6 ms·
Can Congress pass a law outlawing giving bills cute names that are completely irrelevant to the intent of the law? Once they get that accomplished they can work
by mypgovroom 3y ago
Can Congress pass a law outlawing giving bills cute names that are completely irrelevant to the intent of the law? Once they get that accomplished they can work on something else
- Maxburn 3y agoCan we make congressmen actually read the bills they vote on?
- lockhouse 3y agoYes, a bill should have to be read out loud in its entirety by its sponsor in public before any voting can occur.
- LastTrain 3y agoNow /that’s/ some bureaucracy
- edgyquant 3y agoIt would result in them being shorter
- malfist 3y agoIs shorter better?
- airstrike 3y agoPerfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
- malfist 3y agoThat doesn't mean shorter is always better. When you take away necessary detail to make things shorter, you wind up with a shorter, less perfect law. For instance, if the law was "No driving over 70mph on I-75", shortening the law to "No driving" isn't an improvement. And even if we maintain the detail and shorten to "No 70+mph driving @ I-75" it doesn't improve things. Concise is good. shortness for shortness sake is not. We don't need to be playing code golf with laws.
- snvzz 3y agoSeen this quote recently, in some book about RISC-V.
- lockhouse 3y agoShorter makes it harder to stuff it full of pork.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- LastTrain 3y agoIt would result in a pointless formal exercise simply designed to make things more difficult without any tangible benefit. Bureaucracy.
- ursuscamp 3y agoOn the floor, with a majority present.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoNothing you do can keep the majority awake. Budget bills in particular can get really tedious. And any bill that, say, strikes or adds a word to already extant law, would require reading the entirety of the law so changed.
- lockhouse 3y agoI don’t care if they stay awake, I want to end omnibus Bible sized bills full of pork and erosions of our rights being put in bills that would otherwise be in the interests of the people. Forcing them the discomfort of having to read it out loud all by themselves should help greatly with that. I’m looking at you former speaker of the house that said we have to pass the bill to know what’s in it.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoThis will incentive Congress to delegate more than they do now. Instead of line items for each major expense in a budget bill, they'll just assign X billions of dollars to Y agency to parcel out as the agency director wishes.
- lockhouse 3y agoYes and that will reduce pork by no longer mandating the Army to buy a specific number of tanks that are built in an important Congressman’s district when they really need money to fix a barracks.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoYou'd hope so, but this will probably be covered by only appointing people willing to delve out pork as directors of the agencies.
- BLKNSLVR 3y agoSelf-filibuster?
- kmeisthax 3y agoWhile we're at it, every Git pull request should have to be read out in full. No `git diff` - that's just as bad as what Congress does. Read every source file, even the ones that didn't changed, just to be sure. /s
- BeFlatXIII 3y agoThe self-filibuster. I fully support it.
- samstave 3y agoDon't allow them to vote on anything they cant pass a basic comprehension test on.
- ejb999 3y agoWe should have the same requirement for people voting in elections.
- colejohnson66 3y agoWe tried that a century ago, but it was just racism in disguise. Why would we assume any questionnaire people must take today won't be abused for other agendas?
- vuln 3y ago> Why would we assume any questionnaire people must take today won't be abused for other agendas? Same with voter ID. It’s touted as “racist” although other poorer countries easily handle the issue of voter ID. It’s almost as if one political party amasses power by continually brow beating their constituents into a victim mentality.
- ejb999 3y agoI think the new rule is you need to pass it first, and then find out what is in it.
- briantakita 3y ago> Can Congress pass a law outlawing giving bills cute names that are completely irrelevant to the intent of the law? Once they get that accomplished they can work on something else It's sometimes helpful to look at the name of the bill & assume that the bill will achieve the exact opposite. > Can we make congressmen actually read the bills they vote on? Most Congress members vote based on spheres of influence, not spheres of interest. The lobbyists that fund the politician's campaign tells the politician how to vote & the consequences of voting against the lobbyist's wishes.
- Maxburn 3y agoSort of a Betteridge's law of headlines situation.
- BeFlatXIII 3y agoOr at least require a full verbal reading of the bill before voting? Stop the 4000-page moster bills with a self-filibuster.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pdntspa 3y agoIt's like those people who have to give every security vulnerability some stupid cute name.
- tvanantwerp 3y agoBills should only have numbers, never names. Cattle, not pets.