The Brevity Act: Time for a 28th Amendment
by Bob GaleEarlier this year, Congress passed a “Stimulus” Bill. It was 973 pages long. This past Friday, the House passed a “Climate Change” Bill. It was more than 1200 pages long.
This got me wondering: how long, exactly, is our Constitution? How many pages did it take our country’s founders to lay out the structure and functions of our Federal Government?
Easy to answer. I found the Constitution online and copied it into a Word document, in Times New Roman 12 point type. So how long is it?
Including the preamble, all signatures and all 27 amendments, it’s 20 pages.
Without the signatures and amendments, it’s 11 pages.
Think about that. The entire foundation of our country – the complete design for our entire government — is clearly explained in only 11 pages.
No single Amendment is a full page. Many are only a single sentence.
Yet the bill that was passed on June 26, 2009 by 219 of our elected representatives — people to whom we’ve entrusted our Constitution, men and women who have sworn an oath to uphold it – was more than 1200 pages long. That’s over 100 times longer than the U.S. Constitution! And not one member of Congress, NOT ONE, read the whole thing!
A word comes to my mind to describe this: “INSANE.”
I cannot believe that this type of legislation and legislative behavior is what the signers of our Constitution intended when they invented Congress.
Therefore, I am respectfully proposing a 28th Amendment to our Constitution. I call it the Brevity Act.
No law, bill, resolution or any act of Congress shall exceed 2000 words, including all footnotes, amendments and signatures. Congress shall not vote on any item longer than that. Each item requiring a vote shall be read aloud in its entirety in session to a majority of members. Those not in attendance may not vote on the item.
2000 words is about 5 single spaced pages in a 12 point Word document. If it’s longer than that, then it’s too complicated to be a single law or bill, so it must either be cut or turned into multiple bills, each requiring a separate vote.
Furthermore, a Brevity Act should be part of every State Constitution, County Charter and City Charter.
To those who would oppose this Act because it would require Legislatures to vote separately on every single item in the budget, I say, it’s about time!
And to all challengers to the 219 Congressional morons who voted to pass a bill which they never read, here’s your campaign speech:
My opponent voted for a Bill he/she never read. Only an idiot would do that. Would you walk into a voting booth with a blindfold on and just push some buttons? Or would you read and consider what you’re voting on before you vote? I promise I will not vote for anything I haven’t read in its entirety.
Let the debate begin!
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
751 Comments
[...] Passes 219-212 Vets On The Watch: Government Lies To Get Agenda Passed Bob Gale, Big Hollywood: The Brevity Act: Time for a 28th Amendment Justbkuz: Tea Party Action On Cap And Tax Neovatara: Republican Betrayal The Great Illuminator: Cap [...]
Madison would love this idea; one suspects even Jefferson would climb aboard. However, the idea of thousand page omnibus spending bills is something the framer's never dreamt of, and would have been horrified in the use of tax policy to engineer desired social outcomes… Government was given restraints, not authority- and the one worlder's have been trying to undo this for decades.
Unfortunately, they are having quite a bit of success…
Aye.
This will never work. It makes too much sense.
[...] Andrea Mitchell!: A look into the future if Crap and Tax passes HR 2454 Bob Gale, Big Hollywood: The Brevity Act: Time for a 28th Amendment The Heartland Institute: Global Warming Alarmists Sabotage Wikipedia Entries Villainous Company: [...]
I like it… But like Michael says… it makes too much sense… :/ But I will bombard my congressmen with it if you will.
I don't know much about law, but isn't it much easier to keep the broad principles short and sweet but the nuts and bolts it takes a lot longer to spell out. Think ancient hebrew law…..10 commandments (very short) Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy…. (very VERY long) just saying….that said, I think there needs to be some sort of pledge that all congressmen and congresswomen sign to say they have read the bill they are voting for in full….that might keep the length down a tad.
maybe congressmen should listen to http://www.mozzsticks.com – what do you think???
Voting on a bill, without understanding it (not just reading it) should be grounds for automatic impeachment. If it spends tax monies, then theft by negligence should be added to the indictment, and punishment should include surrendering their pension(s) and all benefits, including their election war chest. If it weakens the US, then treason should be added to the indictment, and punishment should include prison.
