4 ms·
The point is more that for most lawmakers there's not really a need to read all of the nitty gritty legal language. If you're a House Rep from Kansas who's core
by kevinnk 13y ago
The point is more that for most lawmakers there's not really a need to read all of the nitty gritty legal language. If you're a House Rep from Kansas who's core issue is corn subsidies, reading all of the PATRIOT Act isn't really going to do you much good. Instead, you read the summaries and listen to the opinion of the experts in your party who have read the whole act.
It's important too to note that this isn't a "big law" or even an American thing. Virtually all bills of any substance work this way and it's pretty much standard practice in most countries.
That being said, I'm not defending the PATRIOT Act. I just think the argument that not enough people read it is weak, especially considering all the real arguments you can make that actually attack the substance of the act.
- bobwaycott 13y agoYou make some decent points. However, I'm still going to counter that 'the argument that not enough people read it'--i.e., proposed laws--is strong, not weak. The point is that for all lawmakers, there is both a need and sworn obligation, in addition to national expectation, that they read all the nitty gritty legal language they are voting on, by which all Americans are bound to abide. That's what lawmakers are there for--to know what in the hell they are passing as laws. If they can't be bothered to do their job--which, at the national level, goes far beyond just securing corn subsidies, because they're voting on legislation that touches on all Americans--then fuck 'em. Throw the bastards out on their asses, and send them back to the cornfields.