Slashdot Mirror

You may be interested in the One Subject At A Time Act.

This is true, and the solution to this problem is available, it's just not as widely known as it should be. Tell everyone you know about One Subject At A Time Act!

Billions of dollars to shutdown airports for no reason. They were thrown off the tracks by Amtrak Chief of Police for trying to encroach on American's 4th amendment rights outside of their "jurisdiction". http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/06/opinion/don-phillips-tsa-vipr-teams/

I wrote to my representatives about how I feel about the TSA. You can too: https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/tsa/

This is a great reminder to contact your Representative and ask them to support the latest iteration of the H.R. 3806 One Subject at a Time Act in the House and Sen. Paul's version S. 3359 One Subject at a Time Act in the Senate. Both bills are endorsed by DownsizeDC, which is one of the originators of the idea, according to their site.

You may be interested in the One Subject At A Time Act. Please spread the word.

This is the same kind of observations are encapsulated in the One Subject at a Time act.
https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/one-subject/

Right-o about the other stuff, but re the GPS thing:

Supreme Court decision on privacy vs GPS devices, from a recent newsletter:

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
===
The Supreme Court has decided "Antoine Jones v U.S." You won and The State lost, 9-0. The High Court ruled unanimously that police must have a warrant before they can attach GPS tracking devices to your
vehicles.

This is an historic decision and DC Downsizers merit much of the credit. You've helped fund many previous Supreme Court briefs, but never before has your influence been so clear. We had an impact with two different briefs at two different stages of the case . . .

First, we filed the ONLY brief asking the court to hear the case.
http://www.downsizedc.org/blog-content/antoine-jones-amicus-brief.pdf

Then we filed a brief making a uniquely principled argument. http://www.downsizedc.org/blog-content/antoine-jones-second-amicus-brief-final.pdf

In the Petition brief, we urged the court to take the case, re-examine its Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, and restore the property basis of
the Fourth Amendment. We wrote, "The original objective, property-based text and purpose of the Fourth Amendment should be revived and applied."

The Court responded directly. "Petition GRANTED. In addition... the parties are directed to brief ... Whether the government violated respondent's Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent." (Emphasis added)

That's YOUR victory.

But the second victory was even better. It may change judicial reasoning far into the future.

Our briefs asked the Justices to restore the 4th Amendment's protection of your property rights. For the past 43 years the Court's 4th Amendment decisions have been based on a right to privacy, NOT property. But the privacy protection is a much weaker standard. Our briefs, and ONLY our briefs, specifically aimed to restore the property right protection.

Our argument prevailed! Look at what Justice Scalia wrote in his majority opinion . . .

"The text of the Fourth Amendment reflects its close connection to property, since otherwise it would have referred simply to 'the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures'; the phrase 'in their persons, houses, papers and effects' would have been superfluous."

This was our point exactly.

Four other briefs mentioned property in passing. Ours majored in it. Only we asked the Court to make a fundamental course correction. Our
strategy prevailed. As a result, the Jones decision even includes a frank admission of how far the Court has strayed from the Constitutional text:

"Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was tied to common-law trespass, at least until the latter half of the 20th century (but) our later cases... have deviated from that exclusively property-based approach" in favor of a more flexible, modernist analysis based upon the Court's perceptions of a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

This too shows the influence of our briefs. We explained the history of 4th Amendment jurisprudence and specifically argued for a return to the original text. This "history lesson" contributed to the majority decision:

"The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical
intrusion would have been considered a 'search' within the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted."

In addition, we ALONE asserted the valiant proposition that it was NEVER possible for the government to attach a GPS to an automobile for
the purpose of gathering general evidence. The Fourth Amendment does not permit "fishing expeditions." The author of another brief told me
our positio

Right-o about the other stuff, but re the GPS thing:

Supreme Court decision on privacy vs GPS devices, from a recent newsletter:

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
===
The Supreme Court has decided "Antoine Jones v U.S." You won and The State lost, 9-0. The High Court ruled unanimously that police must have a warrant before they can attach GPS tracking devices to your
vehicles.

This is an historic decision and DC Downsizers merit much of the credit. You've helped fund many previous Supreme Court briefs, but never before has your influence been so clear. We had an impact with two different briefs at two different stages of the case . . .

First, we filed the ONLY brief asking the court to hear the case.
http://www.downsizedc.org/blog-content/antoine-jones-amicus-brief.pdf

Then we filed a brief making a uniquely principled argument. http://www.downsizedc.org/blog-content/antoine-jones-second-amicus-brief-final.pdf

In the Petition brief, we urged the court to take the case, re-examine its Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, and restore the property basis of
the Fourth Amendment. We wrote, "The original objective, property-based text and purpose of the Fourth Amendment should be revived and applied."

