Why a Theoretical Physicist Wants All State Bills To Be Online Before Final Vote (arstechnica.com) 304
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Among a slew on ballot propositions that Californians will be asked to consider on Election Day (Nov. 8) is Proposition 54, a proposed constitutional amendment that seems like a no-brainer. If passed, the law would require that the final text of all proposed legislation be published on the Internet for 72 hours before lawmakers can conduct a final vote. Typically, the text of bills in California is put online as it goes through the committee and voting process, but sometimes those bills can change at the last minute. Accessing those changes isn't always easy. The initiative, which seems all-but-certain to pass, has massive support from Charles T. Munger, Jr., the son of billionaire Charles Munger. The younger Munger, an experimental physicist at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and a longtime Republican activist, has donated over $10.6 million to the "Yes on Prop. 54" campaign. The effort supporting the opposing view has taken in just over $27,000. Proposition 54 would also force the Assembly and State Senate to allow the public to record meetings as well, which could potentially be used in political advertising. So why would anyone oppose the bill? According to Steven Maviglio, the director of Californians for an Effective Legislature, a campaign committee formed to oppose Proposition 54. It all comes down to who is behind the initiative, and why. "The first thing you need to do is follow the money," he told Ars, pointing us to Munger, Jr. "He's been the top contributor to the California Republican Party. His goal is to disrupt the power of a legislature that's getting things done."
Yes please (Score:5, Interesting)
The purpose of this may well be to delay bills someone doesn't like while also making it harder to compromise, but it would be nice to see what the bills say before they're voted on.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes. I generally favor an open legislative process and there is no doubt that a good bit of political shenanigans happens at the last minute. On the other hand, there are a good number of things I can think of where a 72 hour waiting period might be inappropriate such as disaster relief and other time sensitive bills typically handled swiftly by all parties involved.
Re:Yes please (Score:4, Interesting)
There could be ways to mitigate that, such as allowing a supermajority vote or an executive order to override the 72-hour waiting period.
Re:Yes please (Score:4, Insightful)
That, and bill's text for disaster relief can be pre-written, and simply enacted upon disaster. If the text hasn't changed, then there shouldn't be any issues.
Re: (Score:3)
That assumes prescience, but you always have to expect the unexpected.
I can think of a very good reason *for* this bill - the excerable habit U.S. legislators have of adding totally unrelated "riders" to bills. If this helps to stop that practice, go for it.
As for the opposition, the quote comes down to: "I'm against it because he wants it, waaaaaaa".
Re: (Score:3)
The right wing is dominantly middle class.
Right wingers don't complain that the government is broken when it's doing nothing. They complain when it's breaking people and stealing things, which is the goal of leftist programs.
Your post is full of internal contradictions.
Re: (Score:3)
Or just the opportunity for nitpicking. The idea of a perfect democracy is stupid. Nobody wants the tyranny of the majority. Representative democracies are good, so long as money is kept out of the advertising equation. This is where the US has a problem.
Republican Would Benefit? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The first thing you need to do is follow the money," he told Ars, pointing us to Munger, Jr. "He's been the top contributor to the California Republican Party. His goal is to disrupt the power of a legislature that's getting things done."
So, Republicans would benefit by everyone knowing what they are voting on, that the public know what's going on, and that the legislation be carefully considered?
What does that say about the people who oppose this? That they don't want people to know what they are voting on, don't want the legislation to be carefully considered, and that the public not be informed?
Is the definition of "getting things done" mean having things slipped in at the last minute while keeping the public and the legislators clueless ?
Re: (Score:3)
I suggest you find some rich liberal to sponsor such an initiative in the Rd states then.
But just because no one has done so doesn't mean it should not be done where people are trying.
And, BTW, the intent is irrelevant, as you yourself point out.
Re:Republican Would Benefit? (Score:5, Informative)
Nope.
Leadership regularly adds items to bills at the last minute. That practice is ubiquitous in all legislative bodies, even the US Congress, and is bullshit.
And, what's the fucking hurry? When a Bill is changed it takes a while for it to be analyzed and the people it may affect to understand it and bring their concerns to the attention of their legislator.
