Sit down and shut up

[MaC]

A libertarian minded lobbyist group called Downsize DC proposes a bill.  This bill states that in the house and senate, for there to be a vote on a bill, the people who vote must attend and sit for the whole reading of the bill before being allowed to vote on it.

I'd vote for it.  People in congress need to be held personally accountable for what they've done.  This will also cut down on those damn 1000 page bills since noone's gonna bother sitting around for listening.  Probably signifgantly cut down on those stupid riders too.

[A18]

Strongly favor! I would only add that they should have to stand during the reading.

[Smash255]

Strongly favor! I would only add that they should have to stand during the reading.

So you disagreed when house Republicans called the police on the Dems last year that wanted to read a bill??

[A18]

Obviously I agree with that, and anyone who doesn't is a total idiot.

As for whether or not this should be allowed after this rule is enacted is another matter entirely.

[Smash255]

Obviously I agree with that, and anyone who doesn't is a total idiot.

As for whether or not this should be allowed after this rule is enacted is another matter entirely.

So Wait.  You think this bill is a good idea, but you also thing one group (no matter what party) can call police on the party when they sit down to read a bill??  Or is it ok only when the Republicans do it to the Dems, but bad vice versa??

[A18]

It is bad when it is against the rules, and good when it is the rules. Do you understand that, or do you have the IQ of a Popsicle?

[David S]

Seems like a good idea to me. The Patriot act and the BCRA were both over 300 pages. I suspect most congresscritters didn't read them. Thats like signing a blank check.

[Gabu]

Sounds like a plan to me.  I strongly believe that it should be a requirement that people actually know what they're voting for.  It would cut down on people voting for something purely because of the name and the stated intent behind it (e.g., the "Patriot" Act sounds like you're not a patriot if you don't vote for it).

[Alcon]

I strongly agree, although it should be realized that this would even further delay the time it takes for legislation to go through.

[Gabu]

I strongly agree, although it should be realized that this would even further delay the time it takes for legislation to go through.

Now comes the debate regarding whether or not that's a bad thing.

[John Dibble]

I strongly agree, although it should be realized that this would even further delay the time it takes for legislation to go through.

Now comes the debate regarding whether or not that's a bad thing.

Well, from a Libertarian perspective of 'government growing is bad', it's good.

[Gabu]

I strongly agree, although it should be realized that this would even further delay the time it takes for legislation to go through.

Now comes the debate regarding whether or not that's a bad thing.

Well, from a Libertarian perspective of 'government growing is bad', it's good.

From my perspective of "having moronic legislation get passed because no one cared is bad", it's good as well.

[Platypus]

Impractical reactionism. Sure they ought to know about what they pass, but you cant have them all there all the time.

[Lunar]

I strongly agree, although it should be realized that this would even further delay the time it takes for legislation to go through.

Congress is supposed to be deliberative anyway.

Comprehensive bills require checking.  Congress is involved in few things that require speed, and these things almost universally involve little to no paperwork.

[Gabu]

Impractical reactionism. Sure they ought to know about what they pass, but you cant have them all there all the time.

In my personal opinion, if they can't take the time to actually know what they're voting for, they shouldn't be voting for it.

[Rob]

It's a great idea.

[Smash255]

It is bad when it is against the rules, and good when it is the rules. Do you understand that, or do you have the IQ of a Popsicle?

Its simply retarded to call the police & try to stop a group of people of reading a bill.  No matter who does it.  Its not against the rules to read a bill & while its not against the rules to call the police to get people form stop reading a bill its silly & stupid

[J.R. Brown]

I strongly agree. These people who are supposed to be our representatives and should do there f-ing jobs.

[Redefeatbush04]

I like this.

[A18]

It is bad when it is against the rules, and good when it is the rules. Do you understand that, or do you have the IQ of a Popsicle?

Its simply retarded to call the police & try to stop a group of people of reading a bill.  No matter who does it.  Its not against the rules to read a bill & while its not against the rules to call the police to get people form stop reading a bill its silly & stupid

You said the House. There is no unlimited debate in the House.

[Joe Republic]

An excellent idea.  We need a higher standard in the legislature, where elected officials have a full understanding of the details of the bill, and didn't just read a general overview of it.