Much has been said about the bills that congress votes on and probably doesn't read that exceed 1000+ pages. It occures to me that the standard of education in the United States is the high school diploma (HSD). Only about 5% or so of the population ever goes on to higher education. If the standard is an HSD and the majority of the voters are high school educated and are expected to be informed voters, how is it that congressional bills are written where no one understands them. Why can not the greatest country on the planet craft a law that a high school graduate can read and comprehend. Do we not have the language skills to craft a simple, concise document that directs our course of action in 10 pages or less. The FOUNDERS did it, the Bill of Rights comes to mind. I think it is a question for our times.
Law,The Written Word
- Thread starter delta-419
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
cussedemgun
Member
lawyer's laws
For over 200 years our country has been electing lawyers to congress. Now we are cursed with a legal code that only a lawyer can understand & benefits mainly the lawyers ( SURPRISE! )
If there ever was a conflict of interest in government, it is having a lawyer serve in any legislature, whether state or federal.
Jim
For over 200 years our country has been electing lawyers to congress. Now we are cursed with a legal code that only a lawyer can understand & benefits mainly the lawyers ( SURPRISE! )
If there ever was a conflict of interest in government, it is having a lawyer serve in any legislature, whether state or federal.
Jim
tom turner
US Veteran
Yep, I wish the lawyer/members of Congre$$ would have to "recuse" (disqualify) themselves from voting or writing bills which might be a conflict of interest, financially, for their profession. 
Of course, that ain't gonna happen. I know a person who calls all Congre$$ional bills "Lawyer Employment Protection Acts."
T.
Of course, that ain't gonna happen. I know a person who calls all Congre$$ional bills "Lawyer Employment Protection Acts."
T.
BarbC
Member
First: Simple concise legal statements are open to interpretation by people with agendas.
Case in point - 27 simple words:
Second: It's not simply the "length" - I have 800 - 900 page books in my library which I have read, some more than once. The problem with these 1,000+ bills coming from Congress is that no one person is writing them, or even one office. It is a cobbling of sections submitted by different offices and committees. It's the inconsistency of writing, skill level and agenda. And there are a lot of provisions and considerations (download here http://www.healthcentral.com/alzheimers/news-295753-98.html)
I too would have preferred a simpler plan: If you spend more than X% on private health insurance, you may take a tax credit at the end of the year. But that's too simple. They want to look like they worked for this plan!
But third and most of all: It's the people who are elected to Congress simply because they can talk a good game with nothing to back it up.
Case in point - 27 simple words:
Second: It's not simply the "length" - I have 800 - 900 page books in my library which I have read, some more than once. The problem with these 1,000+ bills coming from Congress is that no one person is writing them, or even one office. It is a cobbling of sections submitted by different offices and committees. It's the inconsistency of writing, skill level and agenda. And there are a lot of provisions and considerations (download here http://www.healthcentral.com/alzheimers/news-295753-98.html)
I too would have preferred a simpler plan: If you spend more than X% on private health insurance, you may take a tax credit at the end of the year. But that's too simple. They want to look like they worked for this plan!
But third and most of all: It's the people who are elected to Congress simply because they can talk a good game with nothing to back it up.
Last edited:
rburg
Member
I'm not so sure about the meaning of your post, Barb. It depends on what the meaning of "is, is".
Judges should be issued sidearms. When a lawyer (or witness) says something that stupid, the judge should shoot them. Any judge who doesn't shoot someone when he should have needs to be shot themselves. I vote to give that authority to the bailiff. Then he can shoot the lawyer or witness. Soon the numbers of crazy people would begin to sink. Either because so many of them were dead, or the ones remaining might start to get the idea.
Judges should be issued sidearms. When a lawyer (or witness) says something that stupid, the judge should shoot them. Any judge who doesn't shoot someone when he should have needs to be shot themselves. I vote to give that authority to the bailiff. Then he can shoot the lawyer or witness. Soon the numbers of crazy people would begin to sink. Either because so many of them were dead, or the ones remaining might start to get the idea.
