Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News How can congress be allowed to vote what laws will be imposed on us

  1. Mar 30, 2009 #1
    Without actually looking at the laws?

    http://www.downsizedc.org/page/read_the_laws [Broken]

    Are they exaggerating, or do the house and Senate truly pass "mammoth bills" without reading them?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 30, 2009 #2

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    Yes, they do. The present Speaker and Senate Majority leader promised that they would stop this. Thus far, this hasn't happened.
  4. Mar 30, 2009 #3
    To send your message to Congress in support of RTBA click here.

    hmmmm I wonder if they will have time to read it.
  5. Apr 1, 2009 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The President promised even more: that we would be given a few days to read them before they were voted on.
  6. Apr 1, 2009 #5

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    Well, we live in a democracy. If we feel that these officials have acted unacceptably, we can replace them. If they too say one thing and do another, we can replace them too. Eventually, they'll get the point.

    However, I suspect there are relatively few people who would consider this the most important issue in an election.
  7. Apr 2, 2009 #6
    We can impeach them in a few years, sure, but what about in the meantime? What restrictions do they have?

    And, if we read a document, and as a public disagree with it, what will prevent it from being imposed on us? What if some congressmen find their agenda more important than reelection?
  8. Apr 2, 2009 #7
    They just played "Inherit the Wind" on TV the other night. Spencer Tracy, the defense attorney, rejects a prospective juror without asking him a single question, simply calling out "Dismissed". The prosecutor objects to the judge about the lack of questions and the objection is sustained. Tracy gets up and asks the man "How are you?". The juror says "Fine.". Tracy calls out "Dismissed".
  9. Apr 2, 2009 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No we can't. The public can take no direct action to remove a federal official. There is no such thing as federal recall election like in, say, California. Not even our elected representatives have leave to impeach an official for failing to abide by campaign promises.
  10. Apr 2, 2009 #9


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think one of the main problems is that some of these bills are thousands of pages long on topics that representatives have no expertise or even background on... If the job was to sit and read thousands of pages every week non-stop, I think eventually we'd have a mass suicide of representatives. Plus of course, politicians are mainly lawyers. I think if you grabbed 100 people randomly in the world and asked them "how would your job function if a lawyer was in charge of it", i'm fairly sure they'd almost all say it would be an utter disaster. That's why theres lobbyists, aids, etc etc that are really the only way congress can do anything with any hope of a decent outcome. Congressmen are there to just kinda rubber stamp whatever the people around them decide. Yah not the best system to say the least...
  11. Apr 2, 2009 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    They can, so they do. Just like they have an automatic COL raise every year - unless they vote against it.

    If one doesn't approve of congress, then become involved in the process, and either support an alternative candidate, or run for office oneself.
  12. Apr 2, 2009 #11
    I remember hearing a guy on the radio a while back that was trying to help push reforms that would make it mandatory for congress to take time to read a bill before passing it. Just take the time of course since you can't really force someone to read it.
    He was also proposing making it illegal to add things to bills that have nothing to do with the core of the bill.
  13. Apr 2, 2009 #12
    Why, the nerve of someone, to expect them to read and understand what they are voting on! Who could expect such a thing? After all, the electorate certainly does not bother to know who they are voting for!
  14. Apr 3, 2009 #13
    What evidence do you have that this will accomplish any meaningful change?
  15. Apr 3, 2009 #14
    Perhaps it is time to institute "tests" at the voting booth. I mean that each voter will have to answer questions directly relating to the policies of the major candidates running for office.

    Sure, it smacks of literacy tests meant to keep the African born population from voting, but this is a different millennium. The world today is far too complex to simply vote based on your feelings, or who looks the best, or anything of such a superficial nature. Moreover, if you can't read you have no business deciding the future of the country as you are likely too ignorant to understand the ramifications.
  16. Apr 3, 2009 #15

    If those around congress, not congress itself, are determining America's legal policies, then how is the congress actually representing the people, and not just determined people with loud voices? Combined with the fact that you can't impeach congress easily, and it seems like we have less of a republic than I thought.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook