House Appropriators May Limit Public Availability of Pending Bills

Attila Dimedici writes "The House Appropriations Committee is considering a draft report that would forbid the Library of Congress to allow bulk downloads of bills pending before Congress. The Library of Congress currently has an online database called THOMAS (for Thomas Jefferson) that allows people to look up bills pending before Congress. The problem is that THOMAS is somewhat clunky and it is difficult to extract data from it. This draft report would forbid the Library of Congress from modernizing THOMAS until a task force reports back. I am pretty sure that the majority of people on Slashdot agree that being able to better understand how the various bills being considered by Congress interact would be good for this country."

Comments

Obviously

[Stirling Newberry]

The Gingrich Revolution is too far to the left for the current House of Representatives.

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

This is news? The current GOP pols are far to the right of that liberal Demagogue Nixon. The health care reform package that the current GOP is so outraged about would likely have been signed no further questions asked by Nixon as it's more conservative than what he was proposing at the time.

What's more back then the GOP recognized that we do indeed need the federal government to do somethings as leaving things up to the states didn't work out so well during our trial run as a confederation.

Re:Obviously

[JackieBrown]

This is reasonable per Pelosi. As she said "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

Re:Obviously

[PopeRatzo]

This is reasonable per Pelosi.

Except, the Republicans run the House of Representatives now, and they run the Appropriations Committee who actually made this pronouncement, so wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that it is "reasonable per Boehner"? Or maybe, "reasonable per Koch" since that's who runs the Republican Party?

I mean, if you wanted to be accurate...

Re:Obviously

[d3ac0n]

He IS being accurate. He is pointing out that hiding the content of legislation isn't a GOP problem, it's a Democrat problem, as evidenced by the video he linked.

When Pelosi had control of the house, she intentionally and purposefully hid the contents of the "Obamacare" bill and used parliamentary tricks to avoid debate. There was even talk that the Democrats would use a trick called "Deem and Pass" to simply "Deem" the bill passed WITHOUT taking a vote on it. Yep, that's right; The Democrats, not the Republicans wanted to suspend the democratic process and simply force through a bill they wanted because people opposed it. This was a historical first for any Congress, and it was the Democrats that tried it. In the end they dropped it due to massive public pressure, and the bill passed on purely partisan lines. (Note that the Democrats had total control of both houses of Congress at the time.)

Also, as another poster pointed out below, wanting a full accounting and report of any major project so that all interested parties can review it before signing off on the expenditure is a responsible thing to do, something we want our representatives doing. Why is this bad just because the GOP is doing it? Doesn't that strike you as a hypocritical position to take?

As that other posted noted, this article is itself a troll and nothing but FUD. THOMAS isn't going down, even during the upgrade, so no access will be lost. The GOP just wants to do the upgrade properly and with full oversight. They should be applauded for being responsible with our money.

Re:Obviously

[geekmux]

This is reasonable per Pelosi. As she said "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

Spoken like a true representative of the elite living above the laws they make for everyone else to abide by.

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I support the concept of universal health care, cpu6502 is correct.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people..

Now show me what part of the constitution grants the federal government the power to provide healthcare.

Re:Obviously

[hrvatska]

"Deem and Pass" Is Not "Without a Vote", and both parties use it. The Republicans used it to pass a budget bill in the House recently. The Dems used it in the House for healthcare legislation. The Republicans used it to pass the Bush tax cuts. There are plenty of examples of both parties using it. Both sides cry about the other side using this technique, but they both use it when it's to their advantage.

Re:Obviously

[WrecklessSandwich]

You mean the "Deem and Pass" trick the Boehner House actually tried to use at least once for the godawful GOP budget bills to try to bypass the Senate? Doesn't that strike you as a hypocritical position to take? Quick, post some more out of context Fox News clips of out of context quotes to show what a partisan shill you are.

It isn't the Democrats or the Republicans or even the (bad) 2-party system that's the problem. The problem is the Red vs. Blue adversarial partisan bullshit pushed by people like you that makes every issue divisive for its own sake to the point that nonsense like hiding the content of legislation and "Deem and Pass" are more attractive options than intelligent discussion. Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay must be spinning in their graves.

That being said, I agree with you about TFA being complete nonsense.

Re:Obviously

[0bject]

Article I, Section 8, clause 1 The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States Article I, Section 8, clause 3 To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

Re:Obviously

[Maxo-Texas]

It's purely a matter of saying it bluntly instead of trying to say it cleverly.

You can't say, "You MUST pay $640 to buy health insurance"-- unconstitutional.

But...

You can say, "You MUST give the federal government $640 per year in taxes. The Federal government will provide you health care. There will be tax exemptions for people whose income is low". -- constitutional

Re:Obviously

[Dishevel]

This is where the problem lies.
If it is a tax then it can skirt the 10th amendment. Though we would all agree that it would be "skirting" it as the constitution was clear.
The issue is that it was not passed as a tax. They have legal issues if it is a tax. They have legal issues if it is not a tax.
What I am seeing is that they are trying to tell us it "is/is not" a tax. They can only get it to be legal if they can convince the Supreme Court that it is both a tax and not a tax at the same time.

Re:Obviously

[cpu6502]

Let's ask the author of the constitution (quoting from memory): "There is nothing more natural than to start with a general phrase, and qualify it with particulars. The phrase 'provide general welfare' is qualified by the list of specifically enumerated power below it. Congress may only exercise those powers.

"To suppose Congress might do anything that falls within the 'general welfare' would give the central government unlimited power to do whatever it pleases, and there is a whole host of proofs that was never intended by the original framers, nor by myself." - James Madison, author of the Constitution.

He also authored, with Jefferson, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which state the powers of the central government are few, while the bulk of the power is reserved to the People and their Legislatures (amendment 10). The Congress may not mandate you buy car insurance. But the States can. It is a power reserved to them, and the same is true of any other form of insurance.

And finally:
Congress has the power to regulate commerce AMONG the states. Not inside the states, and most-definitely not commerce between two individuals (me and my doctor). They can NOT force me to buy insurance if I would rather pay cash directly to my physician.

Re:Obviously

[vriemeister]

I remember that everyone could read the entire healthcare bill at any time. It was just over 1000 pages and people chose to whine about that instead. A very few journalists actually did and really asked intelligent and pointed questions about its contents. But that was massively drowned out by screams from the right of Obamacare, Socialism, and Death Panels. And so no one knew what was in the bill because they only paid attention to those who yelled the loudest.

In that context, here is the full comment Pelosi made and I think it shows your little snippet to be misleading.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=zE-F5CX34qI&NR=1

Re:Obviously

[Dishevel]

Can we not just agree that both the Democrats and the Republicans suck ass?
How fucking stupid do you have to be? After all of the evidence we have had for someone to still believe that one party is looking out for you.
Neither one is! If you think that the Democrats or the Republicans are protecting you you are a tard.

Re:Obviously

[CrimsonAvenger]

I would be very surprised if ObamaCare even made it into THOMAS.

It's been in there for years.

I read every version of it as it was being debated, and the final version was in there at the end.

Re:Obviously

[nschubach]

I cannot buy Healthcare Insurance from California if I live in the New York unless my employer is based in California and it's provided to me by my employer. The Health Insurance companies are(were?) "protected" from national insurance operations beyond state boundaries... Interestingly, automotive insurance can be sold across state lines yet that is regulated by the States.

Insurance firms in each state are protected from interstate competition by the federal McCarran-Ferguson Act (1945), which grants states the right to regulate health plans within their borders. Large employers who self-insure are exempt from these state regulations. Thus there is a patchwork of 50 different sets of state regulations, and the cost for an insurer licensed in one state to enter another state market is often high.

(Source)

Re:Obviously

[AtomicAdam]

Dear AC,

Please provide the context that you are referring to. If such context cannot be provided please accept that most politicians are in it for NUMERO UNO (that's Spanish for number one). Seriously anyone who spends more than a million dollars campaigning for a job that wont give an ROI then you know they have to be making the difference from somewhere else. That difference comes from our Ass. In this case it comes from health bills that i'm not really sure were ever intended to help provide health care.

