(10-04-2009 01:38 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  Eh, probably said the same thing I would. I'd bet that when anything is debated in Congress its just discussed in "plain english", then some poor team of staffers with law doctorates goes in the back room and writes it out in the "legal speak" that laws are written in. Otherwise all we would be able to elect are Lawyers, and they'd spend all their time writing stuff rather than wasting our tax dollars. Instead I'm pretty sure they get thorough briefs (whether they read them or not is debatable). Heck, even the military works this way with things like OpOrders. Think General Myers read the entire plan for the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan? I wouldn't put my money on it.

Whether or not we should be writing bills as long and complicated as these things is an entirely different and debatable point.

That's why there should be a tax on lawyers.

(10-05-2009 07:56 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(10-05-2009 12:24 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  Generals carry out complex and large operations without reading word for word every single piece of an OpOrder. They are written by individuals trained in the procedure and who have experience covering every piece that may be challenged or interpreted. It is the responsibility of the person authorizing it to ensure the big picture is being taken care of and nothing might get overlooked but they usually have a ton of additional duties that pulling hairs over writing the intricate details of a massive plan is not only highly inefficient, but also defeating the purpose of delegation.

Those people trained in the procedure, in this case, is supposed to be the damn Congressdicks.

Then I go back to my earlier point that all we would be electing would be lawyers who spend all their time writing stuff without ever actually getting around to debating and voting on it before their term expires. We have tons of watchdog organizations that read these bills, even if they are written by lobbyists, who I am sure most Congressmen are well aware of (considering some of the massive email campaigns they sometimes run). Whether they choose to listen to the briefs they receive or the interpretations by these watchdog organizations will obviously vary by individual. But its not as if they didn't write the dang thing word by word they cannot be fully informed of what the big picture and even many of the smaller details are.

These people are elected to write the legislation, read the legislation and vote on the legislation. Similar to the way baseball is simple, you hit the ball, catch the ball and throw the ball. As more and more people find that surrogates are doing the elected officials jobs, the people will find it as abhorrent as others here have tried to convey. They surely see the product of our elected officials abhorrent already.

(10-05-2009 10:50 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  Then I go back to my earlier point that all we would be electing would be lawyers who spend all their time writing stuff without ever actually getting around to debating and voting on it before their term expires. We have tons of watchdog organizations that read these bills, even if they are written by lobbyists, who I am sure most Congressmen are well aware of (considering some of the massive email campaigns they sometimes run). Whether they choose to listen to the briefs they receive or the interpretations by these watchdog organizations will obviously vary by individual. But its not as if they didn't write the dang thing word by word they cannot be fully informed of what the big picture and even many of the smaller details are.

Ever see the US Constitution? NM, I know you have. It's written in plain English by STATESMEN, not politicians. Here's a novel idea, why don't we start electing STATESMEN instead of GDamn politicians, I.e. many blood-sucking insects?

(10-05-2009 12:38 AM)RobertN Wrote:  they write the bill in PLAIN ENGLISH and is TRANSLATED to legalese.

Do you have faith that what is INTENDED and DESCRIBED by even the best politicians (oxymoron I know) is what is actually written?

(10-05-2009 11:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-05-2009 12:38 AM)RobertN Wrote:  they write the bill in PLAIN ENGLISH and is TRANSLATED to legalese.

Do you have faith that what is INTENDED and DESCRIBED by even the best politicians (oxymoron I know) is what is actually written?

No, now he "trusts" the politicians. I wonder how he'll feel about it next year when they lose Congress? RobertN is a fool. Get used to it.

As for me? I don't trust ANY of'em. None, not one f'n person up there that's been "Washingtonized". Remember, Lindsey Graham was a conservative Republican........before he arrived in Washington.

(10-05-2009 11:29 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(10-05-2009 10:50 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  Then I go back to my earlier point that all we would be electing would be lawyers who spend all their time writing stuff without ever actually getting around to debating and voting on it before their term expires. We have tons of watchdog organizations that read these bills, even if they are written by lobbyists, who I am sure most Congressmen are well aware of (considering some of the massive email campaigns they sometimes run). Whether they choose to listen to the briefs they receive or the interpretations by these watchdog organizations will obviously vary by individual. But its not as if they didn't write the dang thing word by word they cannot be fully informed of what the big picture and even many of the smaller details are.

Ever see the US Constitution? NM, I know you have. It's written in plain English by STATESMEN, not politicians. Here's a novel idea, why don't we start electing STATESMEN instead of GDamn politicians, I.e. many blood-sucking insects?

I agree. Why oh why don't they write the bills in plain english so that everyone can read the words and know exactly what is written. IMO, the legalese gibberish is used so that only lawyers can perform the function. I guess since the vast majority of politicians are lawyers, it assures that their profession keeps the work.

BTW, I am not against making sure that what is written is what is intended and making sure loopholes are closed, but there are many ways to write and convey a thought on paper. I think the simple, direct way leaves less ambiguity.

I was reading over the list of writers of the Constitution and out of the first 12, I think 8 or 9 were lawyers (I'm not sure what the proportion is today, but there are many more various backgrounds than in the past). Additionally, they had the luxury of writing the initial document which allowed for broadness that is no longer afforded in today's society. They had no idea of what to expect regarding the future of America's legal system. They barely had an understanding of how their own government was going to work, let alone the legal challenges that would face their work till this day. But they planned to allow for the details to be filled in more precisely over time through legislation and interpretation from the Bench.

Take something as simple as the Declaration: "All men are created equal."

In all reality, if this were written today it would have to be very plainly written out in legalese "all citizens" or something of that nature. Otherwise we'd have to take it as all "men" literally (P.S. I know some people actually believe this) and we'd be in one hell of a mess.

While I believe in the concept of statesmen very much, even with them, I believe that they still would lack the skills to provide legislation that can withstand the many legal challenges of today's litigous society AND actually have a chance to debate them. At least half of a representatives term would be spent in his office writing. If the ability to write durable legislation were a consideration for voters, you'd be faced with a much shallower pool of people to choose from, which also limits the odds of picking the best man for the job (which I am assuming is your ultimate desire).