I don't think this is too much too ask.

[bbinacan]

72 Hours to Read 1,000 Pages

That’s one ridiculous proposal. 72 hours. How can anyone read 1,000 pages of the legalese of legislation in 72? Not just read – but understand. 72 hours isn’t enough to digest a single title of the U.S. code, much less a hugely cross-referenced 1,000 pages that touches on multiple titles and sections of the U.S. Code. Ask any lawyer – would you be comfortable analyzing and giving your professional legal opinion to a client on how to comply with those 1,000 pages? Or even some other 100 pages of the Code?

Of course not. You’d be committing malpractice.

But get this. The 72 hour proposal is a Republican proposal. The Democrat proposal is apparently to just bring the text to the floor on the day of the vote.

And the reason for the Democrats’ reluctance to give people time to read and understand the bill? Well, the devil is in the details and if the citizens read it, they are liable to find things they don’t like. You can’t have that if you want to ram something through. And I’m not letting the GOP off the hook on this thing either, because I assure you that the roles would be reversed if the Republicans were in the majority. But they aren’t, and right now, the Democrats are the ones exercising supremely anti-democratic behavior.

My proposal. All bills should be available in final form a month prior to voting. On the internet. In HTML and pdf format. As well as in ODF (Open Document Format




http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=83

[Rick Myers]

1. Agreed!!!

A great idea!!!

[Liberal_in_LA]

2. neg rec received within seconds of posting! WHY?

[bbinacan]

3. Probably because this is

a post from a conservative site. Too many just have a knee-jerk reaction without reading more.

[alphafemale]

4. No. But 25 people could each read 250 pages more or less over about three days.

Then you meet and discuss the key points with each other.

I've been told that's also the only way to get through the impossible amount of reading given to you in grad school.

And Congress critters also have plenty of staff to do their reading.

[bbinacan]

8. Now that's

comforting.

:sarcasm:

[alphafemale]

14. Reality is never comforting, nt

[RandomThoughts]

5. Could on the 71 hour a new amendment be added. Starting another 72 hour clock?

Not sure how the idea would be handled, but it could be abused to stall legislation.

[Thickasabrick]

6. The lobbyists need that much time to read it - this is all about the

lobbyists

[bbinacan]

9. For some reason

the word idiot comes to mind.

[iceman66]

7. Except that

the SOLE purpose for the Republicans asking for the 72 hours was to delay a vote on the bill.

It is obvious that they aren't going to vote for it no matter what it says.

[bbinacan]

10. You know what iceman

(seen Top Gun lately) What is so wrong about the fucking bill being read before it is voted on? Delaying tactic or not, I WANT TO READ THE BILL!!!

[muntrv]

11. This is a reich wing web site you're linking to.

[bbinacan]

15. Well now

that just shows who you really are. You immediately dismiss the source without asking yourself about the validity of the argument. The weakest arguments are prefaced by any mention of "reich", "hitler", etc. Did YOU bother to read it? Until you do, let me fill you in. All it said was to read any legislation prior to voting on it. What is so fucking difficult to understand about that? I await your response.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. It's ridiculous to not let people read the bill before the vote.

[WillowTree]

13. Even two weeks! I mean, if you've got nothing to hide.......

What the heck are they putting in these bills that they don't want anyone to know about?

I'm just sayin'.