We need health care reform... I don't think it's been done properly yet.

Re:Obviously

[nbauman]

If Democrats (or socialists) don't like it then they should amend the constitution

Anybody who refers to any member of Congress (except for Bernie Saunders) as a "socialist" is beyond the bounds of fact and reason.

Re:Obviously

[AtomicAdam]

Really? Some versions were upwards of 2000 pages long. That's like reading war and peace 4 times over... every time there was a revision. Did you get the Doctor Seuss version?

Maybe there was a summary that you read? In which case I will advise that you RTFA before you vote!

Re:Obviously

[nbauman]

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1113618
The Irrelevance of the Broccoli Argument against the Insurance Mandate
Einer Elhauge, J.D.
N Engl J Med 2012; 366:e1January 5, 2012

Others argue that the Constitution's framers could not possibly have envisioned a congressional power to force purchases. However, in 1790, the first Congress, which was packed with framers, required all ship owners to provide medical insurance for seamen; in 1798, Congress also required seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. In 1792, Congress enacted a law mandating that all able-bodied citizens obtain a firearm. This history negates any claim that forcing the purchase of insurance or other products is unprecedented or contrary to any possible intention of the framers.

Re:Obviously

[Livius]

"[H]iding the content of legislation" is bipartisan, and (from their perspective) it isn't a problem, it's the goal.

Re:Obviously

[AtomicAdam]

He IS being accurate. He is pointing out that hiding the content of legislation isn't a GOP problem, it's a Politician problem, as evidenced by the all the BS that has been going on like sopa and pipa

FTFY

Re:Obviously

[WrecklessSandwich]

Oh you'll get no argument from me there. I say kill 'em all.

Re:Obviously

[hey!]

I would be very surprised if ObamaCare even made it into THOMAS.

Be surprised then. Both The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the earlier House version called The Affordable Health Care for America Act (subsequently amended into an entirely different bill) are in there. (And apropos of TFA, trying to find those bills then extract a stable URL is a pan because the UI appends session specific data to query result URLs).

But it turns out there's a good reason why you might have the impression that Obama was secretive about the health insurance reform bill.

Keep in mind that when it came to health insurance reform the political game had three sides. The Democrats in Congress wanted to pass the most ambitious reform bill they could manage. The White House wanted a bill big enough allow them to say they delivered on reform promises but not so big Obama face the kind of shit storm Clinton faced when he tried to do insurance reform. The Republicans wanted to force Obama and the House Democrats through the same political meat grinder they put Clinton through in the 1990s.

Obama was inexperienced in national politics at this point. His strategy was to make a high profile call for reform, then leave it up to the House to come up with a package of specific proposals that it could pass. The intent was to get a reform bill passed without staking too much White House credibility on the specifics, and not to give opponents a political punching bag before the details of the actual bill had been worked out. This was a miscalculation. The Republicans were able to attack straw men proposals like death panels, bolstered by the lack of political leadership from the White House. And by leaving the specifics up to the House, Obama got a bill that was a lot more ambitious and politically risky than he wanted (source:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/health/policy/21reconstruct.html). It was also some 70 billion dollars more expensive than he wanted (source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34753.html).

The House Democrats, for their part, based their proposals on Romney's Massachusetts plan, which in turn was based on Bob Dole's Republican alternative to Clinton's reform plans. While this would seem to be a politically safe move, the lack of leadership from the White House meant they ended up taking the political damage for a much more radical government takeover of health insurance, while at the same time alienating their base for *not* doing that.

In the end Republicans were able to gain a significant political victory in Congress and and advantageous position against Obama at the price of enacting their own health care plan from the mid 1990s.

Re:Obviously

[CanHasDIY]

Congress has the power to regulate commerce AMONG the states. Not inside the states, and most-definitely not commerce between two individuals (me and my doctor). They can NOT force me to buy insurance if I would rather pay cash directly to my physician.

Dead on accurate, sir.

In the interest of preserving Constitutional authority, I hope the SCOTUS decides in that manner regarding the individual mandate; however, given recent decisions by said court that blatantly flout the Constitutional rights of the People... I'm not holding my breath.

Re:Obviously

[mk1004]

There was even talk that the Democrats would use a trick called "Deem and Pass" to simply "Deem" the bill passed WITHOUT taking a vote on it. Yep, that's right; The Democrats, not the Republicans wanted to suspend the democratic process and simply force through a bill they wanted because people opposed it.

"Deem and Pass" does not mean that the bill is passed without taking a vote. It means that the house votes on both what debate is allowed on a bill and on the bill at the same time. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/explaining_deem_and_pass.html Two votes are generally taken on each bill, the first as to how much debate is allowed and the second on the bill itself. So every bill must be voted on by the house to pass. How does that suspend the democratic process?

Re:Obviously

[CanHasDIY]

Oh, so it's a tax now? Funny, I could have swore the individual mandate was a forced purchase from private insurers, which would not be covered under Article 1, Section 8.

Re:Obviously

[CanHasDIY]

This is news? The current GOP pols are far to the right of that liberal Demagogue Nixon. The health care reform package that the current GOP is so outraged about would likely have been signed no further questions asked by Nixon as it's more conservative than what he was proposing at the time.

You sure about that?

Re:Obviously

[mk1004]

What, cutting a piece of somebody's words distorts the meaning?

Who knew?

Surely you can't be suggesting a Congressman would do that.

FTFY

+1 Funny either way.

Re:Obviously

[CanHasDIY]

He IS being accurate. He is pointing out that hiding the content of legislation isn't a GOP problem, it's a Democrat problem, as evidenced by the video he linked.

No, it's an idiot problem, exacerbated by the insistence of other idiots on perpetuating bullshit partisan rhetoric, despite the obvious fact both parties are just two sides of the same coin.

I recommend you stop getting your political information from goddamn Youtube videos, and check out the voting records of the politicians for yourself.

Re:Obviously

[tepples]

What is the legal issue for a tax on earned income with a compensating credit for having insurance coverage?

Re:Obviously

[readin]

The Gingrich Revolution is too far to the left for the current House of Representatives.

We can only hope. However they're going way to the left of Gingrich with this proposal - at least in terms of it becoming easier for elites to make laws "for the good of the people" without having to worry about what the people actually think. However it is not quite as far to the left as the typical left-wing tactic of using the courts to enact policies it can't get the public to support.

Re:Obviously

[geekoid]

"NOT the Congress."

wrong.
Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

How is it not general welfare?

And lets no forget that some of our founding fathers went on to create a government health care program for some workers.
I don't see how anyone can look at that and the say they didn't want the government to be able to do that.

I wish there was a way to make the people who use the word socialism actually learn what that word means.

Do you mean market socialist? economic socialists? do you actual mean Marxisms? independent socialist? Utopian socialists?

Do you mean state joint ownership of companies? Or do you just hear that work on Fox when the are spoon feeding you what to think and assume it = 'bad'

The pubs do thing that can be considered economic and market socialism. SO maybe you should start to think for yourself and read outside your echo chamber of stupid?

Re:Obviously

[readin]

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1113618 The Irrelevance of the Broccoli Argument against the Insurance Mandate Einer Elhauge, J.D. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:e1January 5, 2012

Others argue that the Constitution's framers could not possibly have envisioned a congressional power to force purchases. However, in 1790, the first Congress, which was packed with framers, required all ship owners to provide medical insurance for seamen; in 1798, Congress also required seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. In 1792, Congress enacted a law mandating that all able-bodied citizens obtain a firearm. This history negates any claim that forcing the purchase of insurance or other products is unprecedented or contrary to any possible intention of the framers.

Interesting. Did this include seamen who only sailed the ocean within their own state, or did it apply only to seamen who sailed the ocean between states and/or between the US and other countries?

Was requirement for the purchase of firearms a mandate to promote the firearms business or was it perhaps related to the national defense?

Re:Obviously

[geekoid]

No, it is NOT dead on accurate.
  Or maybe you think the founding fathers didn't know what the constitution meant when they where in congress and passing bills the explicitly show that is an incorrect out of context interpretation?

