Comments about ‘Letters: Read all bills’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, June 26 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

As usuall, Senator Hatch blew it when he voted for the immigration bill. He pontificated about how the fence would be built and how our borders would become secure.

HE DIDN"T READ THE BILL!

Page 35, line 24:

"Notwithstanding paragraph (1), nothing in this subsection shall require the Secretary to install fencing, or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such fencing, in a particular location along the Southern border, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the Southern border at such location."

There it is, in plain English. Does Hatch need to a third-grader to read for him?

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Ron,

Nothing like a good out-of-context quote to energize the masses.

And if you perpetuate it enough, it becomes a rallying cry.

What you are proposing

"I would propose a requirement, enforceable by law, if necessary, that all lawmakers read every word of a proposed law before they are allowed to vote on it"

Do you know what Pelosi was referring to? Have you bothered to look into it?

Let me help.

The house passes bills. The senate passes competing bills. Once that happens, the two attempt to come together to iron out the differences.

So, what Pelosi was referring to was that the house bill was passed, but the senate bill was still in process. So, yes, the senate had to pass their bill before an attempt could be made to merge the two.

Makes a bit more sense in context, but not nearly as inflammatory.

one old man
Ogden, UT

You're right, Joe. But Ron's idea is still very worthwhile. It might prevent Orrin and others from slipping in last minute amendments and riders that will slam us with things that could not have been passed if they had been considered fairly.

FreedomFighter41
Orem, UT

I guess we should do absolutely nothing about anything, which is what the GOP seems intent on doing.

I say we should repeal Obamacare. Lets go back to leaving millions of Americans uninsured, allowing insurance companies to deny coverage or drop coverage for any reason, and you know, let the "free market reign!" That way, only the richies can receive health care. While others, may receive health care but lose their entire savings and homes in the process. More assets for the 1 percent to absorb! yay!

I also think we should deport every single illegal here (as the GOP wants) and round them up into concentration camps. We could also throw in women, minorities, liberals, and young people too. We'll create a conservative paradise in this country. Also, do nothing to businesses. Let them continue to break the law without any punishment.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

I guess part of the problem is that our society is so litigious and we have to cover so many bases that we need 1200 page bills. Who could possibly find time to read, absorb and comprehend it? Simplification, and smaller pieces of legislation, may help.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

Are they expected to be more than a pretty face or a seat wormier.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

So what's stopping people like Ron from voting out lawmakers who don't read bills?

You know 99 percent of all our problems could be resolved if people just got themselves informed and voted for candidates for the issues, not on face, religion, part affliation, or sexual attractiveness. Instead of merely showing up on Election Day and pulling the R lever or voting for the big name or cute person, how about actually knowing who they are, what they stand for, and what their plans are?

I have full confidence that if we do this, our entire system will change... For the better. And folks like Orrin Hatch, Rob Bishop, and Michael Lee will finally be expelled from DC

one old man
Ogden, UT

Hutt nailed it again. So did the maverick.

Edgar
Samaria, ID

Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post called this "one of the biggest gambits of the legilative process" in his Fact Checker column today and while giving four Pinochuios to Senator Jeff sessions and his friends, who are making the same claim as this lketter writer, Mr. Kessler concludes:

"Sessions and his colleagues protest too much when they say no one has had a chance to read a 1,200-page bill. Given that they had a role in ensuing that the Corker-Hoeven amendment was folded into the overall bill, their complaints of a rushed bill are overblown.

"Comprehensive legislation, by its nature, is complex, with unpredictable outcomes. But virtually all of the bill — and the amendments — has been available to read for weeks."

There are lot of legitimate reasons to vote against legislation but claiming you haven't had time to read it is about as weak as it comes.

  • 11:39 a.m. June 26, 2013
  • Like (2)
  • Top comment
Copy Cat
Murray, UT

Hutt nailed it? Really??? It is 1200 pages of C.Y.A?????

More likely it is 1200 pages of pure pork!

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "The Real Maverick" and "one old man" many more problems would be solved if the low information voter didn't vote for a person just because they have a D after their name and are promising free stuff.

What many people don't realize is that if the Senate passes their version of the immigration bill, and the House passes another version, that the final version does not necessarily have to be voted on again. The final version can contain all sorts of provisions that give amnesty and allow illegals to get a free pass on crimes that they have comitted.

SCfan
clearfield, UT

Re: Joe Blow

That doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that Pelosi did not bother to read the bill, (but of course voted on it), and would not read it until it came out of conference? What kind of leader is that? She as Speaker, should have known the most about the bill, it was her job. But then, I never did think she did her job very well, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

Mick
Murray, Utah

FreedomFighter41,

Obamacare has been out for a couple of years and you don't even know what is in it with all the misinformation you just spilled. Millions of americans (approx. 8-10) don't have insurace because they have enough money and don't feel like they need it. The very poor are taken care of by medicaid and now Obamacare has increased the cost for everyone. Just ask the CBO, who has changed their estimates several times. Just ask Nancy Pelosi, who by the way, never said everyone would save money. Liars, all Liars.

And I do believe that anytime the USA has put anyone in internment or "concentration" camps, it has been done so under a Deomocratic president. Not the conservatives, who only want a smaller federal government. Sounds like you have been watching a little too much MSNBC and drinking the coolaid of "Conservatives hate all minorities".

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"That doesn't make any sense. "

Let me explain.

The legislation in the senate was not final. It was still being modified. At the point when she said that, the bill was still being modified.

So, until there was a version that passed, it was fairly useless to discuss a bill that was still being changed.

Hence, once it passes, then there is a point of reference to discuss and merge with the house.

If you look into it, you can collaborate what I am saying.

And, FYI, I am no fan of Pelosi either.

wrz
Pheonix, AZ

@FreedomFighter41:
"I say we should repeal Obamacare."

Finally, someone with a brilliant suggestion.

"Lets go back to leaving millions of Americans uninsured..."

You mean Americans who would rather have ipads, cell phones, cable TV and other expensive electronic devises and who eat out a fast resturants on a regular basis instead of purchasing health insurance? Is that your point?

"That way, only the richies can receive health care."

We live in a capitalist society. If you want socialism you need to move to another country.

"I also think we should deport every single illegal here..."

Another brilliant suggestion.

@Hutterite:
"I guess part of the problem is that our society is so litigious and we have to cover so many bases that we need 1200 page bills."

Not necessarily so. Much of the bill includes pork for Senators and Representatives.

"Who could possibly find time to read, absorb and comprehend it?"

Perhaps the answer is to slow down the law making process and stop passing reams and reams of useless laws.

wrz
Pheonix, AZ

I don't get it...

It is said that marriage is a state law issue. How is it that the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882, a United States federal statute signed into law on March 23, 1882, still stands on the books today?

Shouldn't the federal government be canceling this law and let the states (those who wish to) handle the issue?

SCfan
clearfield, UT

Joe Blow

OK I'll concede that Pelosi may have meant what you say she did, but she did a terrible job communicating it, and of explaining it later. Now her famous statement is in American lexicon. Her fault.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments