Amendment on Legislative Process

Overview

The current legislative process has numerous problems, resulting in bad laws being created every legislative session.

The Constitution allows Congress to develop most of its own procedures. Unfortunately, the procedures which the Congressmen have developed tend to benefit the Congressmen themselves (either politically or financially) rather than the citizens.

In order to remedy this situation we need an Amendment. This Amendment will stipulate several specific rules for the legislative process. Each of these rules will help to ensure that the bills being proposed will benefit the people, not the elite.

Summary of Amendment

1. Bills must be shorter than 12,000 words (50 pages).

2. The problem and solution of each bill must be stated clearly.

3. All provisions in the bill must be related to the main topic.

4. Any provision drafted by lobbyists must be made public knowledge.

5. Every Congressman is required to read each bill before voting.

6. Congressmen must be allowed a reasonable time to read each bill, within sensible limits.

7. Filibusters of any type are prohibited.

Note: the full Amendment will be provided below, later in this article.

Reasons for Each Provision of this Amendment

1. Bills must be shorter than 12,000 words (50 pages).

Reason: Most of the bills proposed are ridiculously long. Some bills can be hundreds of pages. A few bills are over 1,000 pages. It takes a long time read such a bill and try to figure out all the possible ramifications. It is also impossible to discuss the details of a bill which has so many provisions.

Therefore, if we mandate that bills be kept to a manageable size, then each bill is easier to read, easier to understand, and easier to discuss.

2. The purpose of each bill must be stated above each major section.

Reason: There are several important aspects to any bill. a) The problem or issue to be addressed, b) the general concepts of the solution, and c) the specific legal language which will make the solution effective. However, the first two are left out of most bills, leaving most people wondering why the bill was needed.

Instead, the beginning of every major section of the bill should have simple paragraphs stating the issue to be addressed and a brief summary of the solution. This will help legislators and interested citizens better address the particulars of the bill.

Furthermore, judges and relevant government agencies can carry out the specific legal provisions more easily, because these officials can refer to the general purpose statements as well as the specific legal wording.

3. All provisions in the bill must be related to the main topic.

Reason: It is very common for legislators to attach provisions to a bill which are unrelated to the topic. The legislators do this to be sneaky: nobody notices those provisions until the bill passes, and then those provisions are technically enacted into law. Furthermore, most of these provisions benefit only a few people, usually political donors or specific industries.

Instead, any provision unrelated to the main topic of the law should be prohibited. All provisions must be discussed openly and honestly.

4. Any provision drafted by lobbyists must be made public knowledge.

Reason: Many bills, in part or in full, are drafted by lobbying groups. This can be a problem because those provisions often benefit only a few industries or socioeconomic groups. The majority of people suffer from a bad law, while only a few people benefit.

Legislators never want to be honest about this, because the lobbying groups are usually important political donors. It is for this reason that any provision written by a lobbying group must be made public knowledge.

On the other hand, some laws written by lobbyists and lobbying groups can be good laws. In fact, I am part of several groups which seek to enact better laws. I discuss ideas with people of similar interests, and I help draft possible provisions myself. Therefore I know that just because a lobbying group suggests a law does not make it inherently bad. It depends on the lobbying group. It depends on the particular proposed law.

Yet in either situation, full public disclosure of provisions written by lobbyists will benefit the general public. All legislators and all concerned citizens will be more fully informed regarding the intention of a law. Everyone will know of all particular groups that are behind the provision (and the people who may benefit personally from it).

5. Congressmen are required to read each bill before voting.

Reason: There is no excuse for a Congressman not to read each bill. Congressmen have only three related jobs: a) read each bill, b) discuss each bill, and c) vote on each bill. (The only other primary job is to communicate with constituents). Anything else a legislator does is not necessary. In fact, I believe that all other actions by a legislator should be done on his own personal time.

However, many legislators do not read the bills. I know, because I have read those bills closely! I have read several bills in their entirety. Then I hear several legislators talk about things in the bill which are in fact not anywhere in the bill!

This happens for every bill I have read fully, and I have read only a few bills in detail for each session. How many other bills are not being read fully by leading Congressmen? This is unacceptable.

The first way to get legislators to read bills is to keep them short, as in provision 1 of this Amendment. The second way is to allow legislators to demand a reading of the bill in its entirety before the main legislative body.

Also, the reading of the bill has a second benefit: legislators are more likely to write shorter bills if they know they will be forced to listen to the reading of each bill.

6. Congressmen must be allowed a reasonable time to read each bill, within reasonable limits.

Reason: Frequently laws are put to a vote before all of the diligent Congressmen have had a chance to read the bills. This is particularly true for larger bills and more significant bills. Therefore diligent legislators must be allowed a reasonable time to read a bill fully before it comes to a vote.

On the other hand, we cannot allow a few legislators to stall the discussion of the bills forever as a political tactic. Limits must be also be set.

7. Filibusters of any time are no longer allowed.

Reason: The filibuster tactic has prevented many bills from being considered.

A true filibuster is reasonable. One person talks for a long time. He does actual labor, for a cause he believes in. However, the virtual filibuster is a sham: a group of people saying “filibuster” and preventing a vote does not require any physical labor, and cannot be allowed as a tactic to stall discussion.

Amendment to Improve the Legislative Process

The following Amendment is submitted on behalf of the majority of citizens in order to create better legislation.

1. Bills must be short

A bill must be no longer than 12,000 words (approximately 50 pages).

Enforcement A: Any committee chairman and Speaker of the House must refuse to hear a bill larger than 12,000 words.

Enforcement B: A committee chairman or Speaker of the House may request that the bill be subdivided and resubmitted as separate bills before allowing the bill to be heard.

2. The purpose of each bill must be stated clearly

The purpose of each bill must be stated clearly at the top of the bill. The purpose of each major section of the bill must also be stated clearly at the beginning of each section.

Each “Purpose Statement” must include the following:

a. Problem: The problem or issue to be solved

b. Solution: Summary of the solution to the problem

c. Safeguards: The safeguards which prevent extreme abuse

These statements will be written in clearly written sentences, no longer than 3 paragraphs.

After a bill has been enacted into law, the Purpose Statements will become part of the Congressional Record. Judges, agency directors, and legal scholars may refer to these purpose statements when administering and interpreting the new law.

3. All provisions in the bill must related to the main topic.

All items in the bill must be related to the main topic of the bill. No provisions unrelated to the bill’s title will be allowed.

Enforcement A: Committee chairmen and the Speaker of the House can refuse to allow a bill to be discussed if there are any provisions unrelated to the primary topic.

Enforcement B: If a provision unrelated to the main topic was slipped in without noticing and the bill is passed, then that provision can be declared void by any federal judge.

4. Any provision drafted by lobbyists must be made public knowledge.

Any provision of a bill which is drafted by a lobbyist or lobbying group must be made public knowledge. Each provision must be labeled with a footnote number, which points to a sentence stating “This provision was drafted by [name of lobbying group].” The Congressman who submits the bill is responsible for providing accurate references for provisions connected to lobbying groups.

Enforcement A: Any Congressman who knows that a provision was drafted by a lobbying group may point this fact out during the discussion of the bill.

Enforcement B: If the Congressman who submitted the bill did not act in good faith and deliberately omitted the facts regarding lobbyist connections to a bill, then the Speaker of the House may refuse to hear the bill.

5. Every Congressman is required to read every bill before voting.

Each Congressman is required to read every page of every bill he will be voting on.

Enforcement: The Speaker of the House can order that the bill be read aloud, in its entirety, before being voted on. If the Speaker makes such an order, a minimum of 75% of Congressmen must be present at all times during the reading, or the bill cannot be submitted for a vote.

6. Congressmen must be allowed a reasonable time to read each bill, within reasonable limits.

Congressmen must be allowed sufficient time to read a bill before voting. “Reasonable Time” will be considered the time it would take an experienced legal professional to read the bill, also taking into account other bills to be read and discussed, and considering that the legislator’s only job is to read and vote on bills.

Enforcement A: If 40% of the legislators believe they have not had sufficient time, those legislators can state a reasonable extension time, and must be granted that time. The bill must be placed for discussion and vote after that date.

7. Filibusters of any kind are no longer allowed.

Filibusters of any kind are prohibited. No filibuster, virtual or actual, will be allowed.

Mark Fennell

9/25/2011

Original version of Right to Bear Arms

This is one of the original versions of what became the Second Amendment, regarding the Right to Bear Arms.

This version was passed by the first House of Representatives in 1789. You will notice that this version is different, and I think more clearly written, than the version that ultimately became the Second Amendment.  

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

I like the phrase “composed of the body of the People”. That phrase would help quite a bit when debating the meaning of the Second Amendment.

I also like the phrase “no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.” Although I strongly support the military, I have always disagreed with military drafts, which force citizens to take arms and fight when they do not wish to. I wonder why this phrase was taken out?

Personally, I like this original version of the Right to Bear Arms much more than the version we have had to work with.

Constitutional Amendment: Line Item Veto

The Line Item Veto will be another tool for reducing the size of the federal government. The President can scratch out any section of a bill of which he does not approve, thus eliminating a program before it begins or eliminating funding for a particular item which costs too much.

There are a few versions of the Line Item Veto out there. In my version of the Line Item Veto the procedure would be as follows:

1. The President of the United States would be allowed to strike through any portion of the bill, as short as a single word or budget item, and as large as an entire title or section.

2. The remainder of the bill will go through as passed. Everything in the bill which was not crossed out will become law. Budget items will be approved (those items not crossed out).

3. The items which were crossed out by the President will be treated as any other veto. Those items will not be enacted.

4. Congress can overturn the President’s line item vetoes if the vetoes of that bill are resubmitted for a discussion and 2/3 of Congress approves. (This is the same procedure as for overriding the normal veto).

Implementing the Line Item Veto requires a Constitutional Amendment. The Amendment might read as follows:

“The President of the United States shall have the authority to veto any word, budget item, or section of any legislation which has been sent by Congress for Presidential signature.”