Clearly your interpretation handed to you by your republican masters is correct and the founding fathers were wrong.

Re:Obviously

[geekoid]

But the insurance company has office in several states.

Re:Obviously

[geekoid]

I also read it, and have a copy of almost every revision.

We can also just read the revised bits and not the whole thing over and over again.

Re:Obviously

[khipu]

Trouble is that Obama is flip-flopping: to get the health care bill passed, he insisted that it is not a tax. Now to get it through SCOTUS, he is claiming that it is a tax.

But it isn't a tax. A tax would mean that everybody pays a health care tax and then gets a credit for getting private health care. You may think it amounts to the same thing, but it doesn't.

The health care law needs to be scrapped and replaced with one that defines the mandate in terms of a tax because that is all Congress has a right to do.

Re:Obviously

[khipu]

But the two statements don't mean the same thing. A mandate to buy something is legally not the same as a tax increase, and the differences have consequences.

Re:Obviously

[khipu]

Yes, Congress can levy taxes to pay for health care, and the US government can (and does) run health care programs if it wants to. No problem with either. But that's not what Obama's health care law does.

Re:Obviously

[cayenne8]

However, Obamacare....isn't using taxes to do its dirty work. They are forcing you to buy insurance from a private company, OR, you have to pay a fine.

They went out of their way in the wording to make it NOT be a tax. So, that part you quoted in the constitution isn't relevant.

Re:Obviously

[CanHasDIY]

No, it is NOT dead on accurate. Or maybe you think the founding fathers didn't know what the constitution meant when they where in congress and passing bills the explicitly show that is an incorrect out of context interpretation?

Well, sirrah, you are welcome to either prove me wrong, or STFU.

Clearly your interpretation handed to you by your republican masters is correct and the founding fathers were wrong.

Yes, my final statement in that post regarding my hopes that the SCOTUS will refuse to force-feed corporatism upon the populace is indeed an obvious indicator that I am ruled by "republican masters."

Or you're just being a partisan, sensationalist jackass who has chosen to reject the reality of my statement, and substitute your own. If I were a betting man, my money would go down upon the latter.

Go find someone else to troll, you are not adequately armed for this particular battle of wits.

Re:Obviously

[interkin3tic]

I think a poorly-worded soundbite is a bit different from actual legislation to that effect. Kind of like how it was funny when Gore seemed to be saying that he invented the Internet, but wouldn't be funny if he tried to pass legislation giving him full ownership and control of the Internet.

Re:Obviously

[interkin3tic]

So you're saying that democrats acted like democrats and republicans acted like republicans... why does that mean Obama would have an interest in keeping the bill secret? His base knew it wasn't a home run, the failure of the public plan and medicare buy in were front page news quickly. I think it would be the republicans who would have had the interest in keeping it's contents secret: Joe Wilson yelling out "You lie" when Obama said illegal immigrants would not be covered for example.

Re:Obviously

[nbauman]

Did this include seamen who only sailed the ocean within their own state, or did it apply only to seamen who sailed the ocean between states and/or between the US and other countries?

Outside the United States.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=257

Re:Obviously

[readin]

I think that explains why it was OK. This would be similar to a mandate that anyone traveling outside the US purchase traveler's insurance. However insurance mandates discussed in recent years have not been limited to international behaviors.

Re:Obviously

[DavidTC]

Uh, Congress isn't forcing you to buy anything. No one, at any point, is required to buy any insurance.

Does no one here actually understand how the law works?

Congress is taxing people who don't have health insurance. Or, as I believe it is phrased, Congress is taxing everyone, and then providing a rebate for people with health insurance.

Gee, I wonder if Congress has the power to tax people. If only the power to tax was somehow enshrined in the Constitution.

Re:Obviously

[DavidTC]

Obama can 'insist' the PPACA is a manned moon mission for all I care.

'Penalty' doesn't actually seem to have any meaning in the law. Let's try to figure out what a 'penalty' could be.

It doesn't appear to be a fine, which is when a criminal offense is committed that has a monetary punishment. And, in fact, that would be a very oddly structured crime...a crime of not doing something?

It doesn't appear to be a tort, either. Simply because there's no trial possible.

There are 'fees' the government charges...but, again, it charges fees for government services, not 'some guy didn't do something'. So it's not a fee. (And fees are a form of tax anyway.)

The simple fact is the government outright charging people money is called a tax, period. Using a word besides 'tax' doesn't change that fact.

Wikipedia: To tax (from the Latin taxo; "I estimate") is to impose a financial charge or other levy upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law.

Any money you owe the government normally (As opposed to owing money as the result of a a court punishment.) is a tax. If the legislature says you owe it, it's a 'tax'. That is what a tax is. This is not some sort of debatable concept, it's not in any way vague.

Now, an argument could, in theory, be made that it is an impermissible form of tax...the only taxes allowed in the US are a) Direct proportional and head taxes, according to the constitution, b) indirect taxes, which is assumed because direct ones are explicitly banned under the constitution and they're the only other type, and c) any sort of income taxes, added by the sixteenth amendment to fixed the wrong-headed court decision that rent wouldn't count under indirect taxes.

The problem is, the PPACA is a head tax that is proportional to the population (Because it's on the population instead of each state.), and thus explicitly allowed by the constitution.

Re:Obviously

[DavidTC]

Yes, that is how Deem and Pass works. It's usually when one bill, let's call it Bill #1, relies on Bill #2, which has not been passed. (Although it actually can be used for almost anything.)

So they simply pass #1 using a specific process that says 'We agree that by passing Bill #1 we already passed Bill #2, even though we did not actually do that'. They 'deem' Bill #2 to have passed.

So Deem and Pass sounds normally completely pointless. The way to actually do things like that would just be to pass an amendment before the end vote.

That is, until you remember that there are two houses and a reconciliation process, and any change to the other house's bill either requires the other house to pass it again, or requires reconciliation and then both houses to pass it again.

So doing it the way they did it in your example (If they did, I really wasn't paying attention.) is exactly correct.

That's how it's supposed to work. Deem and Pass lets them legally keep them as two separate bills, so one can be identical to the other house's (And thus just need the president's signature to become law) and the other can be brand new and go over to the other house.

Re:Obviously

[DavidTC]

Actually, no, it's not the same thing.

What the Republicans House did with the budget was simply decide to pretend that the Senate had passed the Ryan budget for the purposes of House Committee stuff. The House obviously has no power to decide what the Senate has and has not passed, but it can pretend whatever the hell it wants for its own internal rule purposes, no matter how delusional such a thing is.

So what the House did wasn't 'Deem and Pass', it's 'Let's Pretend the Senate Passed This'. Which is completely pointless because at some point the actual budget will pass, as it won't even slightly resemble what they're pretending passed. So all the committees' hypothetical work will get thrown out. Except hopefully they're smart enough not to do any.

Please note that in no way am I saying is Deem and Pass actually any sort of bad thing, just that the Republicans didn't do it. Deem and Pass is simply a way to pass two (or more!) bills at once. Granted, under standard parliamentary law, it's a bad concept, and what you should do is amend the original bill.

Except that a) the House doesn't operate under standard parliamentary law, and in fact predates it, and b) because we have a bicameral body, which requires that identical bills be passed by both houses, it's often very useful to be able to make something else pass at the same time as a bill that's been passed by the other house, without technically 'modifying' the other house's bill. Which is, indeed, what happened with the health care law.

Re:Obviously

[Doc Ruby]

No, they are exactly the same. Saying you pay a $640 fine if you don't have health insurance is exactly the same as saying everyone pays $640 in extra taxes, except people with health insurance who get the $640 exempted. Except using different words, that have the same meaning in causing precisely the same effect.

Taxes are mandatory purchase of government services, that the government can waive when the same services are purchased from a private provider. Except when purchasing the government services with taxes the government need not provide the specific service to the specific person. This is the case in many, many taxes and services.

Re:Obviously

[Doc Ruby]

Correct.

I wish Slashdot let you reply with that single message to all of the dozens of wrong answers denying its a tax, within the taxing powers of Congress. Instead the idiocy just multiplies all up and down the page.