Obama and the Dems don't like the Constitution. It restrains them on what they can force upon us. Obama has said as much in an interview. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid see it as a hinderence. They're not interested in the specifics, but the result. And that is more control of our lives. They don't even read the legislation. You libs cried that Bush was slaughtering the constitution, but he wasn't even in the same ballpark as these guys. Hail the Politburo!!!
First of all it's cool to have the great Bob Gale posting here. Also, I agree with his point. Everybody who runs against the current bunch of congressional idiots next time needs to point out that they voted for a bill not only that they didn't read…but a bill that according to reports may not have existed in full form while they were voting.
Perhaps we need to add this to the conservative aggenda.
Also add create a new amendment that requires all bills cite the appropriate clause in the Cosnstitution that allows the the legislative branch to create such law or spending
I will back any candidate that lives by this principle…
it certainly would prevent alot of the obfiscation that goes on in what gets passed.
Bravo! I've been saying this for years. I am convinced that it would immediately cut 100% of pork out of our spending. I absolutely agree that legislators that don't personally read the bills they pass should be immediately fired. I've long said that their jobs are way way too secure. They stop caring what we want just as soon as they take office.
Their campaigns always remind me of a guy trying to hook up at a bar. Say what you've gotta say to get what you want, then call it a day. "I swear, I've never felt this way before…"
It seems to me there is a congressman (I want to say Shadegg) has proposed legislation to require that any new bills cite the Constitutional authority upon which they are based. I think he's tried to introduce it several times. Needless to say, it never goes anywhere.
I believe the Interstate Highway Bill, the thing that created all of our interstates and highways, was only 20 pages.
Key to the Cap and Tax bill is that not only its length, but they are saying it was not completed, and they have left room in it to add things if it is passed in the Senate. In other words, they passed an incomplete bill that can grow.
If this does not pass in the Senate, watch for Carbon Czar to spring forth!
Second key, Inhofe this a.m. confirmed there is mass evidence that someone on the Dem side, (White House and House), sent out emails squashing the study which slammed the EPA study. In other words, this is another IG deal where people were threatened with their jobs, and possibly other things like the shareholders in Chrysler, if they revealed the science in the Cap and Tax bill was more than incorrect, it would be detrimental to our economy. Inhofe says the bill is DOA upon arrival in the Senate, but STILL raise hell with not just your Senator, but all those in the Senate.
Here is something to watch, Meme P has made strong moves to prevent any House member from being investigated. This is on Judical Watch. So far it is working. However, Inofe suggested the Senate might take up this investigation, and it could expose some criminal activities in the House. Meme cannot control the Senate. Remember, she and Dingy Harry are not fond of one another, and many on the Left would love to ditch her. I am thinking this could be a popcorn moment. Stay tuned!
Further, every single bill must be renewed every single year without exception. If you can’t revisit where you are before wanting to make changes, then you have gone too far down the wrong path and don’t even know where you are. Proper direction requires both a destination and establishing your present location. If politicians don't even care where we are, then obviously they are only interested in driving until they run out of gas or crash, unfit and needing their license revoked.
You might want to update your campaign speech's last line.
"I promise I will not vote FOR anything I haven't read in it's entirety."
just not voting could get us all in trouble.
There is already a bill before our representatives that would do this very thing – the Read the Bills Act. It would require all bills before congress be read aloud and entered into the congressional record of minutes. Many bills are not and especially this 'climate change' bill – it hasn't even been finished being written yet.
It should be able to work…. it would cause them to work LESS…. maybe a few more votes, but heck that is what there, there for…
Michael, that is just perfect making sense out of NON SENSE!!!!
Bob you should right Captain America comics!
One word – attorneys. When you insist upon parsing the definition of "is" because it suits your needs, you need thousands of pages.
… and that no act increasing any tax, fee or levy due to the United States government may be passed except upon a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress and the consent of the President.
I think it's time that politician stopped being a profession. Period. End of sentence. I think anyone who votes for any bill that hasn't read it should be run out in tar and feathers. This isn't even an attempt to legislate for the good of the people anymore; it's just a blind power grab. Have these people really been thwarted of what they perceive as their so-called right to rule for so long that they honestly think they can do whatever they want? If so, it may be time for that tree of liberty to be refreshed as Thomas Jefferson mentioned.