The Court responded directly. "Petition GRANTED. In addition... the parties are directed to brief ... Whether the government violated respondent's Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent." (Emphasis added)

That's YOUR victory.

But the second victory was even better. It may change judicial reasoning far into the future.

Our briefs asked the Justices to restore the 4th Amendment's protection of your property rights. For the past 43 years the Court's 4th Amendment decisions have been based on a right to privacy, NOT property. But the privacy protection is a much weaker standard. Our briefs, and ONLY our briefs, specifically aimed to restore the property right protection.

Our argument prevailed! Look at what Justice Scalia wrote in his majority opinion . . .

"The text of the Fourth Amendment reflects its close connection to property, since otherwise it would have referred simply to 'the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures'; the phrase 'in their persons, houses, papers and effects' would have been superfluous."

This was our point exactly.

Four other briefs mentioned property in passing. Ours majored in it. Only we asked the Court to make a fundamental course correction. Our
strategy prevailed. As a result, the Jones decision even includes a frank admission of how far the Court has strayed from the Constitutional text:

"Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was tied to common-law trespass, at least until the latter half of the 20th century (but) our later cases... have deviated from that exclusively property-based approach" in favor of a more flexible, modernist analysis based upon the Court's perceptions of a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

This too shows the influence of our briefs. We explained the history of 4th Amendment jurisprudence and specifically argued for a return to the original text. This "history lesson" contributed to the majority decision:

"The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical
intrusion would have been considered a 'search' within the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted."

In addition, we ALONE asserted the valiant proposition that it was NEVER possible for the government to attach a GPS to an automobile for
the purpose of gathering general evidence. The Fourth Amendment does not permit "fishing expeditions." The author of another brief told me
our positio

Read the Bills Act (Full Text, PDF)

It would do exactly what you wanted, but nobody is sponsoring it yet.

Read the Bills Act (Full Text, PDF)

It would do exactly what you wanted, but nobody is sponsoring it yet.

No, it's not time for the Fair Tax.

It's time to decrease the federal government's appetite for taxes.

Forget us reading the bill, how about making Congress read the bills?

Instead of just blabbing about the issues with Congress, we need to demand they represent us! We need to constantly hit them with letters, calls, etc., telling them how to do their job. It's as easy as filling out a form on the web. Eventually, they will listen, but not until enough people start telling them how to make decisions that benefit the whole country. DownSizeDC.org is a great organization that has many great ideas and suggestions for Congress. They even have a campaign for this topic: http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/urgent-a-bill-with-no-name

I think we're on the same page, except with respect to the meaning of "regulation".

I think it's ridiculous beyond belief that lawmakers regularly pass bills containing a thousand pages of legalese without really understanding what's in them. I support the idea of requiring that laws be read in congress before they can be voted upon.

Gold's price has gone from over $600 in the 80's, to less than $300 in the 90's back up to over $600 now. How again would this remove inflation & deflation? (The US dollar inflated between those two periods, so if gold is a counterweigh, then gold prices should have increased to match.)

The Free Competition in Currency Act is not about returning to the gold standard. It is about putting some more competition into the currency market with the expected result that good currency will drive out the bad. By not allowing competing currencies people are forced to do business with dollars backed by nothing but the full faith and credit of the US. (Which, ain't what it used to be) Ideally, the Dollar would be the good currency and be made better by the competition.

What happens if a huge amount of gold reserves are found? Everyone's money deflates.

True. But what are the odds of a 5,000,000 kilo gold asteroid falling into Lake Michigan or the sudden invention of a machine that cheaply transmutes aluminum into gold compared to the Fed cranking out another few trillion of paper money?

You do also know that we have fewer recessions than we did while in the gold standard, right?

Fewer per period of time or just fewer? We haven't been off the gold standard that long and we've had a few whoppers. But, once again, the Free Competition In Currency Act isn't about returning to a gold standard.

And that there is nothing preventing you from accepting gold as payment? See e-gold.com & their payments system.

Nothing except the Secret Service

If you are going to claim that a government agency is defrauding you, then there needs to be evidence: the inflation rate in the US has been less than 5% for almost all of the last decade, and much of that time it has been less than 2%. And you do know that inflationary bubbles aren't the only cause of asset bubbles or the only cause of recession?