Re:Obviously

[Doc Ruby]

It doesn't matter whether the seamen were infrastate or intrastate or extrastate. The question is whether the Congress has the power to require private citizens or corporations to buy something like health insurance. The answer is that it has exercised exactly that power, even under the express direction of the people who wrote and signed the Constitution.

Your question of whether the Congress has jurisdiction to act at all in requiring private citizens or corporations to do anything is answered in many other ways. It is not an issue. Your conflating it with foreign traveling seamen does not make it an issue.

Re:Obviously

[Doc Ruby]

You'd be surprised because you're a Republican. You were surprised when the Qaeda flew planes into buildings, exactly as the US intel orgs had specifically been warning Bush all a year. You were surprised when the New Orleans levees collapsed. You were surprised when the economy collapsed under ludicrous synthetic debt obligations.

Hell, you were suprised when McCain lost to Obama.

You Republicans are incapable of believing anything your propaganda machine tells you to fear. While you believe like a crusader any convenient lie they tell you.

The American Care Act has been in Thomas for years, like any other legislation. It's Republicans who control the House who are trying to stop publishing laws in Thomas or anywhere else.

You Republicans really are the most demented cult we've got.

Re:Obviously

[Doc Ruby]

Except that Gore never said that. He took credit for his 1980s Senate leadership when he legislated and funded Internet development, without which it would not have become anything like the priceless public resource that has done so much since the 1990s.

Try again with an example that isn't just another lie Republicans have told so often that it "seems" like the truth.

Re:Obviously

[khipu]

No, they are exactly the same. Saying you pay a $640 fine if you don't have health insurance is exactly the same as saying everyone pays $640 in extra taxes, except people with health insurance who get the $640 exempted. Except using different words, that have the same meaning in causing precisely the same effect.

You're simply saying that the law has the same effect as a tax, which is true under normal circumstances. But that doesn't make it "exactly the same". If it were "exactly the same", Obama wouldn't have argued so strenuously that it wasn't a tax when the mandate was passed and avoided the constitutional issues (after all, they were raised before it was passed). But he knew full well that passing such a large tax increase would have been political suicide, which is why the law wasn't written as a tax.

The Constitution has a list of enumerated powers for the federal government. Laws should be written such that it is clear which of these powers they are based on, and shouldn't leave that up to the courts to guess.

Re:Obviously

[khipu]

The problem is, the PPACA is a head tax that is proportional to the population (Because it's on the population instead of each state.), and thus explicitly allowed by the constitution.

PPACA says "either you buy this, or you pay this penalty". That is not a "head tax proportional to the population": the money people pay to a private insurer goes to a private company and is highly variable, and the penalty is paid only by a small fraction of the population. Arguably, it could be a tax if if were written as "you must pay this tax, but you can deduct from the tax anything you pay to a private insurer". Note that, already, that has potentially a different financial impact.

But dictionary and Wikipedia definitions really aren't important in a legal context; they can give you a general guideline but nothing more. A "tax" is something much more specific in a legal context. For example, the money I pay to a private insurer or the penalty aren't treated as a "tax" by other laws or treaties.

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't grant Congress the right to tax people for any purpose whatsoever, it grants Congress the right to tax in order to raise money for specific purposes and under particular conditions. In particular, the taxing and spending clause was intended to allow the government to raise money, not to impose arbitrary regulations or punishments.

SCOTUS needs to determine whether PPACA is or is not a tax in the sense of US law, and it will likely draw up a list of criteria to determine that. If it passes that test, then it needs to determine whether it is the kind of tax that the federal government is empowered to impose. And while you may think the outcome is obvious, it is clearly not obvious to the people who need to make that determination, because otherwise they wouldn't have taken the case in the first place.

Re:Obviously

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

In the interest of preserving Constitutional authority, I hope the SCOTUS decides in that manner regarding the individual mandate; however, given recent decisions by said court that blatantly flout the Constitutional rights of the People... I'm not holding my breath.

Yep. That bird flew the coop when the DEA got to do things administratively that previously required a full-blow constitutional ammendment (prohibition). As long as we're getting screwed over like that, I say at least lets get something useful out of the situation.

Re:Obviously

[Maxo-Texas]

Exactly.

For one thing, mandating that people purchase products means that they could mandate that we purchase pepsi products instead of coca cola products and that's not currently constitutional.

We need national health insurance. The current system is turning into a cleverly designed system of wage slavery. Work or die.

But it should be limited-- something like $5k per year and a $100k cap.

If you want more, you buy it privately. But if you are unemployed and break your leg, you should be able to get it set.

Re:Obviously

[Doc Ruby]

You just agreed with me. The only reason Obama wouldn't promote it as a tax (if indeed you can find a citation quoting him actually saying "this is not a tax") is because saying "tax" to Republicans makes them say "no"; any other fact is totally irrelevant to them. Just because the president uses public rhetoric that gives Republicans cover to pass their own healthcare policy doesn't mean that rhetoric has any legally binding force. And when Republicans vote for a tax without calling it one, then do everything they can to stop it because it's not a tax, doesn't mean the Supreme Court has to pay any attention to the lies and craziness of those Republicans.

The Supreme Court has to decide whether the Congress has the power to collect money from all Americans if they don't purchase something mandated. The government has been doing this, specifically with health insurance, since the 1700s. That doesn't mean this Court will decide that way (they did after all decide both Bush v Gore and Citizens United without regard to law or disastrous effects on the country), but that is the basis for deciding.

Re:Obviously

[Grumbleduke]

Personally, I find the second option a far better way of doing things anyway. The former just means insurance companies get even richer, in the latter, you cut out the insurance companies and are actually paying for healthcare. If you do it correctly, that is.

Re:Obviously

[Grumbleduke]

We need national health insurance. The current system is turning into a cleverly designed system of wage slavery. Work or die.

Speaking as an evil, socialist, European, no; you don't need national health insurance. What you need is national health care - i.e. where the state provides free, accessible healthcare for all (paid for out of general tax). This way involves far less paperwork, fewer middle-men, and contributions are made on the basis of how much wealth people have, rather than being a flat rate or based on likelihood of needing healthcare.

Re:Obviously

[Maxo-Texas]

Semantic difference.

I agree with you.

However, we can't afford to give everyone $100,000,000 of health care. We need to decide what we can afford and then give within that budget ala Kansas.

Otherwise, it just turns into yet another iteration of the current generation robbing the next generation to pay for their health care.

Re:Obviously

[Maxo-Texas]

Agreed- just realize that if the tax is $640, then the average care provided must cost must be under $640.

And we need to be really careful we don't run up a bill on our kids and grandkids and then leave them holding the bag. One way to prevent that would be to allot estate tax to fund part of the medical system.

Right now, the government makes you spend through your cash and sell your house before the healthcare becomes free.

Re:Obviously

[WrecklessSandwich]

Oh my bad, that's even sillier.

Re:Obviously

[khipu]

You just agreed with me.

Not at all.

The Supreme Court has to decide whether the Congress has the power to collect money from all Americans if they don't purchase something mandated.

That's not a tax, that's a penalty, and that's what the act calls it. So, PPACA has a mandate and a penalty for non-compliance. Where is the tax? If you think the federal government can do this, what exactly can't it do then? Or do you think that there should be no constitutional limits on federal powers anymore?

That doesn't mean this Court will decide that way (they did after all decide both Bush v Gore and Citizens United without regard to law or disastrous effects on the country), but that is the basis for deciding.

Like PPACA, BCRA was a badly written law that catered to superficial populist sentiments. And what supposedly "disastrous effects" are you specifically referring to?

Re:Obviously

[Grumbleduke]

The idea is that, if it is nationalised, you don't end up spending anywhere near $100mpc on healthcare, most people don't need anywhere near that much - particularly if people are more willing to go to the doctor when they have minor problems, so they don't leave them until they become major ones.

As for not spending much, the other side to that is raising taxes; which is why tax rates in some of the more socialised countries in Europe can be in the 60-70% range (the effective top rate of tax in the UK got up to 98% in the 70s or 80s, back when we could afford all the social care we had; strangely enough we're now going bankrupt having dropped the top rate down to the 40-50% range).