Hmmm, I think we have a winner idea here!
The actual rate is 32-34% according to recent data. Granted, the older generations were likely not quite that high, but surely (IMHO) more than 5%.
Be safe.
PS:
Not starting a thread drift, intentionally; rather, that 5% cited seemed a bit too low.
The older generations seemed to pack a lot more learnin' into fewer years of school...
rburg
Member
I'm not sure it was more, just better. Common sense was valued, and when someone said or did something stupid, they were told about it, laughed at, and had their precious feelings hurt. Today it would be child abuse. Our educational establishment has been given a free hand to impose their unproven theories on us. What we get are some folks who feel good about themselves, but don't have a clue as to how to earn a living, or think for themselves. Some schools don't even give out grades that might make those failing realize it. Can't hurt their feelings.
The result is kids keep going to school without having learned the fundamentals. We get college grads who excelled at playing a sport, but they can't even read or write. But their college won a championship due to the efforts of the illiterate hero.
Last edited:
oldfella
US Veteran
Dick - I think you make too much sense... please, don't run for public office, your high "degree" of common sense will be ruined.
Pete
Pete
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
Bollocks!!!!!! I call you to explain exactly how there can be a conflict of interest based on one's profession.
Last edited:
red14
US Veteran
BarbC
Member
That is actually funny because "legislature" is the branch of government concered with "legislation", which means "law" and therefore requires "lawyers".
rburg
Member
Don't worry, I won't be doing that. I also have this feeling that anyone who wants to be elected to any position should be disqualified by that alone. The ones who want to do things good usually mess up everything they touch. Then they won't admit it, or don't see the damage they've done. Seems like they want to build on their prior failures.
Public officials should all be limited to one term. No retirement on our dime, either. They should be provided with free room and board while serving. We've got to have a barracks in the DC area they could stay at. Same exact conditions our troops are expected to enjoy. Maybe they could even eat with the troops. Kill 2 birds with one stone. They'd be fed and our troops just might get better meals. The people of this country should gladly provide our legislators with box lunches each day. I think MREs, the same ones being "served" to our front line troops should prove adequate. If they don't like it, they starve. Most congressmen and senators look overfed anyway. Anyone caught providing those people with other food should be locked away and served the same meals! That'd cut down on lobbyists.
rchance
US Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Messages
- 469
- Reaction score
- 11
I doubt whether the congressmen or senators even read the bills they vote for. They have their secretaries or aids read them and tell them what they basically mean and whether or not to vote for or against. That's what I believe, it may not be true but it sounds logical to me. Who is going to sit and read 1000+ page bill and understand every bit of it without a lawyer present?
Common Sense
Common sense seems to an automatic dis qualifier. Now just being dishonest and self serving is sufficient qualification.
Common sense seems to an automatic dis qualifier. Now just being dishonest and self serving is sufficient qualification.
bk43
Member
Somehow this thread made me think of this. They're just not writin' it right.
"Supposin' I was to go to work and learn how to... to read writin'. Well, how'd I know that the feller that... that wrote the writin' was a writin' the writin' right? See it could be that he wrote the writin' all wrong. Here I'd be just a readin' wrong writin', don't ya see? You probably been doin' it your whole life, just a readin' wrong writin' and not even knowin' it." — Festus Haggen/Ken Curtis of GUNSMOKE
Bob
"Supposin' I was to go to work and learn how to... to read writin'. Well, how'd I know that the feller that... that wrote the writin' was a writin' the writin' right? See it could be that he wrote the writin' all wrong. Here I'd be just a readin' wrong writin', don't ya see? You probably been doin' it your whole life, just a readin' wrong writin' and not even knowin' it." — Festus Haggen/Ken Curtis of GUNSMOKE
Bob
Similar threads
- Locked