I also think we need a new Amendment that gives the people the power to stop Congressional spending, and say NO MORE. After all, it is our money they're spending … well, and China's.
The new Democratic Congress creates these mammoth bills on purpose for two reasons. First, it insures that no one will read the legislation in its entirity and thus they can hide pet projects and regulations in them that would never get passed if someone knew they were in there. Second, even if someone does read the entire legislation, the new crisis mentality insures that the debate will be over before the details can be broadcast to the American people. Add to the second point the fact that we no longer have a media watchdog and you have a real problem. Length is a way for the "elites" to control the masses and make sure that opposition to their rule is stifled in red tape and legalize.
BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You have my vote!
–Without the signatures and amendments, it’s 11 pages.–
So when people ask about the Constitution, you can say, "This one goes to 11."
Sorry, had to say it.
Great to have Mr. Gale here. I saw him do a Back to the Future Q&A accompanied by back-to-back screenings of BTTF II and III. It was a fun night.
While we're at it, why not require all bills to be written in plain English? This would have the added benefit of forcing tens of thousands of lawyers and judges to find honest work.
READ THE $%#&ING BILL!!!
This is similar to what many "Patent Houses" are doing. These places buy/create/invent patents so that they can later sue people for infringing on them…hence make money. (Some big corporations do this too, by the way.) You flood your application with so much prior art that the poor patent processor is overwhelmed and simply approves the patents because he can no longer take the madness.
If you make a bill so large and so hard to read that anyone who reads it dies of a brain aneurysm then no one can read it and you have everything you've hidden in it safe. It's a bad call anyway you slice it.
The Hebrews made their law even longer by getting into the nuts and bolts, such as defining how far they could walk on the Sabbath before it became work, etc. They eventually lost sight of the spirit of the law and the letter of the law became oppressive to the people. Jesus had a big problem with this and it became one of his chief accusations against the religious leaders who would strain at a knat but swallow a camel. Our leaders today use a similar tactic in that they use these mammoth laws to oppress the people.
[...] Read it. lier this year, Congress passed a “Stimulus” Bill. It was 973 pages long. This past Friday, the House passed a “Climate Change” Bill. It was more than 1200 pages long. Yet the bill that was passed on June 26, 2009 by 219 of our elected representatives — people to whom we’ve entrusted our Constitution, men and women who have sworn an oath to uphold it – was more than 1200 pages long. That’s over 100 times longer than the U.S. Constitution! And not one member of Congress, NOT ONE, read the whole thing! [...]
Great idea and better than mine. I had thought that somehow the Supreme Court should be appealed to, using the checks and balances principle, in regard to this legislative abuse.
The People's government, as defined by the Constitution, has been captured by the two parties. Each has failed us in turn over and over again, and are now poised to financially and sociallistically ruin our country. Government is broken and it is foolish to think that anything less than total systemic change will work to repair the damage. A constitutional convention should be called to set term limits, balanced budgets, limit the federal government, add accountability, require audits (ie, the FRS), eliminate the participation of lobbyists in rule making, eliminate pork, set spending limits on campaigns, eliminate professional politicians who make decisions based on gaining/retaining power rather than making a rational choice. Just as the Iranian president handed out potatoes before the election, our pols get pork to take credit for and help perpetuate their little dynasties. Mark Woodworth, Rockford, Illinois
Y'know, I was thinking this exact sme thing over the weekend. Every single one of them should have opposed the bill on the grounds of those 'final' few pages snuck in at 3:00 A.M. There's no way anybody read all of those, let alone the whole 1200 page bill. It's sheer idiocy. It's so extremely absurd it almost becomes cartoonish. Almost.
I wish I could somehow sneak a term limits clause into one of those omnibus bills. Then they all vote on it and find out they've imposed term limits on themselves. I reckon that might teach them to read a little more closely next time, or only write what's necessary. (Sigh) If only.
The only “constitutional convention” that should be called is one to reaffirm the original United States Constitution that this country was formed upon. And everyone in the congress and senate should be obligated to sign on to, agreeing to abide by the Constitution as it was written.
Let’s see some trolls post an argument against this post. Come on, I triple dog dare ya. A cogent argument for a 1200 page bill, plus 300 pages of amendments cannot be made. Not even the most rabid Uber-Liberal could make a case for it. Just like having Waxman have a speed reader in the house, this government has become a joke. Every politician that voted for this stupid "Climate" bill needs to be sent packing. Make note of your House Reps vote on this now and 18 months tell them to go pound sand.
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/ho...
Screw these people. They believe we are stupid or are too busy watching Dancing with the Stars or some crap. My Rep is Keith Ellison(D) and I will make it my personal goal to educate everyone I come in with that he is responsible for drastic increases in gasoline, electricity & natural gas bills. Good luck with that campaign Representative Ellison.
Then maybe he SHOULD keep trying to at least get on the dockets so that it could be looked at!
These guys and gals aren't geniuses. Look at Barney Frank. He's a bwubbering idiot and has no cwue on economics other than there are Haves and Have-Nots. And Haves are bad and must be punished. Hopefully not with a spanking.
This 1200 page Cap & Trade bill, that congress passed on a friday as they thought no one would bewatching this should be grounds for impeachment. One part of the 300 pages that was added at the last minute contain's an amendement that says a Government Agent has to come into your home and make sure that it is up to code if you want to sell it. Guess what that could mean if you have a home that is older than five years. You are going to have to practically rebuild it as the code's on buildings are ever changing.You think the housing industry is in the tank well this bill will make sure that you can't affort to buy or sell a home. This Congress along with Obama is going to destroy the American economy. The one's who will suffer are you and me as pple who go to Washington go there for power and greed. Just look at the wealth that every Senator, and Congressional person has aquired since they have gone to Washington.
[...] Ammendment Big Hollywood Blog Archive The Brevity Act: Time for a 28th Amendment Yes please. __________________ Currently Reading: If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be [...]
I'll add one more modest proposal: no bills may be enacted nor new regulations imposed after their combined length exceeds the ability of the average high school graduate to read them in 50 40-hour weeks.
The maxim "the citizen is presumed to know the law," itself presumes that the law is knowable by the citizen.
I prefer the idea of hiding the phrase, "Any legislator who signs a piece of legislation without reading it shall immediately be executed with a pistol shot to the back of the head" in random pieces of legislation.
Not only would they be shorter bills, but they'd actually have to have a bill AND have read it, (or at least search through it) before passing it.
I am sick and tired of thepple who can say and do whatever tey wantand if a conservative say's the same thing they are being hateful or prejudiced. I tell pple what I think and if they get ticked off I don't care as I am sick and tired of being pushed around by a bunch of minorities that want to change my country into a Third World Country. This Cap & Trade Bill is going to destroy the American economy and the majority of our politician's don't give a d— . Obama has spent so much money since he got into office and he was going to give us change alright, what he didn't say is that he want's to change this country so we won't reconize it as a free Nation under God. Congress is right in there helping, and we had 8 Repug's that need to be taken out of office as soon as possible.l
Wow, this post is the product of a remarkably uninformed mind. As one commenter already noted, the Constitution (and its amendments) are general principles, and really only sketch out the contours of our national government. Your assertion that the Constitution set out the "complete design for our entire government" is so, so, so wrong. First, given the significant change our country has experienced since the Constitution was drafted/ratified, it is necessary to fill in the gaps in the provisions by reading between the Constitution's lines for implied powers. You can't run a modern country as large, complex, and powerful as the United States with only those 11 pages, most of which were drafted in the late 18th century.
Second, the very fact we have to explain some governmental action by invoking implied powers proves you wrong. If the Constitution was the explicit blueprint you claim it to be, we would be able to point to specific constitutional provisions for everything the government does — and that's just not the way it works: the Constitution specifically envisions that the Congress will have to execute the powers given it in the Constitution. Look at Article I, Section 8: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." If the Framers thought that the provisions of the Constitution were sufficient in and of themselves, do you think they would've added this? The Constitution itself disproves your characterization of it.
Lastly, your claim is just, plain descriptively wrong as a historical matter. As one of my professors used to say: "And then Chief Justice John Marshall built the federal government…" It took a lot more than the Constitution's text to lay out the structure and functions of the federal government and its parts.
Yeah, except that's the one where slavery was legal and women couldn't vote, so I don't think we should go strictly to that one…
[...] the original here: The Brevity Act: Time for a 28th Amendment This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
The Brevity Act.
This may be the cure for Global Warming. It may put an damper on the HOT air eminating from Congress.
I love it, like was said up-thread however it’s to sensible. If you can’t dazzle them with brains baffle’em with bull$hit.
Very good, Mr. Gale, but how about this:
The United States of America is puportedly a representative republic. With the understanding that we, the citizens of the U.S., have everyday-life issues to address daily, and so we do not have time to familiarize ourselves with the intricacies of every aspect of every issue – and every bill to address that issue – faced by this nation, we elect representatives and send them to Congress in our stead.
If they haven't the time or the inclination to read every bill before them – in fact, if they don't DEMAND the opportunity to read every bill before them – then what the hell are they there for? Jeez, I can cast my own uninformed vote; if it comes down to that, why the hell do we need congressmen?
I'm not sure about the viability of an act to limit the size of bills, but I believe that each state should have a provision in its constitution that any elected official found to have voted on a bill that they did not read is subject to immediate recall. Bills would become shorter as a consequence…
I would not trust a new constitutional convention. Who knows what the politicians today woud do? They have no restraint to their personal ambition. Besides, who do we have today that could measure up to a Washington, Franklin, Madison, or even some of the lesser known figures?
Funny we were just talkin' about this very thing the other day. How short and simple our constitution is. That a fourth grader can read an understand it .
Yet there are wolves prowling about that seek to devour and regurgitate it as something
convoluted and incomprehensible because its easy comprehension is a great threat to the power .
It also would save the lives of trees as less paper would be needed. Wouldn't tree huggers like that?
Several points about your post. First, if we must fill in the gaps of the provisions then the way to do so is through a Constitutional amendment. Otherwise, there are no restraints upon those in power because they can fill in the gaps any way they see fit. My guess is that your professor told you that the Constitution was a living breathing document that evolved on its own over time. If he did then he did not understand the Founding Father or the nature of constitutions in general. A living breathing constitution is like playing poker with someone who is constantly changing the rules to his benefit.
Second, the "necessary and proper" clause in Article 1 Section 8 is not a blank check to Congress but rather allows them to make the laws needed to carry out the "foregoing powers"; ie the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution just prior to the "necessary and proper" clause. It would be completely in keeping with the Constitution for Congress to have to justify its actions by referencing the Constitution. That used to be the very definition of what was constitutional.
Third, your argument that the United States has outgrown the archaic 18th century Constitution is the same argument the progressives used because they wanted more power to control the lives of the American people than the Constitution would allow. I challenge you to name a specific power the United States government would need in today's world that is not part of the progressive agenda. The problem is not that the Constitution is outdated. The problem is that progressives / liberals don't like limitations on their ability to tell citizens what to do.
The real reason this will never work is because, "brevity is the soul of wit," and congress is the final refuge for the witless.
"Key to the Cap and Tax bill is that not only its length, but they are saying it was not completed, and they have left room in it to add things if it is passed in the Senate. In other words, they passed an incomplete bill that can grow"
Such things as overthrowing the term limits for a president? Allowing illegals to become citizens?
Anyone that voted for a blank check like this needs to be horse whipped.
write
Amen.
I vote "yes" for this amendment and a Back to the Future collector's edition Blu-ray boxset.
I'd also buy "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" on Blu-ray if it came out in September with those Beatles remastered CDs and video game…
Just sayin'
You have now POSTED THIS LINK 24 TIMES. You are spamming this board. Go away.
Eh, he had it good enough. Lord knows all that lefty preaching gets annoying.
Congrats! You spent three paragraphs arguing against one sentence in the original post and you failed to even address his main point. In addition, you came off as a pompous ass. Well done!
Great idea Mr. Gale. Now excuse me while I go and e-mail this to everyone I know.
20 pages…..except the legal caste has insured that it takes an entire law library to tell us what it really says, regardless of the words on the paper.
brilliant
The problem that springs to mind here is that the congress will just empower executive agencies to promulgate regulations that carry the force of law.
Forcing a full reading of the bill to a quorum of the members of each house should suffice.