Re:Obviously

[Doc Ruby]

The Congress calls taxes "penalties" all the time.

Of course there are and should be limits on Federal powers. As I said, and as has been pointed out elsewhere in these threads, Congress has been requiring various people to carry health insurance for centuries, with penalties for failing to do so.

Or do you think the Federal government should have no powers anymore? Of course you don't. See how silly that sounds when you read me writing it? I felt the same way about your hyperbolic statement.

If you don't see the disastrous effects of Bush v Gore, at the absolutely very least the part where it's declared nonprecedential, or the diastrous effects of unlimited corporate spending on politics on the basis that corporations are people with rights, then maybe you don't see how silly that sounded. In that case I don't think we share enough worldview to have a meaningful conversation.

Re:Obviously

[khipu]

Or do you think the Federal government should have no powers anymore? Of course you don't. See how silly that sounds when you read me writing it? I felt the same way about your hyperbolic statement.

The federal government should have the powers enumerated in the Constitution, no more. Reasoning like yours has been used to extend those powers arbitrarily and I think that should be stopped and reversed. That also seems to be the question SCOTUS is wrestling with. The fact that this has done before many times doesn't mean it isn't time to stop it. After all, it took more than a century to achieve racial equality under the law, and we still have not fully implemented the non-establishment clause.

If you don't see the disastrous effects of Bush v Gore, at the absolutely very least the part where it's declared nonprecedential,

No, I don't see it. I preferred Gore to Bush at the time, but a decision needed to be made, and the vote was close enough that they might as well have tossed a coin.

or the diastrous effects of unlimited corporate spending on politics on the basis that corporations are people with rights,

Money in politics is a problem, but your view that corporations corrupt our political process by spending vast amounts of money just completely misses reality. The way you put it, you make it sound like Coca Cola, Apple, and (even) Citigroup are spending billions of dollars to produce ads that then compel the mindless minions of American voters vote for the candidates they hand pick. That story is wrong on so many levels: corporations can spend money only on things related to their business or they get in trouble with their investors and the law, the corporate donations most big corporations make are fairly evenly split, most SuperPAC donations come from rich private individuals, American voters aren't mindless minions whose votes can be bought with slick ads, and some of the people complaining most loudly about corporate personhood (including Obama) have been among the worst offenders in handing over huge amounts of tax dollars to corporations.

In fact, Citizens United was about a bunch of rich private donors pooling their money through a "corporation" (Citizens United) in order to engage in anonymous free speech. "Corporate personhood" just means that this group of people has the same rights as any other group of people to do so. If you want to curtail that, the question is: what group of people do you think should have the right to engage in anonymous free speech? If I and a hundred friends want to pool our money and take out an anonymous attack ad on Obama or Romney, what legal form do you suggest we should use? That's not a rhetorical question: there may well be something wrong with the way we can do that right now, but revoking corporate personhood is not going to fix it, and it likely requires a constitutional amendment to fix.

In that case I don't think we share enough worldview to have a meaningful conversation.

Well, you better figure out how to have a meaningful conversation with people like me because there are a lot of us around: independent and Republican voters, the majority of SCOTUS, the Tea Party, Libertarians. And we do have a lot of common ground with you, since we see a lot of the same problems. We just think that your solutions are ineffective. So, do your homework and then come to the table with convincing and coherent arguments.

Re:Obviously

[khipu]

Incidentally, just have a look at SuperPAC spending on candidates to see how ineffective that has been: SuperPACs together spent $60 million on Gingrich and Santorum, three times as much as on Romney, and what did it get them? Nothing.

Re:Obviously

[DavidTC]

I think you're right in that we'll 'have to see', although I think the outcome should be obvious.

SCOTUS needs to determine whether PPACA is or is not a tax in the sense of US law, and it will likely draw up a list of criteria to determine that.

I think the decision it's a 'tax' is a bit obvious. It's hard to see what else it could be...it doesn't bar anyone from doing things. Now, it's a 'backwards' tax, it taxes people for 'not doing things', but there's plenty of places in the tax code where that is true. For example, people are taxed for not having kids.

Of course, both sides stipulated it wasn't a tax for the purpose of allowing the suit to go forward, but stipulating something does not actually make it so.

If it passes that test, then it needs to determine whether it is the kind of tax that the federal government is empowered to impose.

I went and looked it up, because I was wondering how the hell the mortgage deduction would be allowed as a direct tax, and I was completely wrong about it being a 'direct tax'. It turns out that the Supreme Court has in general, throughout its history, considered only two things direct taxes: Taxes on people (The constitution uses the word 'Capitation', which just means 'head tax'), and taxes on land.

Nothing else besides people or land seems to count. Not even other forms of property.

Now, there was a very slight screw up with Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. in that they decided that a tax on rent was the same as a tax on land, which is a) probably wrong, and b) never fixed because the sixteenth amendment was passed instead, specifically to allow that sort of thing.

However, Pollock appears to only be at issue because it was about land in some sense.(1) If it had been, for example, car rental, the issue would not have arise, because no one has ever suggested the Federal government is not allowed to tax automobile ownership.

In fact, Patton v. Brady specifically said that a tax on tobacco ownership was not a direct tax. That it 'was not a tax on personal property as such, but only on specific types of personal property with specific intended uses'. (Which sounds a lot like health insurance.) Now, that decision left open the idea that taxing all property (I.e., having an 'asset tax' where you had to report all you owned and pay a percentage based on that.) might or might not be allowed. But it specifically allowed taxing certain individual kinds of 'owning stuff'.

And, of course, claiming that taxing health insurance (or the lack of health insurance) is an 'impermissible direct tax' is a bit of a Pandora's box, simply because a huge amount of tax law is actually stuff that can be reduced to 'direct tax' under that logic, and in ways much more outrageous than this. (For example, some income tax deductions can be on things you've owned for years, like owning a property on the National Register of Historic Places, whereas the mandate is at least talking about actual money you've spent that year, and hence has a much closer relationship to actual income.)

Unless someone wants to blow up the entire deduction system of income tax by claiming that taxation (or lack thereof) on the basis of owning something is a direct tax, and make income tax literally based on just income, it's hard to see how the PPACA can be argued to somehow be a direct tax, but all that other stuff is somehow allowed.

I would hope the Supreme Court would actually realize deciding that the mandate is impermissible is deciding that almost all income tax deductions are impermissible. (Including, I must point out, the health insurance deduction for employers.)

1) Ironically, the reason I looked this up, the mortgage deduction, quite possibly could be disallowed under Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., because it is also about real estate. But, as I said, that case was decided wrong, and would be overturned if it came back up.

Re:Obviously

[DavidTC]

At least the Democrat's thing had some purpose, to actually pass bills in the crazy system that is a bicameral legislation.

The Republican's nonsense, OTOH, was just a 'Oh, you don't like the absurd budget we sent you! Well, we'll just close our eyes and pretend we can't hear you.'.

That said, the Republicans have absolutely no ability to claim that anyone is 'abusing' parliamentary law, not because of their stupid and pointless 'We'll just pretend we came up with a passable budget', but because of their persistent use of the pretend filibuster...the one where we just all pretend that 'debate can't end' somehow, instead of just requiring them actually keep saying random shit and taking the floor back if they stop, like how an actual filibuster works.

Please note I have no problem with occasional usages of actual filibusters, but I have rather large issues with the idea that the Senate somehow requires 60 votes to pass anything at all, and at this point I'm all for the nuclear option of having filibusters declared unconstitutional. (Strictly speaking, 51 Senators can pass bills in the Senate, period. The fact that Senate parliamentary rules requires 60 Senators to 'end debate', and that now counts as 'the vote' and is voted down so no actual vote happens, means that the Senate parliamentary rules are infringing on a constitutional right, and if 51 Senators want to take it to court, they would win.)

Re:Obviously

[khipu]

I think the decision it's a 'tax' is a bit obvious. It's hard to see what else it could be

Why does it have to be anything? It could simply be a nonsensical law that is in violation of the Constitution.

And, of course, claiming that taxing health insurance (or the lack of health insurance) is an 'impermissible direct tax' is a bit of a Pandora's box,

The law is a mandate with a penalty for non-compliance. The law isn't written as a tax deduction for some voluntary choice. Even if the two had the same effect, it's not just the effect that matters, it's the wording of the law. If you think the same effect can be achieved with a law written in terms of tax deduction, Congress can pass the law again with acceptable wording.

Furthermore, even if it's a "Pandora's box", the sky wouldn't fall, since any and all those other laws would take a long time to come to the supreme court, giving Congress plenty of time to pass an amendment or fix any problems in other ways.

Of course, I think ending the system of complicated deductions would be a good thing anyway, as would putting some stricter limits again on what the federal government can do.

Opacity in government

[SirGarlon]

A move to restrict public visibility into the legislative process seems like a bad idea in an election year. If only the minority party in the House had the balls to exploit this...

Re:Opacity in government

[digitalsolo]

Sorry, but you're delusional if you don't think that BOTH parties are all for removing public opinion and scrutiny from what they're doing.

Re:Opacity in government

[sycodon]

You both are delusional because there is no mention of taking THOMAS offline while they decide on how to upgrade it.

Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[Covalent]

THOMAS may only allow 1 bill at a time, but there are only so many bills before Congress. Download them one at a time and make an external database. Host that site yourself.

The government SHOULD do this, but if they refuse, simply go around them. This is how governments should always be treated: Encouraged when useful, bypassed when not.

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[SirGarlon]

Download them one at a time and make an external database. Host that site yourself.

I am pretty sure I could write a script to do that in one day, and many Slashdotters could do it quicker.

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[Fnord666]

THOMAS may only allow 1 bill at a time, but there are only so many bills before Congress. Download them one at a time and make an external database. Host that site yourself.

They will figure a way to claim copyright and send DMCA notices to get the site taken down. That assumes they don't just sieze the entire domain and the servers.

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[Covalent]

I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think that would be a problem. These bills are part of the public domain. Now Congress could pass a law changing that status...but I don't want to give them any ideas!

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[buchner.johannes]

THOMAS may only allow 1 bill at a time, but there are only so many bills before Congress. Download them one at a time and make an external database. Host that site yourself.

It would be nice to see a git-tree of legislations (revision history, diffs, who wrote what line when). I'm not expecting governments to do that, but it might be insightful and interesting.

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[wireloose]

I don't see it as a big issue, either. The original article and the repost here are all FUD. If you read the bill, the congressional concerns are that the legislative data is downloaded intact and authenticated. They seem to be concerned that there is no way to lock an XML file in a manner similar to a PDF, which is already a common format used by much of the federal government. There is also concern about certificates. And there is language about the costs of developing a system. It's all in the bill itself, pages 17 and 18.

http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/LEGBRANCH-FY13-FULLCOMMITTEEREPORT.pdf

Obviously, the biggest issue is that detractors for each party will modify downloaded bills to meet their own political agendas and mudslinging goals. I would prefer to see this done correctly, too.

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[David Chappell]

I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think that would be a problem. These bills are part of the public domain. Now Congress could pass a law changing that status...but I don't want to give them any ideas!

That would surely require a constitutional amendment. Otherwise it could hardly be expected to withstand challenge on the basis that it 1) exceeds the powers granted in the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution (since such a law clearly does not promote the progress of Science and the useful arts), and 2) that it violates the first amendment right to discuss public affairs. I would expect the government to be enjoined from enforcing such a law within days if not hours.

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[sycodon]

What would be even nicer is if they required all Bills to be written in some form of structural language.

Imagine being able to query a bill to find the salient points...who it applies to, each specific provision, etc. That would go a long way towards simplification and clarity. Conceivably, you could also do some form of syntax check and "compile" in the sense that you could find provisions that are vague. References to a population that do not have a previously declared definition.

For instance..."All doctors must...or go to jail". Is that doctor of medicine? What about Psychologists and Chemists with a PhD? They are are "Doctors". Are they included? Etc. So you would expect to find at the top of the Bill a definition of Dr.

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[sycodon]

Hear Hear!

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[PopeRatzo]

These bills are part of the public domain.

But strangely, as many of us know, the regulations are not part of the public domain.

In fact, a very large portion of U.S. law is proprietary, and if you were to publish or display it in any way you would get sued.

That is the downside of having corporations write those laws.

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[buchner.johannes]

We have this discussion every now and then on slashdot, but if you think about it for a while, it is pretty obvious why it wouldn't work.

Justice is not a set of instructions. That law is interpreted by humans and can change in practice over time is a good thing.

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[Hatta]

These "concerns" are all bunk. Just supply an html directory tree of all the pending laws, with each law signed with GPG. You're done. I bet it would cost them less to implement this than to keep Thomas running.

You don't even really need the GPG signatures. If someone edits a law for propaganda purposes, the original version should always be there for reference.

There are no legitimate concerns here. Only stonewalling.

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[ATMAvatar]

Nonsense! We need intellectual property protections for the content of proposed bills to encourage these wondrous innovators to create more bills in the future! Why do you hate America?

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[ATMAvatar]

I haven't looked too much at it to determine if it has that kind of fine-grained revision history, but what you are asking for is essentially here.

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[haapi]

"... Rev 1.1 ALEC@master"

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[anagama]

That would surely require a constitutional amendment.

Hardly. It would just require our silent acquiescence.

Like how Obama has normalized Bush's radical policies of due process free detention, and has gone a step further with his policy of due process free execution. I mean, if your willing to let the executive branch on its own and in secret be the "due process" in the phrase "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," then there is absolutely nothing the president can't do because executing American citizens without trial is as big as it gets.

Obama has been the worst thing to happen to freedom and liberty ever -- at least when GWB was doing the things Obama does, Democrats pretended to care and push back. Now they just silently acquiesce, or worse, actively support the constitutional destruction they once opposed (for instance Marty Lederman.

As a liberal, I hate to say it, but we'd be better off with a freak like Santorum as president, who basically promised war with Iran, because then perhaps the Democrats would go back to pretending to care about peace and freedom, and fight back against all this crap. With Obama in the office for another four years though, the damage to civil liberties and freedom will be immense because Democrats will just sit on their hands and let it continue to happen.

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[TheSpoom]

It would be nice to see a git-tree of legislations (revision history, diffs, who wrote what line when). I'm not expecting governments to do that, but it might be insightful and interesting.

https://github.com/divegeek/uscode

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[swillden]

You don't even really need the GPG signatures. If someone edits a law for propaganda purposes, the original version should always be there for reference.

+1.

If there were a concern about partisans being able to break in and alter the version being distributed, that would be legitimate -- but GPG signatures would address it. Outside of that... it has always been possible for people to create fake versions of documents and try to pass them off as the real thing, and yet this doesn't appear to have been an issue for pending legislation in the past.

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[sycodon]

I would suggest that Justice is implemented via a set of instructions. And that the fact the interpretation of a law changing over time due to different interpretations is a bad thing.

Primary example is the Constitution. It has a very well defined mechanism to make changes that insure those changes are the result of a very broad agreement, which in itself requires a great amount of deliberation. Instead of the interpretation changing, the should change the document.

Laws are more easily changed of course but the same principal applies. Don't interpret it differently, change it.

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[bughunter]

THOMAS may only allow 1 bill at a time, but there are only so many bills before Congress. Download them one at a time and make an external database. Host that site yourself.

Now, I'm not one to casually toss off the latest jargon, but it seems to me that in this case, a Cloud solution is actually a reasonably good answer.

It's public data, so there's no security or privacy risk. It's large but not so large as to require any special development or infrastructure. There's probably already a front end somewhere that would serve the necessary web interface with just a little re-branding. It's even something that could be legislated as a "civic duty" and mandated on US companies that wish to sell Cloud services, and spreading around the duty would mean no one company need be trusted or burdened with the entire database.

I really don't see what the technical challenges are. Amazon, Google, Wikipedia, Monster, Lexis-Nexus and a bazillion other entities handle far more data than this. I could write the specification in an afternoon, and make it so obvious as to be non-controversial.