Less than 5% inflation is HUGE. Over your lifetime it is crippling to anyone who saves money. Small percentages compounded over decades grow to large percentages very quickly.

A random metal is no more/less intrinsically valuable than random pieces of specially printed paper or of little black pixels in the shape of numbers on my bank's website.

Never said it was. Frankly, from an investing point of view I think gold is a terrible investment, little better than hiding a stack of dollars in a shoebox. However, the dollar could be made better. Which would benefit many of us.
Peter

Peter

Peter

You may want to check out http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/83

I've made such suggestions myself, and others. Maybe I didn't spend enough tyme but so far I've only found one constitutional amendment I made, "I propose a new amendment to the Constitution of the USA, all laws have to be written so the average person can read and understand it in 5 minutes." I've also made a proposal that Amendment 12 be repealed as well as others.

Falcon

You may want to check out http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/83. There are other people pushing for what you propose.

As the sibling poster said, neither of these options are viable. It's not a question of finding the right person, because the right person doesn't exist. The only way to get the power in the first place is to become a player. Once you do, the establishment has enough on you to keep you in line.

The way to make things change is not through voting, it is through public pressure. It doesn't matter who is in office. If enough of the public calls their congressmen strongly voicing their opinion, in this case against ACTA, the threat of losing the next election will force congress to do what we want them to do.

This requires people aware of the issue to discuss it with friends and family, and if they get riled up about it (or even if they don't) stress the importance of calling their representatives. Public pressure has consistently halted more bad legislation than strategic voting, and it's something you can do as often as bad legislation comes up.

(To make your job easier in the future, urge your congressmen to support the Read The Bills Act.)

That's an easy thing to say. Coming up with a set of changes to push for is a little more difficult, and actually getting enough people to push in order to make a difference is harder still.

It is an easy thing to say, yes. It's also what I usually tell people who complain and complain about the way things are going but can't be bothered to vote, let alone call or write their congesscritter or representative to voice their complaints.

Incidentally, that you linked to actionable bills and social action for them marks you as not one of those people, which I find quite surprising, and refreshing. There are too many like that, these days.

What do you suggest are some good first steps?

What I suggest, and in fact practice myself is to compile lists of your representatives in government and keep in touch with them. Ostensibly, they are supposed to represent the will of the people, but if they don't know the will of the people they'll do their own thing. "Hi, I'm your constituent, these are the things important to me.. [list and reasons here]... If you listen to me and vote in such a way that you represent my interests I'll not only vote for your re-election but I'll contribute money, otherwise [name of other candidate here] would be more amenable to doing so and my vote and money will go to them. My tax dollars pay your salary." I've found over the years that by bringing up the next election and the prospect of campaign donations makes it more likely that I'll get more than a canned reply when I do try to get in touch with them about something. Work all the angles you can.

Someone mentioned instant runoff voting, but I think that's jumping the gun--it (along with any other alternative to the current system) gives third parties a stronger voice, so you'll have a hard time convincing current politicians to back it.

Yeah, that would shake things up a lot. Given that some third-party candidates were unusually visible in the '04 election (which made a lot of people inside the Beltway nervous) that seems like a significant risk to the power bloc of the big two.

In my opinion, the best way to foster change is to spread the word about a few bills being sponsored by Downsize DC...

I've deleted your suggestions for the sake of brevity, but I will certainly look over the Downsize DC website and the bills you referenced. I wasn't aware of this before and I'll do some research on it. Offhand it seems potentially helpful.

Either one of these two measures by itself would do a lot to improve the quality of legislation coming out of Washington. DownsizeDC has a decent system for sending messages to all your congressmen. Their newsletter often has interesting (read: maddening) tidbits about what's going on in Washington, too, though the rhetoric can be juvenile at times.

Again, thank you for the heads-up. I've added it to my daily news crawl.

If you want to make a difference, start pushing for these bills. They have a lot of support already, and every new call for them makes it more likely that they'll actually be passed. Don't be put off because the organization doesn't support something that you do (the health care bill, for instance)--just make use of their system to keep increasing pressure on Congress to pass important legislation like the proposals listed above.

No organization will support everything that everyone wants or believes in. The only thing we can do is support those that seem to back most of them and speak out on the specifics.

The Write the Laws Act would put an end to bureaucrats essentially writing legislation by forcing Congress to fill in all the details. I think this one is a tough sell, but it can't hurt to try. See my other post for the whole spiel on why DownsizeDC might be the best avenue for taking back our power.