"Obama and the Dems don't like the Constitution"
Don't kid yourself by pretending that only one side of the Ruling Party ignores the constitution. The Republicans have ONE member of congress who considers the constitution a binding agreement that limits the powers of the federal government. The rest of them have a disgraceful record of voting for abominations like the "patriot" act.
I've been saying exactly this myself for a couple of years now! I'm not sure about the 2000 word limit (there are things like defense appropriations where Congress needs to be able to specify specifics), but 100% agree with the requirement to have all bills read aloud in their entirety IN THEIR FINAL FORM prior to voting on them.
It's too easy to get away with shenanigans otherwise.
[...] The Brevity Act Jump to Comments The bill that was passed on June 26, 2009 by 219 of our elected representatives — people to whom w… [...]
[...] Length of original U.S. Constitution: 11 pages. Length of most recent energy/cap-and-trade/global warming bill: 1,200 pages. [...]
First, given the significant change our country has experienced since the Constitution was drafted/ratified, it is necessary to fill in the gaps in the provisions by reading between the Constitution's lines for implied powers.
Witness the justification for the some if not all of the worst power grabs in American history. Because the country has undergone changes the Founders could never have anticipated, we need to discover "hidden powers" the Founders slipped into the document on the anticipation we would need them. The "Power Rangers" Defense, the baddies get bigger and meaner, and suddenly the government can get bigger and meaner in a way we always could have if we knew about it.
If the federal government ever really needed more powers, the Founders laid in a mechanism to get them, the Congress first proposes an Amendment laying out the powers they want, then 3/4 of the states decide to give them those powers. Government is not an Easter Egg hunt, if you want it then just keep searching until you find it, you know it is there somewhere
How long have these boneheads used this justification for encroaching on the 2nd Amendment, and the 1st and others? "If the Founding Fathers had only known how things would be…!" Then they would have made it at least a two-thirds vote on everything to keep these power-grabbing monsters at bay.
[...] this proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution from Big Hollywood (H/T: Instapundit): No law, bill, resolution or any act of [...]
A politician saying, "Only an idiot would do that. Would you walk into a voting booth with a blindfold on and just push some buttons?" is a losing argument because I think many, if not most, people do exactly that and they know it.
[...] pork-laden legislation all kinds of scams embedded in it that he has proposed a 28th Amendment. Bob Gale writes: Earlier this year, Congress passed a “Stimulus” Bill. It was 973 pages long. This past [...]
What would happen if each senator/representative had to certify that he/she had read and fully understood the bill that was before the body BEFORE he/she was allowed to vote. Maybe the understanding part is too restrictive having seen the way some of those people perform
The problem with promising not to vote on anything you haven't read is that your political opponents can turn that against you by writing something that you don't want but is too long to read. By not voting against it, you're effectively giving half a vote for it.
So the promise should be that you will vote *against* anything you haven't read. That way, the worst that can happen is the same as if the offending bill hadn't been introduced at all. Which it shouldn't have been.
Genius!
But rather than pick an arbitrary length, how about this:
No bill shall be voted on that is longer than the Constitution itself.
We have something like 300,000 pages of laws. Let's have a 29th amendment requiring them to delete two words for every word they add?
And yet, contrast the massive 5 hours of *cough* debate that Cap & Tax received, versus the 5 DAYS of debate that the 1st Senate spent on something as simple as how they should address the President. (From the John Adams biography by McCollough)
I'd do it in a second. i agree with the required renewal clause.
I want this amendment now!
Hear hear!!!! (Can you add "read aloud to the time in a natural even cadence" so that they don't try to pull the speed reading bit again!)
What I'm getting at is that the Democratic party's philosophy is to bypass the Constitution because it deters their goals. The Repubs, even the dumb ones, aren't out to undermine the Constitution as a whole. I think that most Repubs don't see the Constitution as a living document. Sure there are a few that are liberal and see it as the Dems do.
They'd just vote on bills that said things like: "Implement the health care nationalization plan described on pp. 1299-3640 of the Congressional Fine Print Record.
I also like the "Enumerated Powers Act" (would require legislation passed by Congress cite those provisions of the Constitution that give them the power to pass such legislation.)