The only reason for allowing that bullshit is to slip something in under the wire and without due consideration.
Re: Yes please (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you serious? Do you imagine first-responders to disasters need a literal act of (state) congress to respond? The various departments of the state are pre-authorized to respond, the so-called 'disaster relief' bills would address things like investments in reconstruction, providing emergency housing, etc., and are passed well after the disaster. First the disaster occurs, then the damage is assessed, cost estimates are formulated, then disaster relief bills are drafted and passed.
You could always amend the state constitution to provide a fast-track for a very specific type of bill, but honestly such a provision would likely be exploited way too often, rendering the bill useless.
Re: Yes please (Score:2)
Sorry, that last line should read 'amendment' not 'bill' useless.
Re:Yes please (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, there are a good number of things I can think of where a 72 hour waiting period might be inappropriate such as disaster relief and other time sensitive bills typically handled swiftly by all parties involved.
Th categories that require an immediate response usually do not require an immediate vote. Things like grounding planes, mobilizing troops, deploying national guard to a disaster, etc.. are usually authorized by the governor and/or president without the consent of a legislative body. Declaring war and additional funding is done by the legislatures but a 72 hour freeze isn't going to really have much effect on that.
It annoys me that the summary decided that it is a bad law solely by the side funding it. A law should be decided on its merits and in this case, I think this is a good law. I also think things like picture ids for voting, background checks for buying guns, and plenty of other things which are sensible laws should not be immediately rejected just because the other side wants it. That's why we have the current stalemate that we currently have.
Re:Yes please (Score:4, Interesting)
It annoys me that the summary decided that it is a bad law solely by the side funding it.
It's funny because I only read about half the summary and decided it was a good idea.
It's not like I'll get to vote on it anyway since I don't live in California. I guess their campaign budgets are getting too large though because I've seen a number of commercials for issues in California (Proposition 61? What's that? I don't care).
So your post prompted me to read the whole summary, but I still wasn't really swayed by that last sentence. I don't really see a good argument against it. Legislation is a slow and tortuous process and it should be. Give the world 3 days to pick apart your legislation and object to certain parts if they're objectionable.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't read the summary as deciding it was a bad law, I read that the people opposing it are using the funding source as a poor attempt to discredit the law.
Re: Yes please (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the criticism is a true ad hominem: this person supporting the idea is "bad", therefore the idea itself is bad.
Re:Yes please (Score:5, Informative)
there are a good number of things I can think of where a 72 hour waiting period might be inappropriate such as disaster relief
The author(s) of Prop 54 agree. From the text of the proposed law (section 3, part c; emphasis mine):
To give us, the people, and our representatives the necessary time to carefully evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the final version of a bill before a vote by imposing a 72-hour public notice period between the time that the final version is made available to the Legislature and the public, and the time that a vote is taken, except in cases of a true emergency declared by the Governor.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, there isn't really any limitation on what the governor can declare to be an emergency, homelessness for example.
Re:Yes please (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't enough time in a Federal session to read a single big bill aloud. I agree, though, legislation shouldn't be so complex and frankly obscure as it is today.
Re:Yes please (Score:5, Informative)
There isn't enough time in a Federal session to read a single big bill aloud.
Congratulations, you got it in one.
Re: (Score:2)
AIUI in the Icelandic tradition it was the job of the speaker to recite the entire legal code from memory before the Althing conducted any further business.
Re: (Score:2)
As it was, as it should be, and as it will be when society falls again.
Re:Yes please (Score:5, Insightful)
But here is the kicker -- Senator A and Senator C both have towns in their districts that build floatys and arm-wings for the Navy... The Navy doesn't actually need them, and if they completely control their own spending, they will cancel the contract. Both Senators will have heavy job losses in their districts, spurning hard economic times, making it harder for them to get re-elected. If they write a bill that dictates that the Navy buys all these floatys and arm-wings for the Navy, then they saved jobs and are heroes... The same goes for army/navy bases, etc. Heck, it's reasons like that, that there is a fully stocked air-force armory in my town -- 75 miles away from the closest air-force base and 30 miles away from the closest airport that can even land a jet.