That's an easy thing to say. Coming up with a set of changes to push for is a little more difficult, and actually getting enough people to push in order to make a difference is harder still. What do you suggest are some good first steps?

Someone mentioned instant runoff voting, but I think that's jumping the gun--it (along with any other alternative to the current system) gives third parties a stronger voice, so you'll have a hard time convincing current politicians to back it.

In my opinion, the best way to foster change is to spread the word about a few bills being sponsored by Downsize DC. They are a non-partisan organization which is (obviously) committed to shrinking government. Now, you may not think that government needs shrinking, only fixing, but within their agenda are some proposals that would do just that. Here are two that I think are particularly needed:

1. The Read the Bills Act would ensure that every bill and every amendment must be read aloud in its entirety before a quorum in both houses, and every member who plans to vote "yes" must sign a sworn affidavit that he has read the complete bill. Additionally, every bill in its final form must be published to the Internet at least 7 days before a vote to let the public see the final bill. Personally, I think the reading aloud bit is kind of obnoxious, but I like the rest of it. We've seen that Obama's promise to put bills up online before a vote has not been carried out because it had no teeth. This would re-fang and improve it (that is, make it actually happen).
2. The One Subject at a Time Act requires that each bill that comes to a vote is about one subject, and one subject only. No more unpopular riders such as REAL ID hiding in bills named "Emergency, Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief." If something can't stand on its own merit, it shouldn't be passed. A bill's title is also required to be descriptive of the legislation it would enact.

Either one of these two measures by itself would do a lot to improve the quality of legislation coming out of Washington. DownsizeDC has a decent system for sending messages to all your congressmen. Their newsletter often has interesting (read: maddening) tidbits about what's going on in Washington, too, though the rhetoric can be juvenile at times.

If you want to make a difference, start pushing for these bills. They have a lot of support already, and every new call for them makes it more likely that they'll actually be passed. Don't be put off because the organization doesn't support something that you do (the health care bill, for instance)--just make use of their system to keep increasing pressure on Congress to pass important legislation like the proposals listed above.

That's an easy thing to say. Coming up with a set of changes to push for is a little more difficult, and actually getting enough people to push in order to make a difference is harder still. What do you suggest are some good first steps?

Someone mentioned instant runoff voting, but I think that's jumping the gun--it (along with any other alternative to the current system) gives third parties a stronger voice, so you'll have a hard time convincing current politicians to back it.

In my opinion, the best way to foster change is to spread the word about a few bills being sponsored by Downsize DC. They are a non-partisan organization which is (obviously) committed to shrinking government. Now, you may not think that government needs shrinking, only fixing, but within their agenda are some proposals that would do just that. Here are two that I think are particularly needed:

1. The Read the Bills Act would ensure that every bill and every amendment must be read aloud in its entirety before a quorum in both houses, and every member who plans to vote "yes" must sign a sworn affidavit that he has read the complete bill. Additionally, every bill in its final form must be published to the Internet at least 7 days before a vote to let the public see the final bill. Personally, I think the reading aloud bit is kind of obnoxious, but I like the rest of it. We've seen that Obama's promise to put bills up online before a vote has not been carried out because it had no teeth. This would re-fang and improve it (that is, make it actually happen).
2. The One Subject at a Time Act requires that each bill that comes to a vote is about one subject, and one subject only. No more unpopular riders such as REAL ID hiding in bills named "Emergency, Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief." If something can't stand on its own merit, it shouldn't be passed. A bill's title is also required to be descriptive of the legislation it would enact.

Either one of these two measures by itself would do a lot to improve the quality of legislation coming out of Washington. DownsizeDC has a decent system for sending messages to all your congressmen. Their newsletter often has interesting (read: maddening) tidbits about what's going on in Washington, too, though the rhetoric can be juvenile at times.

If you want to make a difference, start pushing for these bills. They have a lot of support already, and every new call for them makes it more likely that they'll actually be passed. Don't be put off because the organization doesn't support something that you do (the health care bill, for instance)--just make use of their system to keep increasing pressure on Congress to pass important legislation like the proposals listed above.

That's an easy thing to say. Coming up with a set of changes to push for is a little more difficult, and actually getting enough people to push in order to make a difference is harder still. What do you suggest are some good first steps?

Someone mentioned instant runoff voting, but I think that's jumping the gun--it (along with any other alternative to the current system) gives third parties a stronger voice, so you'll have a hard time convincing current politicians to back it.