But lets be honest, look at our history, the legislature is made up mostly of Lawyers who spend their entire lives twisting the meanings of words and phrases to fit the mood of the moment.
The Brevity Act sounds good when you say it fast, but it would just lead to them passing an endless list of interconnected laws.
No, I still think the only real solution to the problems in DC is a giant asteroid.
Well, if the 27th is so totally ignored (quite possibly since no current member of congress had a hand in it), why expect that this one being proposed would meet a better fate?
I think the state of Colorado tried that but the Democrats responded by hiring a bunch of speed readers to come in and read the bills like the legalese at the end of a car ad too fast for anyone to actually understand.
The way to do it is to have a text-to-speech program read all the bills at a specified words per minute that is no faster than normal speech (and have the speed codified into the law and unchangeable)
This would also avoid the problem of partisans reading the bills with inflection designed to encourage voting one way or another. They have pretty good text-to-speech software these days … doesn't have to sound like Stephen Hawking (although using his TTS might make the legislature sound a little more intelligent).
We know that those that vote on these bills aren't reading them … but what about those that write them?
I seriously doubt Waxman read his entire bill, so you know there's large sections he hasn't read … and you know there is a point at which he's finished it and it goes to the printers. Be fun to somehow slip stuff in at that point.
Maybe repeal the 68 GCA and 34 NFA.
Or a line that says "Any member of congress voting for this bill does so as an act of resignation from this body."
Or maybe revoke congressional pay or pensions, or change the dress code for the congress to clown suits or something.
They sign it without reading it, the president signs it into law and then won't they be surprised [insert evil laugh]
This is pure Alinsky.
Overwhelm the system with BS and you can crash the system.
Actually this is the same thinking behind a lot of "system hacks" (like hacking an X box) you cause the system to crash and then you remake it when you reboot it.
The reality is that this tactic by this administration is intended to be a bloodless coup … remember that he said in the campaign that he was going to "remake America".
Again, I think our salvation all comes down to giant asteroid or other catastrophic act of God, 'cause frankly I don't see this being solved within the system.
And no more of this kind of crap:
in TITLE 18 > PART II > CHAPTER 205 > § 3110, remove the word "documents"
If you're going to alter an existing law, it needs to be its own bill and the source law needs to be quoted in context in the bill.
If anyone of you guys saw that line in the bill you'd probably read over it and move on unless you happened to already know what that law is, if you go look it up you can see how incredibly frightening such a minor unnoticed change could really be.
[...] Passes 219-212 Vets On The Watch: Government Lies To Get Agenda Passed Bob Gale, Big Hollywood: The Brevity Act: Time for a 28th Amendment Justbkuz: Tea Party Action On Cap And Tax Neovatara: Republican Betrayal John Romano, Big [...]
No way Bob!
This would only lead to more meddling by the Judicial branch who love to "read between the lines" AKA make stuff up!
The best solution is to have a machine read them.
Text-to-speech software is pretty sophisticated these days … the TTS software Stephen Hawking uses is a couple generations old.
While I entirely approve of the idea behind this amendment, 2000 words is an awfully arbitrary limit. How about an even simpler amendment (in the spirit of brevity): "No law, bill, or resolution shall be brought to a vote in Congress save that it has been read aloud in its entirety before Congress in the session in which it is to be voted upon."
The necessary and proper clause exists to allow Congress to enact laws under the authority of the enumerated powers. Since you appear to be something of a history buff, perhaps you can understand the concept that the Federal government has limited powers precisely to prevent the re-emergence of tyrrany. It's that way by design, genius. And by the way, try reading Amendments 9 & 10. Those deal with rights retained by the people and/or the States. Do you really want to surrender your rights to a government that is "filling in the gaps" of the Constitution? Is your inclination to surrender based on political preference? I prefer to be free, rather than be subject to the arbitrary and capricious power grab of what party is in power.
As others have pointed out, if something really needs changing, amend the constitution.
[...] Read more – Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » The Brevity Act: Time for a 28th Amendment. [...]
You forgot the part about "No member of Congress who has not been present for the full reading of any such law, bill, or resolution will be permitted to vote on it."
Concur. You'd just get Democrats leaving the Capitol while the Republicans read their own bills, so that they can whine later about being denied their franchise.
[...] Big Hollywood: [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.