And that is why things don't chance. If we made these organizations more efficient and allowed them to spend in ways that are actually useful to them, lots of people lose their jobs (mostly people in congress, but you know)...
Re: (Score:2)
The US has no enemies which can actually invade the US. It only needs a nuclear deterrent force. The rest of the Army,navy and air force is a jobs creation program so it makes total sense to use it the most efficiently that is spread the jobs over all districts.
Re: (Score:3)
Read some Kissinger, or at least Roosevelt's big stick doctrine. The US uses its armed forces to project force and influence international politics and policy.
Not everybody is influenced by the threat of nuclear annihilation.
Re: (Score:3)
>There should also be no need for lawyers to interpret the law and the processes of justice
Except that lawyers have a vested interest to perpetuate their value to society, and so they keep the system obscure and complex.
500 years ago, most people absolutely needed a lawyer because they lacked the education and exposure to concepts of the law. Today, we should be actively working to reduce the need for lawyers, but I don't see it happening in the courts, or any arena where "specialists" make money by rep
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yes please (Score:5, Interesting)
And then require that every law on the books be read aloud once every 6 years or the law expires.
Re: (Score:3)
And then require that every law on the books be read aloud once every 6 years or the law expires.
I think a similar solution should be that every citizen over the age of 18 should be mailed a hard copy of the laws for which they are bound every year and it should be written at a level that anyone with a high school diploma can read. I'm not a fan of case law where it takes an entire library of law books to decide what is and is not illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
The cost would be monumental, and the benefit dubious.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point; the cost could be reduced by simplifying the laws. There isn't much motivation for that now. The prospect of making the book thinner than an encyclopedia mailed to 300 million people each year will certainly help motivate that. In the meanwhile it would be a boon to print industries and rural shipping for the USPS. Why should law be the only field which benefits from our complex legal system?
Re: (Score:2)
Even in Roman times legal systems were complex. The larger and more complex the society the larger and more complex the legal code
Re: (Score:3)
Fine, then we'll limit Congress and the Office of the Reviser of Statutes to the same information technology available to the Romans. I'll even spring for vellum over papyrus.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not my fault the universe doesn't make CO2 emissions magically neutral.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd also restrict the CFR to no more than 3 pages (ordinary font, ordinary margins) per day, which can be banked for up to 1 year, and each page expires X years after it was earned. (6 is a good number for X, but anything from about 4 to 10 would work.) Congress should need to affirmatively approve each page (roll call vote in a committee is fine) after it has been publicly posted for 30 days, and if they don't within 30 days of availability, the regulation fails but the President is still charged half of
Re:Yes please (Score:5, Insightful)
And then require that every law on the books be read aloud once every 6 years or the law expires.
I've been advocating law experation without renewal for years. It forces elected legislatures to review previous generations' laws for problems and continued validity.
It also recognizes the lower weight assigned to simple majority decisions (as opposed to supermajorities).
If there is too much for the government to do even a cursory review every 5 years, there's too much to expect The People to obey it all.
Re:Yes please (Score:4, Interesting)
It's an interesting proposition. I'm a solo programmer working in a fairly interesting role at my company - I write a lot of varied code and utilities, as well as doing a lot of other technical things. After about that magic five years, I found myself unable to keep up with new demands as I was maintaining old code to account for changes in the other software and hardware we use. After about 10 years it was almost all maintenance. I found an out in both switching departments and advocating for more off the shelf software that did what we needed (even if not quite the way people wanted... I told them to suck it up and deal with it).
Applying that sort of scenario to what you propose gives a pretty exciting result - after 10 years or so we're down to maintaining old laws (supposing the most important laws are passed first, after 10 years you're just down to nit-picky laws that probably don't mean a whole lot). After 10 years, you're refining and making the existing laws better instead of proposing complex new ones that benefit few at the expense of many (the typical law passed these days, it seems). Sounds good to me.