In my opinion, the best way to foster change is to spread the word about a few bills being sponsored by Downsize DC. They are a non-partisan organization which is (obviously) committed to shrinking government. Now, you may not think that government needs shrinking, only fixing, but within their agenda are some proposals that would do just that. Here are two that I think are particularly needed:

1. The Read the Bills Act would ensure that every bill and every amendment must be read aloud in its entirety before a quorum in both houses, and every member who plans to vote "yes" must sign a sworn affidavit that he has read the complete bill. Additionally, every bill in its final form must be published to the Internet at least 7 days before a vote to let the public see the final bill. Personally, I think the reading aloud bit is kind of obnoxious, but I like the rest of it. We've seen that Obama's promise to put bills up online before a vote has not been carried out because it had no teeth. This would re-fang and improve it (that is, make it actually happen).
2. The One Subject at a Time Act requires that each bill that comes to a vote is about one subject, and one subject only. No more unpopular riders such as REAL ID hiding in bills named "Emergency, Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief." If something can't stand on its own merit, it shouldn't be passed. A bill's title is also required to be descriptive of the legislation it would enact.

Either one of these two measures by itself would do a lot to improve the quality of legislation coming out of Washington. DownsizeDC has a decent system for sending messages to all your congressmen. Their newsletter often has interesting (read: maddening) tidbits about what's going on in Washington, too, though the rhetoric can be juvenile at times.

If you want to make a difference, start pushing for these bills. They have a lot of support already, and every new call for them makes it more likely that they'll actually be passed. Don't be put off because the organization doesn't support something that you do (the health care bill, for instance)--just make use of their system to keep increasing pressure on Congress to pass important legislation like the proposals listed above.

Or tell your congressmen to support the Read the Bills Act, which would ensure by law that those who vote "yes" on a bill have read it in its entirety.

I don't expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I've ever read in my life.

...but you are expected to comprehend every word.

Read the Bills

---- "Never underestimate the power of a small group of people to change the world. In fact it's the only way it ever has." - Margaret Mead

A topical anonymous first post is a rare occurrence.

The American Congress looks out for the political class (i.e. themselves) and for whoever lines their pockets. This is very hard to change.

Congress's preferred method for doing so is to attach unrelated unpopular measures to popular multi-hundred page bills. I don't believe that this clause is such a case, but it happens often enough and there are probably other unsavory tidbits hidden within this bill.

The only way Congress will stop such a practice is if we force them to. To that end, DownsizeDC has drawn up the One Subject at a Time Act. This bill would force Congress to bring every measure to a vote instead of burying them inside some behemoth legislation named "Rekindle The American Dream Act of 2009."

Public pressure works: see for example the 224 co-sponsors (over half the House) of The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, which you may not have even heard of yet. But the Campaign for Liberty organized a call-in campaign that has been running for a month, maybe a little longer. C4L has around 100,000 members, easily less than a thousandth of the population, and they've already got half the house behind their bill. The phone call is the most effective means of public pressure. OSTA will law by this time next year or sooner if you call your congressmen and get four friends to do the same.

OSTA is a bitter pill for Congress to swallow, yet you'll be hard pressed to find 10 average Americans against its principles. If just a hundredth of those who say "it sounds like a good idea" were to actually call and ask their congressmen to support it, the congressmen would have no choice.

Seriously. Call. Slashdot 'em.

http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/83

"Most bills passed by Congress try to hide what their subject is by resorting to propagandistic titles such as the "No Child Left Behind Act," or the "PATRIOT Act," or the "Protect America Act." No one wants to be accused of voting to leave children behind, or against patriotism, or against protecting America, but none of these bill titles actually describe the subjects of these bills. So . . . ... A BILL

To prohibit the abuse of legislative power: by requiring that each bill or amendment hereinafter introduced (other than concurrent resolutions or appropriations bills within the jurisdictional authority of each subcommittee of each Appropriations Committee) be limited to only one subject, so as to end the practice of addressing more than one subject in a single bill; by requiring that each bill's single subject be descriptively expressed in the title thereto; by requiring each appropriation bill, including any supplemental appropriation bill, by amendment or otherwise, not to contain any general legislation or change of existing law not germane to the subject matter of said bill; by requiring each bill amending an existing statutory provision to set forth in full in the amendatory bill the section as it would read if the proposed amendment were adopted; by declaring that all bills enacted in violation of this Act shall be void, having no legal effect whatsoever, which should be treated as nullities by the American people, this Act being mandatory in purpose, not directory only."