Clemens was right. Congress = !Progress.

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[anagama]

Actually, I think war with Iran is MORE likely under Obama than it would be under Santorum exactly because the Democrats won't do squat if he pulls another Libya. Obama has set a huge precedent there by conducting war without even getting permission under the War Powers Act.

This cartoon basically sums up Democrats' relationship to Obama, War, and Iran:

http://americanextremists.thecomicseries.com/comics/192/

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[Livius]

Not to mention a wonderful and legal role for bittorrent.

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[David Chappell]

That would surely require a constitutional amendment.

Hardly. It would just require our silent acquiescence.

Like how Obama has normalized Bush's radical policies of due process free detention...

Even the War on Terror trump card goes only so far. Extending copyright so that access to bills could be restricted is so pointless and would antagonize so may powerful organizations that silent acquiescence is most unlikely. The line to sue would be out the door. People would see this as affecting their rights. In contrast, almost nobody thinks that rules about enemy combatants could ever have any relevance to him.

 

Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed...

[Rich0]

They seem to be concerned that there is no way to lock an XML file in a manner similar to a PDF, which is already a common format used by much of the federal government.

Seems like they're under the same delusion as my employer, and those that regulate them. There is no way to lock a PDF in a manner similar to how these kinds of people perceive PDFs to be locked.

PDFs are trivially editable, just like any other file format that you can read. It is just that the format is so layout-specific that few bother to edit them directly. The only way to detect modifications in a PDF file is to use digital signatures, with all the issues that brings. Relying on PDF as a "read-only" file format is just security by obscurity.

Conversely, in Canada

[davecb]

The busy little beavers who track bills now include committee hearings. For example, here's some of the debate on the Copyright Act, C-11

--dave

House Committee on Appropriations

[SirGarlon]

Since the author of TFA was too lazy to Google for this and paste in a hyperlink, here is the current membership of the House Committee on Appropriations. If one of these jackass^H^H^H^H fine public servants represents your district, you might want to let him/her know what you think of this report.

tfs

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you sometimes wish that a summary on Slashdot could provide both sides of an issue, rather than telling you what to think in the last sentence?

Straw Man

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not limiting access to the text of the bills, just implementation of a bulk download functionality which doesn't currently exist. Once again, Slashdot creates controversy where there is none to begin with.

Re:So!

[mwvdlee]

Well, a government couldn't adequately govern it's people if it understood less of the bills than the people, right?

Misleading title?

[k(wi)r(kipedia)]

House Appropriators May Limit Public Availability of Pending Bills

TFA's title is actually more informative: "Hill may freeze THOMAS in digital past". Congress is not actually trying to put in a cap on the download of materials. It merely seeks to maintain the old system where you're forced to download copies of bills one at a time. It's not trying to put a limit but to maintain whatever (technnical) limits are already in place.

Re:Misleading title?

[sycodon]

...While trying to figure out the best way to proceed before pouring money down a rat hole.

Git

[QuantumRiff]

I know there are all sorts of craziness for bills, but wouldn't something like a Git repository be ideal? that way, you can have the hash of the exact version of the bill your voting on, so the people know stuff wasn't 'slipped in' before it becomes law. Oh, wait, that is probably a 'feature'

Re:Git

[swillden]

I know there are all sorts of craziness for bills, but wouldn't something like a Git repository be ideal? that way, you can have the hash of the exact version of the bill your voting on, so the people know stuff wasn't 'slipped in' before it becomes law. Oh, wait, that is probably a 'feature'

I really need to get some time to work on it some more, but that was exactly the idea I had a few years ago when I set up github repositories to track the US Code and Utah Code.

Of course, the only data I had easy access to was the codified law, some time after it was passed and went into effect, so my repos only track changes at that point. But, yes, what would be perfect is a distributed version control system that tracks the changes. Each legislator, each committee, each house would have its own fork, as would special interest groups, etc., even individual citizens with ideas about how to improve the law. Everyone could hack on their copies, push and pull changes, etc., all tracked by version history, and with official versions merging changes at point of adoption.

Imagine being able to run "annotate" on the law to find out where each bit of it came from! Of course, true sources would still often be obscured.

My next step, BTW (should I ever get time to hack on it), is to build a web UI that allows easy navigation of the code. I need to switch to pulling the XML version of the US Code from Cornell, then create some XSLT filters to hide some of the extraneous stuff and convert the links into a functional form and some stylesheets to present the code nicely, and finally create a web interface that allows the changes to be navigated and summarized.

Say no more

[overshoot]

I am pretty sure that the majority of people on slashdot agree that being able to better understand how the various bills being considered by Congress interact would be good for this country.

And that explains why it must be prevented.

Huh? How to get from Point A to Point B?

[sirwired]

Ok, the appropriations committee wants to delay money for a new system to replace THOMAS. But THOMAS doesn't limit access now, it just sucks. Congress could want to withhold money for a number of reasons, some legitimate (they don't like the bidding process for the new system), some less so (they have a favored systems integrator in mind.)

But if the current system is just lousy, but works, how is withholding a replacement in any way "limiting public availability of pending bills?"

Re:What this really means if passed...

[Anonymous Coward]

The tinfoil is strong with this one!

Troll Headline and Summary

[sycodon]

Let's try a more reasonable one...

"The House Appropriations Committee is considering holding off on modernizing THOMAS until the system "owners" finalize the specifications."

It is entirely reasonable to put a hold on a project until everyone knows what it's going to be and buys off on the changes.

I am pretty sure that the majority of people on Slashdot agree that to dive into a project that will undoubtedly be large and expensive and is highly visible without nailing down the details first is irresponsible and a recipe for failure.

Re:Troll Headline and Summary

[sycodon]

I forgot to mention that there is no discussion of taking THOMAS offline pending the upgrade.

Re:Troll Headline and Summary

[d3ac0n]

Thank you for your both Insightful and Informative post. If I had mod points I would vote you up. Far too many people on /. have this "Republicans are EEEVIILL! *HISSSSS*" reaction to anything that the GOP (or a body the GOP currently controls) does without even considering the source.

Personally I agree that it is valid to want a full accounting and report before all interested parties sign off on a major system upgrade. Glad to see SOMEONE in Washington is actually concerned with doing things right and NOT wasting taxpayer money.

Re:Troll Headline and Summary

[sycodon]

I always say, if banging your head against the wall achieves nothing else, it will at least leave a mark on the wall.

Re:Troll Headline and Summary

[Attila Dimedici]

I wrote the headline and the summary. I was not exactly happy with how they came out, but I thought the topic and points being discussed in the two articles linked to in the summary should be discussed on slashdot. I think that THOMAS and the proposed changes are good things. I, also, felt that both articles were somewhat hyperbolic in their approach to the issue, but I wanted to be sure that this made it to the frontpage so I stayed with the tenor of those two articles in my summary.
I do think that the articles make some good points, especially about the secrecy of the body conducting the report and about the lack of a deadline. That being said, your comment adds some much needed context to the discussion.

Bills don't have to be public domain

[overshoot]

If they're drafted by private parties and then copyright transferred to the US Gov't, Uncle Sam can hold the copyright.

Since the majority of bills are drafted by lobbyists, there's nothing in principle stopping Congress from blocking distribution on the grounds of protecting the copyright on the original special-interest draft and any derivative works.

Re:Bills don't have to be public domain

[king neckbeard]

However, there is an incredibly strong fair use argument for such behavior, as in, pretty much the strongest fair use argument ever. If it doesn't get laughed out of court, then it is undeniably time for a bloody revolution.

Re:Bills don't have to be public domain

[mcgrew]

But then they would have to admit that the bills were in fact drafted by lobbyists.

Issue is BULK (XML) vs. Single (PDF) downloads

[muddysteel]

The recommendation has merit regardless of the political motivation. The heart of the issue is how does one TRUST and verify the INTEGRITY of the download when its transported using XML. What's frustrating is someone's inability to agree to rely on existing standards - there's simply no reason to spend more $$$ reinventing / resolving what's already solved. Doesn't the government currently exchange XML-based information today? Isn't that information secured in such a manner that the provider (say, the contractor of the F-22) can be proven and the validity of the message confirmed? Another side-show and the land of the free where matters such as paying people to entertain us is more important than paying people to educate us.