Re: Yes please (Score:5, Informative)
The Republicans tried to do this when PPACA was being discussed/passed - you may recall a few high-profile Democrats saying things like "we have to pass the bill, so you can see what's in it" (pelosi) and "what good is reading the bill if you don't have 2 lawyers with you to explain it to you?" (Conyers, admitting he never actually read the bill he was sponsoring in Congress). The republicans tried to force Dems to hear, from f they wouldn't deign to actually read, the bill they were trying to pass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about California state legislation, but Federal bills are literally unreadable. You'd need a staff of dozens, all experienced in the subject matter, studying the bill to have a chance of understanding it within 72 hours.
Re:Yes please (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about California state legislation, but Federal bills are literally unreadable. You'd need a staff of dozens, all experienced in the subject matter, studying the bill to have a chance of understanding it within 72 hours.
And this is absolutely insane. We have members of congress regularly voting on bill that they themselves haven't read and don't understand. How can anyone think this is acceptable?
Nancy Pelosi said it best (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed, though I notice that at most levels of higher administration (e.g. when you start to pass the level of having 100 or so reports) the art of the job is in knowing what to ignore, when to trust your direct reports and when to call BS and dig deeper. Representation is not as demanding as administration, but how this can possibly work when you represent ~800,000, or millions in the federal senate, is beyond my understanding.
I think the system would be improved with simplification, and I would vote for
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The purpose of this may well be to delay bills someone doesn't like while also making it harder to compromise, but it would be nice to see what the bills say before they're voted on.
Agreed. GIT for Government [gitforgov.com] has the idea, though there are countless variations. The idea is not just to know what the bills say, but to know what the exact step by step process of making the bill was, and which politician signed off on every edit and change. That doesn't mean that they can't just meet in a conference room and hash out something before putting it in a bill. In fact, I'd encourage that, but revision to a bill, or any proposed new bill must be signed off on by one or more politicians.
It mi
Re: (Score:2)
Depends.
Who can make changes to a bill?
If this allows opposition to keep making changes, forcing a bill into an infinite waiting period hell, then it's bad.
Otherwise the longest delay this could possibly cause is 72 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Since changes require votes at the Committee level, it's unlikely that the opposition can make any changes.
And if a bill is so disliked that a change can be managed every three days to keep it from final vote, it's probably a really bad bill....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Would I like to see bills ahead of time? Sure. But what would I be able to do about a bill I disagreed with?
Ha! (Score:3)
The younger Munger
Well done, guys.
reasonable (Score:2, Funny)
Seems reasonable. Oh wait its from a Republican? That is the most god damn your brains are falling out of your head idea I have evar heard.
Just because he's an oligarch... (Score:2)
Just because he's an oligarch doesn't mean he's wrong. If transparency "disrupts" the sausage-making, maybe it's because there were too many rodent hairs in there.
The "OMG, some rich asshole sponsored this" argument has been applied to a number of initiatives, and in each case I'm trying my best to analyze the initiative on its own merits rather than based on who sponsored it.
It's not easy though. The voter's guide is 223 pages.
Re: (Score:2)
Only 223 pages? That's a tiny fraction of the legislation that will be put to vote in a single session. Our system is like a black hole, and it's beginning to accrete mass at an alarming rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Some backroom chatter is necessary for democracy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
AFACT, this only applies to public meetings, the ones that any random person could attend before. Now, they'll be allowed to record the meeting as well, rather than rely on the government to supply transcripts or videos - if the government feels like it. There was a court case about this for some city in CA recently, where a town tried to prevent someone from using video from a meeting in a campaign ad.
Backroom meetings and informal conferences can still occur without public scrutiny. But the results wil
Re: (Score:3)
The bill only requires that ==public== meetings be video-taped.
So, they are simply ensuring that the public can access the meetings in a manner other than driving up to Sacramento and sitting in.
Or to rely on the increasingly non-existant local news reporter who sits in and summarizes the actual actions that occur in these public meetings.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't about "discussions" it is about posting the "final text of all proposed legislation" for 72 hours before a final vote:
Also, I'm pretty sure California broadcasts their legislative sessions, but I am curious why you feel a need to provide lawmakers with a "safe space" to conduct backroom deals.
Re: (Score:2)
You might try spending 30 seconds looking up Prop 54 on Google before becoming "pretty sure". It does more than one thing [ca.gov]:
Key Changes That Would Happen if Proposition 54 Passes: ... The legislature would have to ensure that all of its public meetings were recorded, with videos posted on the Internet within 24 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so... did you read what you linked? You do know that it includes statements saying the guy you're arguing with is right.