Why is it that nowadays any significantly high profile criminal activity has been reclassified as terrorism? I thought that terrorist acts were supposed to invoke terror in the pursuit of some political end by blowing up/killing buildings/planes/hostages, the idea being that a population would be in so much fear (terror) that they would pressure their government to give in to the demands of the terrorists.

The answer is that there are probably too few of the above classification of terrorists to actually have a war against (as in the war on terror) here in the United States. Those in control need to expand the definition of terror so as to actually have something to have war against. Why have a war on terror at all? Many people are willing to cede their liberty and freedom to catch terrorists of the ilk that perpetrated 9/11 (a la the war on terror) and the government is using that sentiment with regards to the newly reclassified definition of terrorist (pretty much anyone they don't like that they are willing to label as terrorist...protesters, constitutionalists, libertarians etc etc etc. See Missouri's MIAC report which associated supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr, three presidential candidates all espousing constitutional government)being associated with terrorists. The Bush administration (and now Obama administration) has taken full advantage of the flexibility of the term "terrorist" to assault personal freedoms on an unprecedented scale.

If you see the scales of freedom tipping in the wrong direction, get involved. There are left and right leaning organizations that are trying to restore our freedom:
American Freedom Campaign
The Pen
DownsizeDc.org
The Campaign for Liberty
Restore the Republic
Young Americans for Liberty

It is sad. Which is why there should be legislation that makes them read the bills.

http://www.downsizedc.org/page/read_the_laws

I would rather see the law making process more transparent, just look at the stimulus bill:

• Obama promised not to sign bills that hadn't been posted online for the public to read for at least five days BEFORE the final vote was cast.
• Speaker Nancy Pelosi, promised that the final version of the scam stimulus bill would be posted online for at least 48 hours before the vote.
• The 1,073 page scam bill, with an extra 421 page Explanatory Statement, was delivered, still unfinished, at midnight Thursday.
• The House passed the bill 14 hours and 24 minutes later.
• The Senate did likewise 3 hours and 5 minutes after the House.

source: http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/hiding+the+sausage

Go to http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/83/. They have something to try and pass what you've suggested. Let's hope.

Yeah, but no matter what it makes us, the US population in general will not know about it till well past 2010. It will take that long for our legislators to actually read the damn thing. Sure there will be watchdog groups who have read it before then, but like those that nay-sayed on the DMCA and US PATRIOT Act, they will be ignored until we are suffering the bad and unintended consequences of caveats in this bill.

You know, this bill is a perfect example of why we need DownsizeDC's Read the Bills Act. It is unacceptable that Congress votes for legislation they haven't fscking read. Please contact your Representative and Senators about that act.

Three other DownsizeDC campaigns that this bill perfectly shows the need for are:

Enumerated Powers Act - "It's time for Congress to, "Cite it, chapter and verse." Where do they derive their authority? When they pass new laws or spend taxpayer money, they should be required to point to specific language in the Constitution. The Enumerated Powers Act would require them to do precisely that."

One Subject at a Time Act - "Congress routinely passes unpopular laws by combining them with completely unrelated bills that have majority support".

Federal deficit causes Congressional pay cut
Federal deficit causes Congressional pay cut - "Congress needs incentives to Downsize DC. H.R. 500 would provide such an incentive. If the federal government runs a deficit, then Congress will suffer a cut in pay. Tell your elected representatives to sponsor H.R. 500."

Yeah, but no matter what it makes us, the US population in general will not know about it till well past 2010. It will take that long for our legislators to actually read the damn thing. Sure there will be watchdog groups who have read it before then, but like those that nay-sayed on the DMCA and US PATRIOT Act, they will be ignored until we are suffering the bad and unintended consequences of caveats in this bill.

You know, this bill is a perfect example of why we need DownsizeDC's Read the Bills Act. It is unacceptable that Congress votes for legislation they haven't fscking read. Please contact your Representative and Senators about that act.

Three other DownsizeDC campaigns that this bill perfectly shows the need for are:

Enumerated Powers Act - "It's time for Congress to, "Cite it, chapter and verse." Where do they derive their authority? When they pass new laws or spend taxpayer money, they should be required to point to specific language in the Constitution. The Enumerated Powers Act would require them to do precisely that."

One Subject at a Time Act - "Congress routinely passes unpopular laws by combining them with completely unrelated bills that have majority support".

Federal deficit causes Congressional pay cut
Federal deficit causes Congressional pay cut - "Congress needs incentives to Downsize DC. H.R. 500 would provide such an incentive. If the federal government runs a deficit, then Congress will suffer a cut in pay. Tell your elected representatives to sponsor H.R. 500."

