APP - congress needs more impediments to passing laws

Don Quixote

Don Quixote

cancer survivor
Contributor
like a two-thirds majority to pass a law and a three-fourths majority to override a veto

also, add a third chamber that can repeal any law by a one-fourth vote...or maybe a one-third vote

we have to stop passing laws that are lawyers' full employment acts

and limit laws to one subject with a maximum of ten pages (in plain language and legalese)
 
Last edited:
That last line sounds great. Of course, the morons who champion corruption will dismiss your suggestion by saying that it is absolutely necessary to have long texts so as to create detailed bills... IB1 defended the health care bill being over 1900 pages by saying "we know Republicans don't like to read." With such stalwart defenders of corruption as this, reform will never occur.
 
we have a check on congress. It's called the judiciary. maybe someday they'll actually do their job instead of furthering the cause of tyranny.
 
Threedee said:
That last line sounds great. Of course, the morons who champion corruption will dismiss your suggestion by saying that it is absolutely necessary to have long texts so as to create detailed bills... IB1 defended the health care bill being over 1900 pages by saying "we know Republicans don't like to read." With such stalwart defenders of corruption as this, reform will never occur.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just me, but a basic understanding and patience with even the beefiest legal document isn't all that difficult to understand, at least at face value. Maybe it's because I look up legal work in my spare time (when not out drinking), or maybe it's my nit picking of English.
 
I would fully support a 3/5ths rule for both houses. Simple majority is definitely allowing too much trash through the filters, but 2/3 is, IMO, a bit much for every day legislation. Besides, that would pretty much assure any passed legislation would also be veto-proof, thus hamstringing the president.

I'm not so sure about limiting the length of legislation, as some things simply cannot be done that short. But I do fully support an amendment that would forbid riders that are not directly related to the bill in question. Way too much bad legislation has made it past both congress and the President's veto by attaching itself to an essential bill. The federal budget and emergency spending bills are favored methods of getting things through that have no chance of passing on their own merits.
 
Good Luck said:
I would fully support a 3/5ths rule for both houses. Simple majority is definitely allowing too much trash through the filters, but 2/3 is, IMO, a bit much for every day legislation. Besides, that would pretty much assure any passed legislation would also be veto-proof, thus hamstringing the president.

I'm not so sure about limiting the length of legislation, as some things simply cannot be done that short. But I do fully support an amendment that would forbid riders that are not directly related to the bill in question. Way too much bad legislation has made it past both congress and the President's veto by attaching itself to an essential bill. The federal budget and emergency spending bills are favored methods of getting things through that have no chance of passing on their own merits.
Click to expand...

please read the entire post - i suggested a 3/4 vote to override a pres veto

however, a 3/5 vote and a 2/3 for veto would not be too bad, but maybe not enough - but a good start
 
Last edited:
DonQuixote said:
like a two-thirds majority to pass a law and a three-fourths majority to override a veto

also, add a third chamber that can repeal any law by a one-fourth vote...or maybe a one-third vote

we have to stop passing laws that are lawyers' full employment acts

and limit laws to one subject with a maximum of ten pages (in plain language and legalese)
Click to expand...

Nice sentiment to which I agree with...but in reality, everyone will be pointing the finger at each other as the obstructionists to this goal. And the beat goes on.
 
DonQuixote said:
like a two-thirds majority to pass a law and a three-fourths majority to override a veto

also, add a third chamber that can repeal any law by a one-fourth vote...or maybe a one-third vote

we have to stop passing laws that are lawyers' full employment acts

and limit laws to one subject with a maximum of ten pages (in plain language and legalese)
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why California's doing so great.

A state with such huge legislative requirements for change would be ungovernable. ESPECIALLY if you put those requirements on passing a budget.
 
Last edited:
Threedee said:
That last line sounds great. Of course, the morons who champion corruption will dismiss your suggestion by saying that it is absolutely necessary to have long texts so as to create detailed bills... IB1 defended the health care bill being over 1900 pages by saying "we know Republicans don't like to read." With such stalwart defenders of corruption as this, reform will never occur.
Click to expand...

A long bill us necessarily corrupt?

IMHO, you just assume it should be easy to craft short legislation since you've never done it. It is not necessarily good governance to have short legislation. Certainly I've never heard of any similar requirements in the private sector. That's because it's not good policy to be simple only for the sake of being simple.
 
Last edited:
I think we should go the other way. We should abolish the senate and the veto, and elect the house by proportional representation (in seven member districts, so the threshold will be roughly 15%).
 
Big Brother said:
A long bill us necessarily corrupt?

IMHO, you just assume it should be easy to craft short legislation since you've never done it. It is not necessarily good governance to have short legislation. Certainly I've never heard of any similar requirements in the private sector. That's because it's not good policy to be simple only for the sake of being simple.
Click to expand...

not simple so much as to prevent all sorts of irrelevant laws that should be passed separately
 
I think that a "single-subject" rule for Amendments to bills would be a very good idea and should be implemented as soon as conceivably possible.

Attaching dross that has nothing to do with the subject to bills that absolutely need to be passed is a "tradition" that we absolutely could do without.
 
Watermark said:
A long bill us necessarily corrupt?

IMHO, you just assume it should be easy to craft short legislation since you've never done it. It is not necessarily good governance to have short legislation. Certainly I've never heard of any similar requirements in the private sector. That's because it's not good policy to be simple only for the sake of being simple.
Click to expand...

Its because they aren't required to stay on topic.
 
DonQuixote said:
please read the entire post - i suggested a 3/4 vote to override a pres veto

however, a 3/5 vote and a 2/3 for veto would not be too bad, but maybe not enough - but a good start
Click to expand...
3/4 is, IMO, too high an obstacle to overcome a presidential veto. Making it more difficult would add to the power of the presidency - not something I am willing to support. The idea is a better balance of powers, not merely to diminish congress. We don't want to make the ability to override vetoes impossible, merely very difficult. 2/3 meets that requisite.

3/5 is far better than simple majority - the significance of which is all the more obvious when you look at the vote records for most legislation that is passed. I'd estimate that less than 20% passes by more than 3/5 majority as it is. As a definitive for instance, the health care bill recently passed by the house would have failed by 41 votes.
 
Watermark said:
We also need to pass redistricting laws so that every district in America is drawn in a competitive fashion.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. Thats one of the core problems in this country's governance. Congratulations on saying something sentient and sane for once in your weird little life.
 
Watermark said:
Populist rubbish. In most nations and states with a single-subject rule it's not uncommon at all for a law to go past 10 pages.
Click to expand...

Which is still a far-cry from what we get right now. Besides, most people who are irked by a lengthy bill are mad because they know it got that way as a result of it not being a rule that the bill remain on topic with a single subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top