Should U.S. House members vote on sweeping legislation before they even read it?

The Liberty Committee ^ | November 13, 2002 at 9:52 a.m. ET | Kent Snyder

[EBUCK]

November 13, 2002 at 9:52 a.m. ET


Should U.S. House members vote on sweeping legislation before they
even read it?

The U.S. House is scheduled to vote on a revised version of legislation
creating the Department of Homeland Security by 2:00 p.m. ET today. 
The time now is just before 10:00 a.m ET and the revised text is not
available to read and we've been told the revised text might not be
available for awhile.

The only information available is a Congressional Quarterly summary.
So House members will have to rely only on a summary to decide their
vote on the biggest reorganization of the federal government since the
Department of Defense was created in 1947.  But we have been alerted
to expect important changes in this revised Homeland Security bill.

For example, The New York Times recently reported about the Pentagon's
plan to create a computer system that "will provide intelligence
analysts and law enforcement officials with instant access to information
from Internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking
transactions and travel documents, without a search warrant" of
American citizens.
"Pentagon Plans a Computer System That Would Peek at Personal Data of
Americans," Nov. 9, 2002, by John Markhoff
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/09/politics/09COMP.html

Is this new system included in the revised Homeland Security legislation?
We don't know and when we asked -- nobody will talk about it.

Should your U.S. representative vote on any legislation, let alone
legislation as sweeping as Homeland Security, before he reads it?  We say
no.  In the remaining few hours left, please urge your representative to
withhold his vote until he reads the text of the bill.  To send your
message, go to
http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/alert/?alertid=912081&type=CO

Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org

====================================================================

[EBUCK]

They didn't read the patriot act either. Look where that's getting us. Get on teh phone and tell your congress critters to read it before passing it!

EBUCK

[Hanging Chad]

"...Should U.S. House members vote on sweeping legislation before they even read it? ..."

Well, that depends on what it says...

[steve50]

I hear we get forced vaccinations, end to independent committee for 911, and 50% offshore ownership of Homeland Security related companies is A OK. I hope this is just unfounded rumor

[rootntootn]

Here's something I'd like to see proposed -
Require every member of Congress to submit a drug test prior to every vote. Here they are voting on the future of our country (and the world) and half of them are probably stoned. Gore's a pothead and Clinton's a cokehead. You can't even get a job at 7-Eleven without taking a drug test.

[elbucko]

We pay these B*st*rds enough and provide them with plenty of staff to make thorough consideration of ALL legislation. Not to mention the filter of lobbyists, for better or worse. Fund raising is no excuse.

[no-s]

If it passes, one could make the argument it isn't a law at all, because it wasn't apparent what was voted on, or perhaps the law is just the summary version. However doesn't the text appear in some register, followed by a vote to acclaim it as correct?

More likely this is propaganda to reinforce the message the bill is being rushed too quickly, i.e. so that lard and favors can not be attached by interested parties...

Of course by the time it is signed, there is supposed to be a final version...sure. Some justice dept lawyer will write it up.

I'm surprised someone (i.e. a member of the agitator class) doesn't raise the issue of seperation of powers when this happens, what with the executive branch responsible for the actual law.

[jdege]

Actually, I'm of the opinion that every bill, resolution, and federal regulation must, before taking effect, be read in its entirety, separately to a quorum of each house, twice, in D.C., during July or August, without air conditioning.

[xeno]

Here's the link to the full text from the Rules Committee home page: http://www.house.gov/rules/homeland.pdf

Enjoy all 484 pages. :-)

[EBUCK]

LOL....yes it cerainly would...

EBUCK

[DrDavid]

I think every bill should be read in the House and Senate before the vote. Only Representatives and Senators who have been present for the entire reading should be eligible to vote on that bill.

Then once a year our Representatives and Senators should come to our towns and read all the laws they expect us to obey. Then answer any questions...

[advocate10]

I don't know why they should start reading them now. They never have before.

[EBUCK]

Great idea. Get both senators up in front of concerned citizens to explain what every bill they voted on does. Wouldn't that be educational...

EBUCK

[DrDavid]

Great idea. Get both senators up in front of concerned citizens to explain what every bill they voted on does. Wouldn't that be educational...

Educational for whom? The voters or the Senators?

[EBUCK]

Voters. If we could get enough of them involved that is.

EBUCK

[Iwo Jima]

A vote for a piece of legislation should be a certification subject to the penalties of perjury that you have 1) read it, 2) believe that you understand it, and 3) substantially agree with it. We would have far fewer laws, and they would be easily understood without need for judicial interpretation.

[quietolong]

Look what's found when bills are read

WCCA legislative alert: Doyle's anti-terrorism bill bans guns
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/611116/posts

[CDHart]

They're not in the habit of reading anything they pass. Why should they start now?

Carolyn