Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould all pending federal legislation be posted online for a minimum of 72 hours before voting can take place?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 87% | 94 votes | Total: 108 votes | |
| No | 13% | 14 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesAbsolutely. 72 hours is not enough, but it is better than no chance at all to look at federal legislation, that may effect this country for many years to come. The constitution was not written in 3 days. Neither should it be destroyed by a Johnny come lately, that have imagined, they possess more wisdom than Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and many others, combined.
Even a 7 day notice can be rushing matters, when the plot is to change laws put into place, that are the result of over 200 years of thought. Who is in a hurry to push through legislation more than rich idealists or a rich want to be, who may have personal gain in their thoughts?
Their side of the arguments may include months or years of meditation to get their agenda sneaked into the picture and glued in with permanent ink.
A 72 hour stall, may at least give the legislators time to read, what they are voting on without sleepy eyes in the middle of the night. Taking time to read the fine print, is very important, especially when the well being of a country and its people are involved. Lawmakers, that do not want the people's feed back, may think, they know it all, or just simply do not care what the people want.
True it is, many cannot make intelligent decisions for our country, but also true it is, the people, they voted for, may also not be the best people for decision making either. Even with new proposals posted on the Internet, many are not going to have time to read or understand all the elements of documentation.
Yet the lawmakers should have some time to get feedback from people that helped them get into office. (At least it could be said, you was given an opportunity to look over the matters that are being voted upon. Without any knowledge of how the elected vote, would be like asking voters to vote with their eyes closed).
Most college graduates have been exposed to a lot of thoughts. Unfortunately, acquiring a lot of knowledge and getting a diploma, does not certify common sense is an attribute of a person. Decisions made by the majority of the people, at least to some degree, is important for a calm attitude of the people. Overbearing legislation forced upon the people of a country, without their input, is asking for unrest and dissatisfaction.
Learn more about this author, Larry Poteete.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Although I am a firm believer that all Americans should be educated about pending legislation before voting can take place, I have serious issues with it being broadcast throughout cyberspace for the entire world to have an opinion and to potentially be used against us.
As recently as about 2 weeks ago, I wrote my congressman about a similar issue. It dealt with the Department of Homeland Security and issues on infrastructure and problems that they face today and the fact that my congressman from California had several entries in her blog about it. In her blog, she writes about serious problems with the DHS and security risks, and without going into too much detail since then I would be just as bad, my comment to her was: (1) doesn't this in and of itself prove to be a security risk since you are blogging throughout all of cyberspace about what exactly the security risks are, leaving us open and vulnerable and (2) if all of America really needs to know about the issue and it can't be taken care of internally since this is what we are paying our congressman for through our hard-earned tax dollars, then can't we find a better way to disseminate the information to voting Americans instead of involving everybody else in the world who really don't have a say since (a) they can't vote and (b) when it comes time to think critically we face becoming confused with hype and rhetoric by interested but univolved third parties who really shouldn't have a say anyway.
I am in complete agreement with the American public being informed about pending legislation, but I write for the "no" side tonight because I want Americans to truly think about the future of our country. In the world we live in today, I think we need to be a little bit more careful and should practice the responsible dissemination of information and I am not really sure if "the internet is once again, your friend." It most certainly can be, without a doubt, but when it comes time to sensitive information, or even legislation, I am just wondering how much of it truly should be broadcast to the world. I know my ideas are not perfect, but I don't really like the idea of us being an "open-book" either.
Learn more about this author, John Huetteman.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Government & Policies
- Should the Freedom of Information Act cover Congressional records?
- Should church groups be allowed to hold meetings in public places?
- Should the US institute a cap and trade system that creates financial incentive for emission reductions?
- Should the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) be modified to apply to Congress?
- Should former government employees be allowed to work for companies they used to regulate?
- Will Bush pull out US troops in Iraq before he leaves office?