“All terms within the bill which were not vetoed by the President shall become law.”

“Any item within a bill vetoed by the President may become law if Congress approves with 2/3 of Congress votes to over-ride the veto.”

Constitutional Amendment: Term Limits for Congress

Proposed Amendment on Term Limits

“Each U.S. Representative and Senator shall serve no more than 12 consecutive years, or shall serve no more than 18 non-consecutive years.”

Reasoning for the Amendment on Term Limits

Term limits for members of Congress are absolutely necessary. Why do we need term limits? Term limits are necessary to ensure that our representatives are connected with the people.

When a representative works far away from his district, he loses touch with the people he is supposed to represent. Furthermore, Washington DC is nothing like America. Most representatives begin to lose all common sense and integrity after working in DC for a few years. Therefore, as the representative works for many years away from his district he loses touch with his constituents, and at the same time gets absorbed into the DC culture. The best system is to have a continuous refreshing of representatives in our nation’s capitol.

Why are term limits necessary if we have elections?

One of the arguments against term limits is that elections naturally eliminate the representatives who are not representing the people. This is not true. The fact is that elections alone rarely replace unethical representatives.

Replacing an incumbent is generally difficult to do. The incumbent has the political connections and the media connections to promote himself. He can use his connections to portray a positive public image and spin his negative history. Unless there is a great uprising, most people will vote for incumbents, including incumbents that have behaved poorly.

Furthermore, almost rarely does a person challenge an incumbent from his own party. The money and political support will go to the incumbent, no matter how unethical, rather than the challenger. However, if we have term limits then there will be an automatic opening for new challengers within each party every few years.

Why 12 years?

I have believed in term limits as a principle for a long time, yet it was only recently that I decided the specific number of 12 years. There are several approaches to the reasoning.

First consider that the term of a Senator is six years. Therefore the term limit must be a multiple of six. Also, most term limits for offices are set for 2 or 3 terms. Two terms for a Senator is 12 years. Three terms is 18 years.

Then take that same 12 years for a Representative. Twelve years for a Representative is equivalent to six terms. That seems like plenty of terms in office to me.

Now let us take the 12 years and see how it compares to a normal life. Start the clock after you graduate from college. You travel the world, you start a business, you raise a family…you do all this while your Congressman and Senator still hold the same office. Think of all the things you have accomplished in that time. In comparison, your representatives seem quite stagnant. Therefore, I believe 12 years is quite plenty.

Suppose you want more of a good man in office? That’s where the 18 non-consecutive years comes in. In order for a good man to serve the people for a longer time, he must sit out a few years.

In other words, for a good man to serve more years on office he goes back to the community he came from. When he does run again he will be that much more familiar with the needs of his community. At the same time, a new fresh representative arrives in Washington who is still familiar with the people and who has not yet been tainted by the DC culture. This is a win-win solution for everyone.

With this Amendment we will have 12 consecutive years for both Representatives and Senators. This translates to six consecutive terms for Representatives and two consecutive terms for Senators.

A Representative or Senator can choose to serve a total of 18 non-consecutive terms. The person must return home for a few years before being elected again. This translates to nine terms total for a Representative, and three terms total for a Senator.

To repeat the Amendment

“Each U.S. Representative and Senator shall serve no more than 12 consecutive years, or shall serve no more than 18 non-consecutive years.”

Checking the Powers of the U.S. Supreme Court

The purpose of this Constitutional Amendment is to check the powers of the United States Supreme Court.

Whenever there is a loophole in the Constitution, the proper way to fix this loophole is through an Amendment. In this case, the loophole is that the U.S. Supreme Court has too much power. There are only seven individuals, holding office for life, who decide whether or not a law is Constitutional. Furthermore, in recent decades the Supreme Court has legislated from the bench (which is not their role), and has often ruled in ways that run contrary to the principles of the Constitution.

The following Constitutional Amendment will return the Supreme Court to their proper role as intended by the Authors of the Constitution.

The Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Check the Powers of the U.S. Supreme Court:

A. The United States Supreme Court shall not legislate from the bench. Any law created by the United States Supreme Court shall be void.

B. The United States Supreme Court shall not use any foreign source material when ruling on a case.

C. The United States Supreme Court shall adhere strictly to the 10th Amendment and to the Enumerated Powers Clause of the Constitution.

D. Any Supreme Court ruling can be overturned, upon 2/3 vote of the state legislatures. When a ruling involves multiple issues, each issue will be voted on separately and overturned separately.

E. The original Supreme Court decision will be modified with the rulings overturned by the state legislatures. Each state legislature may add a brief statement explaining its reasoning.

F. There shall be no time requirement for state legislatures to consider and vote on Supreme Court decisions.

G. The term of U.S. Supreme Court Justice shall not exceed 10 years.

H. Any Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court can be removed from office for flagrant disregard of the Constitution, as exhibited in his votes and judicial opinions. A Justice of the Supreme Court shall be removed from office by 2/3 approval of the State Legislatures. There shall be no time limit for the 2/3 removal vote to be reached.

I. This Amendment shall be enforced by the state legislatures.