Yeah, but no matter what it makes us, the US population in general will not know about it till well past 2010. It will take that long for our legislators to actually read the damn thing. Sure there will be watchdog groups who have read it before then, but like those that nay-sayed on the DMCA and US PATRIOT Act, they will be ignored until we are suffering the bad and unintended consequences of caveats in this bill.

You know, this bill is a perfect example of why we need DownsizeDC's Read the Bills Act. It is unacceptable that Congress votes for legislation they haven't fscking read. Please contact your Representative and Senators about that act.

Three other DownsizeDC campaigns that this bill perfectly shows the need for are:

Enumerated Powers Act - "It's time for Congress to, "Cite it, chapter and verse." Where do they derive their authority? When they pass new laws or spend taxpayer money, they should be required to point to specific language in the Constitution. The Enumerated Powers Act would require them to do precisely that."

One Subject at a Time Act - "Congress routinely passes unpopular laws by combining them with completely unrelated bills that have majority support".

Federal deficit causes Congressional pay cut
Federal deficit causes Congressional pay cut - "Congress needs incentives to Downsize DC. H.R. 500 would provide such an incentive. If the federal government runs a deficit, then Congress will suffer a cut in pay. Tell your elected representatives to sponsor H.R. 500."

Yeah, but no matter what it makes us, the US population in general will not know about it till well past 2010. It will take that long for our legislators to actually read the damn thing. Sure there will be watchdog groups who have read it before then, but like those that nay-sayed on the DMCA and US PATRIOT Act, they will be ignored until we are suffering the bad and unintended consequences of caveats in this bill.

You know, this bill is a perfect example of why we need DownsizeDC's Read the Bills Act. It is unacceptable that Congress votes for legislation they haven't fscking read. Please contact your Representative and Senators about that act.

Three other DownsizeDC campaigns that this bill perfectly shows the need for are:

Enumerated Powers Act - "It's time for Congress to, "Cite it, chapter and verse." Where do they derive their authority? When they pass new laws or spend taxpayer money, they should be required to point to specific language in the Constitution. The Enumerated Powers Act would require them to do precisely that."

One Subject at a Time Act - "Congress routinely passes unpopular laws by combining them with completely unrelated bills that have majority support".

Federal deficit causes Congressional pay cut
Federal deficit causes Congressional pay cut - "Congress needs incentives to Downsize DC. H.R. 500 would provide such an incentive. If the federal government runs a deficit, then Congress will suffer a cut in pay. Tell your elected representatives to sponsor H.R. 500."

It shouldn't matter what opinion you have on net neutrality, there is absolutely NO reason this should be in the stimulus bill.

Support the One Subject at a Time Act:
http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/83

Any chance Obama was privy to additional information that made him change his mind? If that were the case, he really couldn't come out and say "There's information that I have been told but I can't tell you what it is but just trust me." I would have voted against him if he did that. Especially after becoming president, there are many promises that you simply can't keep because you didn't have enough information.

Your post basically says there is no hope so don't try to change anything. Instead, you should put effort into asking for more transparency. If we knew what was happening, and Russell Tice could say it matches what he saw happening, it would make a lot more sense. If it is an evil machine, we need to push to see what's happening. If it is just a bunch of normal people making normal mistakes, only on a national level, transparency can only help.

What you see as a conspiracy against normal people looks to me like a bunch of people allowed to operate in secrecy and not having to explain themselves.

It would be better for people to get behind drives like DownsizeDC. Even if you don't agree with the idea of downsizing government, many of their campaigns have no reasonable counterargument. Write the laws yourself instead of accepting industry-written text, read bills before voting, no bundling of unrelated riders. I'm no libertarian myself, so some campaigns make sense to me and some not so much. These kinds of things should be our focus, not surrender, cynicism, and apathy.

One Subject at a Time Act by Downsize DC would prevent that!

Call your Congresspeople and tell them to support it!

http://www.downsizedc.org/

"Read the Bills Act" (what I like to call "RTFB Act"): the bill must be read aloud before a full quorum in both the House and the Senate. In addition, 7 days must pass between when a change was made to the bill, and when they can vote on it. Furthermore, the full text of the bill must be made available to the public at least 7 days before a vote, and Congress must give notice on when they will be voting for that bill.

"One Subject at a Time Act": Self explanatory. Each bill can not address more than one subject at a time.

Yes, I did misunderstand you; thanks for clarifying.