Isara's concern, above, was about the legislature being forced to televise meetings that it doesn't want to. kenh incorrectly implied that the proposed law has nothing to do with that.
If the legislature was actually comfortable with recordings of every public meeting being freely available, they wouldn't have imposed a sweeping (and probably unconstitutional) ban on some of their most important uses:
No television signal generated by the Assembly shall be used for any political or commercial purpose, including, but not limited to, any campaign for elective public office or any campaign supporting or opposing a ballot proposition submitted to the electors.
Have you ever been to visit your representative? ... The argument here is typical of the petty politics of my state.
You're rambling in this paragraph. I can't tell what your point really is, or who you're criticizing. The pr
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that these guys already (voluntarily) video tape most public meetings. They don't video tape the ones where no one shows up. This doesn't change any of the Legislature's actions. Regardless of whether this bill passes, they're still going to tape their meetings.
Now, I don't disagree that this is all for political theater. That's why they record in the first place. Our legislature is pretty screwed up. It's been 20 years since the Republicans threatened any sort of legislative control in th
Re: (Score:2)
The main change with regards to the recordings is that they would become available for use for political ads.
Federal Law and Tracking (Score:5, Insightful)
What I would love to see is laws being tracked in version control. The text of congressional bills are large and people can easily slip in minor changes with major impact. There is no real tracking of who edited a bills text and version control would provide that transparency.
Beats having people acting shocked with something is added at changes added at the last minute.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, you want actual transparency? That's several iterations into a brighter future than I think we're actually heading for.
Re: (Score:2)
I like it.
The wiki-method would be perfect for this.
Tracked changes, author/authority indicated, and logged indelibly for all to see, forever.
Then again, that would require us bringing a government that barely functions at a 20th century level into the 21st, when (I'm guessing) a significant fraction of congresspeople still have their emails printed every morning.
Sad to see the Republicans obstructing again (Score:2, Funny)
`There should be no requirement to make bills public before they're voted on. That just prevents the legally elected representatives from making decisions that they know better than the people.
Remember Romney Care? (Score:2, Interesting)
WTF? Ignore the actual wording, just look at who is proposing it! Tha
Re: (Score:3)
if Democrats didn't reject the Heritage Foundation plan back when Hillary's husband was in office for no other reason than it wasn't their plan, we could have had all the benefits of Obamacare at least ten tears earlier.
It wasn't a good plan then, and it isn't a good plan now. The ACA is a handout to insurance companies which shouldn't even exist, and they wouldn't if we simply extended Medicare to all citizens. It would have been both cheaper and easier.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Obamacare is a devil's compromise. Back then the Democrats felt they could actually have a single payer system and extend medicare to all or even better have an NHS. Obamacare is a bandage. Yes it gets the uninsured covered but at the cost of enriching the insurance companies and raising premiums for the middle class while doing nothing about the price gouging and monopolies of the medical sector both Big hospitals and Big Pharma. Obama just wanted to get something passed to have a legacy so he comp
Re: Remember Romney Care? (Score:2)
My comment was directed at Democrats, to make a point about blanket partisan rejection of bills...
And yes, Obamacare 'sucks balls' (you mean that in the bad way, right?) that's why Republicans moved on from the idea and choose not to rally around it when Democrats resurrected it in 2009.
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell is a "medical monopoly'?
Re: (Score:3)
https://politics.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
Charging "what the market will bear" isn't, if immediately after you agree to pay for a product or service you go bankrupt and/or homeless as a result of buying the product or service. 'Course, when the alternative is a quick/slow unpleasant death under hospital/hospice care that ends up costing the same... not much alternat
This is not the California way! (Score:3)
As then Speaker Pelosi said, "We have to pass the bill, so you can find out what is in it!" [youtube.com]
Or, as Rep. John Conyers famously said "Read the bill?" [youtube.com]
Great Idea-works well at the Village level (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh (Score:4, Informative)
"Follow the money" means to find out who ultimately benefits.
