent from the vote and someone actually voted against the bill they brought to the floor under their name... i cant remember who that was tho cause it was a few years ago.
 
Last edited:
What is amusing to me is that you can defend voting on something that no one has voted on...

I'm not sure what you mean by "voting on something that no one has voted on." That would cover any vote since it would be the first time.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by "voting on something that no one has voted on." That would cover any vote since it would be the first time.

eh... was typing that in a hurry... doing laundry at the same time... meant to say voting on something that not everyone who voted on it has read.

contrary to popular beliefs i am in fact human and do make mistakes.. rarely though.
 
Ah, okay. I see what you mean. buit I still think it's naive to think the Beltway jackals would ever willingly sign away their ability to make deals or bring home extra funding for their constituencies back home, much less amend bad bills to reduce the number of people getting fucked over. Grinding their output down to three or four bills in a session would strip them of any political clout they've managed to gain. It just isn't going to happen. Like Ron Paul, it's great on the idealism but falls far short on the practical matter of getting anything accomplished.

(And I never doubted your humanity; it wouldn't be fun to spar with you if you didn't have any.)
 
Do you remember the first line of the constitution. They work for us... If they are unwilling to do their job and ... in my opinion reading everything they vote on is part of their job, then they don't deserve to be there and it is our responsibility to get rid of them.
 
What?!? Read the bills that they are putting into law?!? Preposterous! We need more streamlined politics. Lets just have all the congressmen read a watered down version of a bill through twitter and have them condense a 1200 page document down to a 8 word message of "sweet new bill guys, say yes to it!". Yeah thats what we need, uninformed government passing bullshit bills that only really help to pad the wallets of lobbiests... yay!


Seriously, if you dont know exactly what you are asked to vote on, why would you EVER vote yes? Its past common sense. If we arent going to expect people to read what they are supposed to pass, why have congress at all? Why not just have a big rubber stamp that says "YES" on it just to make things go quicker?
 
You are oversimplifying this a bit too much. They know what the hell they are voting on for the most part and they are also well aware that there is very likely some pork in there as well.

They might not like the pork in there, but when it comes time to vote, if 90% of the Bill is the real issue then some pork they might not completely agree with isn't about to stop that bill from getting its votes if its something of any importance. A bill that should have passed but doesn't because of extra pork on it is a huge waste of time. And you also have to look at why that pork is in there to begin with - congressmen have constituencies they have to answer to...a lot of that pork is to make that important constituency happy. Happy constituency means you get reelected, and in the house that is a constant battle every friggen 2 years (which is too short imo).

I dunno, the solution is hardly simple. You can say "hey, read the whole fucking bill," but even if they do and don't like some of it, do they like what its mostly about and is it a key issue? If so...they will still vote on it. Most of us don't like it and I think it does need to change, but the whole culture of how legislation and what not also needs to be reformed and updated.
 
Back
Top