Here is the relevant text of the bill:

A BILL

To prohibit the abuse of legislative power...by declaring that all bills enacted in violation of this Act shall be void, having no legal effect whatsoever, which should be treated as nullities by the American people, this Act being mandatory in purpose, not directory only.

(full text)

Doesn't that language, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the restriction, take care of the issue you raised?

There is a bill being aggressively pushed by DownsizeDC, the Read The Bills Act, which requires not just that the congressmen read the bill, but requires each bill to be read aloud in session before it can be voted on. This ensures that all congressmen voting on the bill will have heard its text, and it will also do a lot to cut the size of these monstrosities.

In addition, the bill must be posted online 7 days in advance, and no changes may be made without resetting that 7-day period, ensuring that the public can see and react to exactly what will be passed.

Everyone whose heard of this thing (and is not in the political class) is for it, and there's been enough pressure that the House Minority Leader requested the 7-day full-text posting of Obama's stimulus package. It's a great step, and it shows that the pressure from the electorate's phone calls and messages is working, but there's no reason that it should only be applied to a single bill.

The other bill they're pushing for, which I'll mention here because it also represents another process to improve our quality of legislation, is the One Subject at a Time Act. It's pretty self-explanatory, and would end the use of "riders" - sneaking unpopular chunks of legislation (or pork) into other popular or necessary bills.

If you want to see these changes made, one of the best things you can do is to raise awareness of these bills, call your congressmen, and convince your friends and family to do the same.

There is a bill being aggressively pushed by DownsizeDC, the Read The Bills Act, which requires not just that the congressmen read the bill, but requires each bill to be read aloud in session before it can be voted on. This ensures that all congressmen voting on the bill will have heard its text, and it will also do a lot to cut the size of these monstrosities.

In addition, the bill must be posted online 7 days in advance, and no changes may be made without resetting that 7-day period, ensuring that the public can see and react to exactly what will be passed.

Everyone whose heard of this thing (and is not in the political class) is for it, and there's been enough pressure that the House Minority Leader requested the 7-day full-text posting of Obama's stimulus package. It's a great step, and it shows that the pressure from the electorate's phone calls and messages is working, but there's no reason that it should only be applied to a single bill.

The other bill they're pushing for, which I'll mention here because it also represents another process to improve our quality of legislation, is the One Subject at a Time Act. It's pretty self-explanatory, and would end the use of "riders" - sneaking unpopular chunks of legislation (or pork) into other popular or necessary bills.

If you want to see these changes made, one of the best things you can do is to raise awareness of these bills, call your congressmen, and convince your friends and family to do the same.

The real problem is the granularity of many bills is too large. That is NOT Obie's fault. You have to vote Yes or No on a big blob of stuff.

No... you have to vote Yes or No on the ENTIRE bill.

It's a huge problem with our legislature, but there's plans to change this.

http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/83

Join DownsizeDC and support their One Subject at a Time Act.

And Obie? LOL

Deregulation DID work great, then the government stepped in and regulated.

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/mark-twain-was-right

Agreed. Rather than have a line-item veto, Congress needs to regulate the way its bills are written (they want to regulate everything else, why not themselves?). DownsizeDC has some stuff that would help in this respect like the Read The Bills Act, which forces Congress to sit through the full reading of a bill before voting on it. I believe they have other proposed legislation that would limit bills to one subject, eliminating riders.

Do this and the need for line-item veto is eliminated. Unpopular legislation would be much harder to pass because it can't be whisked through the page-93 back door. Bills would either be shorter and more concise, or there would be a lot less of them due to the readings.

Sounds like a big win for The People, which is why I am not optimistic that it will come about. We're too lazy to keep pushing for it.

But it is wrong that it even got introduced. It would be like introducing a bill that allowed the government to take whatever you owned with no warrant and the ability to sell that at auctions. Sure that bill wouldn't get voted in, and hopefully the supreme court would find it un-constitutional, but it shouldn't have gotten introduced.

They can't take whatever you own, just cash that has traces of narcotics on it (>90% of bills in circulation) or a car that had traces of drugs in it.

It's called civil asset forfeiture. See Downsize DC for more information.

"America was founded on the slogan, "No taxation without representation." A similar slogan applies to this situation: "No LEGISLATION without representation." We hold this truth to be self-evident, that those in Congress who vote on legislation they have not read, have not represented their constituents. They have misrepresented them. And since Congress has repeatedly committed "legislation without representation," strong measures to prohibit these Congressional misrepresentations are both justified and required. To this end we have created the "Read the Bills Act (RTBA)."