PopVox?

[Jaysyn]

How, if at all, would this affect a website like PopVox?

Re:What this really means if passed...

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Despite some claiming that this is bunk there is actually truth there. It would appear that there was a large number of documents released in 1994 that confirmed the stories locals (like my mother) had been telling people. I wish I knew where to find those US Army documents as they would be a great addition to the news paper articles I found with a quick Google search. If you are going to make claims like the parents you had better be able to back them up with sources:
Operation LAC
Operation Dew
Army test Sprayed chemical over the city in 1950s
Biological warfare tests near Corpus Christi safe, Army says
THE ARMY'S SMOKE SCREEN
Outstate spraying

What's really going on...

[sohmc]

I personally want to have the ability to read any bill that has been introduced. THOMAS is a good system, but horribly outdated. It could be made so much better. But we make do with what we have.

Improvements to the system should be that the database is updated in real-time, or at least as close to real-time as possible. There is no reason why this shouldn't be possible.

My guess, however, is that reps want not to be able to be accountable for their votes. Not many representatives have easy access to their voting record on their official web site. I know my old rep did (Frank Wolf) but my current (Jim Moran) does not. While the information can be found on THOMAS, it adds an additional step.

I know a few months ago, DC Counsel put an unpopular bill available online for comment. It was passed and when it finally it the news, there was outcry. The counsel said, "But you had a chance to comment." The problem was that they hid the bill on their website in a rarely browsed section, obfuscated, and ultimately in a place where no one would think to look. Stepping aside the fact that the news should have picked this up before it was voted on, the fact is that the DC Counsel followed the letter of the law, but not the spirit.

Every politician must be not be trusted, even if they are from "your party" or even if you voted for the guy. The framers had this in mind when writing the Constitution.

The thing that saddens me is that the original intentions of the Founding Fathers has long since gone: a government of the People, by the People, and for the People. I don't see this changing anytime soon.

Re:What's really going on...

[khipu]

OpenCongress.org provides RSS feeds for anything you like:

http://www.opencongress.org/about/rss

Took about 10 seconds to Google.

Idea

[TheSpoom]

1. Create an open-source THOMAS replacement.
2. Take criticisms from legislators, fix bugs, and implement feature requests until the feature set is similar / better than existing systems.
3. Widely and loudly advertise the presence of such a system.
4. If legislators ignore it, widely and loudly say that they're holding back progress and not being transparent with their governance.

I'm a pretty skilled web developer, anyone want to help?

Re:Idea

[TheSpoom]

Also, whose idea was it to make HTML ordered lists in comments have list-style: none? WTF, Slashdot?

Re:Idea

[Attila Dimedici]

And this is why I wanted this to get to the front page of slashdot. I don't happen to think the proposed report is as bad an idea as the summary I wrote makes it sound, but I could not think of a more evenhanded way to summarize the articles that would get to the slashdot front page.

Re:Idea

[TheSpoom]

So what if we set up a system to sync from THOMAS every X hours, and enabled transparent, publicly viewable voting on bills? Once they're actually voted upon in the houses of Congress, we can compare the popular internet vote to our legislators votes, and give each proposed bill a score based on how well the legislators actually represented the people. Thoughts?

Not so good

[shoehornjob]

I am pretty sure that the majority of people on Slashdot agree that being able to better understand how the various bills being considered by Congress interact would be good for this country.

And thus not so good for politicians who don't really want people to see in advance what the congress is doing. I can see how this could be a conflict of interest (theirs and ours).

Ulterior Motive

[DaMattster]

I'm sure government wants to squeeze its agenda through with minimal "interference" from the public. The more the public is in the dark about what government does, the more power the government has over its citizens. This country is headed down tyranny lane because its citizens are apathetic, frightened, and look to its elected officials as a security blanket. In fact, Americans would sooner government think for them as evidenced in the whole creationism vs. evolution vs. intelligent design. I, for one, am sickened.

GOP and Obama are *both* wrong on transparency

[therealkevinkretz]

Obama reneged on his pledge to make bills available for five days for public review within weeks of being sworn in. This isn't a GOP vs Dems issue. It's a government vs governed issue.

Information is power.

[fahrbot-bot]

I am pretty sure that the majority of people on Slashdot agree that being able to better understand how the various bills being considered by Congress interact would be good for this country.

Good for us and the country, bad for Congress critters.

Commerce among the several states

[tepples]

The phrase 'provide general welfare' is qualified by the list of specifically enumerated power below it.

"To regulate commerce [...] among the several states" is one such power. Otherwise, how is Medicare legal?

Re:Commerce among the several states

[Doc Ruby]

Medicare is legal, as is SS.

The people paying for a fund that pays for old age pensions and healthcare is not a bribe. In fact most of the SS and Medicare money goes to people who are much less likely to vote. That's a terrible bribery scheme. It's clearly not bribery at all.

FDR passed all kinds of laws that Republicans like you tried to stop (and are trying again - you people never give up, because you always have budgets from your 1% masters). They have been challenged many times, and found Constitutional. The Courts upholding them after most of a century have been mostly appointed by Republicans, both presidents and Senates. Only a tiny percentage were appointed by FDR.

It's Republicans like you that keep the Supreme Court limited to 9 justices, because it's easier for you to corrupt it when it's far too small and overloaded with cases it must refuse. Despite the Republican lie you're peddling here, the Court never was and still is not limited to 9 justices. Its headcount up to Congress, which hasn't expanded it in going on a century, even as the country has multiplied its population, cranked up its count of states, and become far more litigious as people have far more power to damage each other.

But Republicans like you want Americans to starve and rot as we get old, subject to whatever predator can pay to carve them up, the way it was until SS and Medicare civilized the country. Lying about Courts and presidents is nothing to you, while you're savaging the people. But Americans still aren't the cannibals you're trying to trick us into becoming. Medicare and SS are the most effective and popular programmes among the people who create governments to protect our rights.

Re:Commerce among the several states

[cpu6502]

Are you too fucking lazy to read to the end of my post. I VERY clearly stated: "Congress has the power to regulate commerce AMONG the states. Not inside the states, and most-definitely not commerce between two individuals (me and my doctor). They can NOT force me to buy insurance if I would rather pay cash directly to my physician."

You lazy piece of ass.

Yes and no.

[mbkennel]

Statement: They can NOT force me to buy insurance if I would rather pay cash directly to my physician.

This is true. It is impermissible for Congress to make failure to buy health insurance a federal crime.

The law actually in question does not do so, contrary to the paranoia of the right-wing crazies. It is improper terminology and a bad political idea to call it a "mandate" instead of what it actually is. It imposes a fine---more correctly a tax---on those who do not. And this is 100% legal.

It has been established precedent since the early 1800's (Supreme Court decisions) that the US Government has the power to tax even where it does not have the power to regulate, e.g. in this circumstance. Other examples, the US government imposes taxes on gasoline and tobacco, even when these items are consumed within states for non-commercial purposes.

Re:Yes and no.

[cpu6502]

>>>This is true. It is impermissible for Congress to make failure to buy health insurance a federal crime..... It imposes a fine---

Which is what happens when you commit a crime. The crime in this case is unwillingness to buy hospital insurance... the punishment is a ~$1000 fine every year. It's just the same as what happens when you don't buy car insurance (the legislature fines).

Learning from mistakes i see..

[nurb432]

This is in direct response to the outcry against SOPA. keep the public in the dark, they cant complain until its too late.

Bastards, run them ALL out of town on the next train.

Wickard v. Filburn

[tepples]

Congress has the power to regulate commerce AMONG the states. Not inside the states

When commerce among the states competes with commerce inside the states, the Congress has power to protect commerce among the states from commerce inside the states. Wickard v. Filburn.

They can NOT force me to buy insurance if I would rather pay cash directly to my physician.

But they can tax you and give you a tax credit if you do.