It does NOT mean "follow the money until it comes to someone you don't like and then reflexively oppose it because you just don't like them"...
A good bill is bad if the wrong person proposes it (Score:2)
So, a good bill is bad if the wrong person proposes it? Isn't that why our nation is currently paralyzed by hyper-partisanship? Politics-uber-alles?
Re: (Score:2)
The additional footage from meetings might be similar - if every meeting is public and recorded then the legislators have t
Re: (Score:2)
if every meeting is public and recorded
Prop 54 does not make every meeting public. It just says that if a meeting is open to the public, then it must also be recorded and posted online, with no bizarre, unconstitutional restrictions on what people can do with the video.
Sunlight: The best disinfectant (Score:2)
"His goal is to disrupt the power of a legislature that's getting things done."
If the legislature is passing good legislation, the sunlight has no impact. If they are a bunch of slimy bastards making backroom deals that are bad for the people, they shouldn't be surprised that the voters are unhappy with the BS they are pulling.
California would be better off firing all of their crooked politicians and passing all legislation directly by referendum every 2 years. Much like stable software, the government ha
As someone who hates republican obstructionism.... (Score:2)
....all I can say is this is one of the best fucking ideas I have ever seen.
Stamping a mandatory 3 day delay before final vote to give the public a chance to examine a bills contents and know what their elected officials are voting for is a real no-brainer. Last minute shenanigans cause untold numbers of legislative headaches for regular people. In fact that's typically how all the questionable crap bought and paid for by corporations make it into the shit that comes out of Congress: a last second rider a
Re: (Score:2)
+1 For This (Score:2)
Why not? What is the hurry to pass new laws and regulations?
Business (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the rule of toyata (Score:2)
remarkably stupid. and will never result in what the author desires
Who and why?! (Score:3)
According to Steven Maviglio, the director of Californians for an Effective Legislature, a campaign committee formed to oppose Proposition 54. It all comes down to who is behind the initiative, and why.
That's like saying that Snowwhite and the 7 dwarves are rallying against a proposition to mandate the installation of smoke dectectors in the bedrooms of children, because the initiative was started by the Big Bad Wolf (who of course figures the higher the children survival rate, the bigger chances are that some of them might get lost in the woods). So yeah, rip out all those smoke detectors because the Big Bad Wolf is after your children!
Good. Make Internet access a public utility (Score:3)
Lawmakers should be made to use source control (Score:3)
And the public should be able to examine the change logs to see whose office put in what to each bill.
Re:Because "getting things done" (Score:5, Insightful)
"getting things done" is not the same thing as "doing the right thing" - the person opposing posting the final language of a bill for 72 hours before passage is hoping you don't see the difference...
The whole point of Prop. 54, as I read it, is to make sure the gov't is "doing the right thing" - what's wrong with that? Oh, right, it was proposed by a "republican"! Yikes! It must be a trick of some kind!
Re:Because "getting things done" (Score:5, Funny)
"Well, THIS is something..."
"Then we must do it!"
Re: (Score:3)
What good would that do? Politicians don't report bribes on their tax returns, besides, the folks charged with writing the tax code don't even understand it, just ask Rep. Charles Rangel who failed to realize you need to report income from foreign rental properties he owns. [politico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The service of publishing proposed legislation on the internet? It's definitely cheaper that way than shuttling paper copies to all concerned, and probably cheaper than whatever they're doing now to exchange the changes behind closed doors before the vote.
Re: (Score:2)
In theory, theory is the same as practice. But in practice, it isn't.
Re: I know nothing about CA rules (Score:5, Insightful)
The 72 hours requirement kicks in once you have 'final text', not each draft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I know nothing about CA rules (Score:3)
How would a bill's opponents keep doing that? If they had enough votes to revise the draft over and over, they'd have enough votes to kill it or require it to something that would never pass.
Re: Need it at the national level now (Score:2)
So PPACA, so-called ObamaCare, at 2,500 pages would have what, a nearly 7 year review before passage?
Re: (Score:2)
Or it could have been fine printed on a single oversized page.
Re: (Score:2)
Says the poster using a quantum-mechanics based machine to access the internet.