who did this?"


PDA






detonics
November 22, 2004, 12:54 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/21/tax.provision/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Sunday that "accountability will be carried out" against whoever slipped a provision into an omnibus spending bill that would have allowed two committee chairmen to view the tax returns of any American

If you enjoyed reading about "who did this?"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Third_Rail
November 22, 2004, 01:14 AM
It reads like both the repubs and the dems are convinced the other side did it, but are also scared.

It seems like no one truly knows who did what, and both sides are in shock somewhat. Joy. :rolleyes:

Old Fud
November 22, 2004, 01:53 AM
Senator Istook did it, says Rosenbloom of the NY Times (It's posted on Drudge). He also claims it was sponsored by the IRS and the people on the committee who put it in meant no harm, feel the noise is a mis-understanding of what was intended, etc.
And the whole thing was UN-done as fast as it was done.

My take on this situation is that we've got angry distrustful people on edge who are seeking opportunities to discover evil intent where there is only some minor stupidity at worst to be found.

The fact is that a problem was found, it was promptly fixed, let's move on, there is nothing to see, these aren't the droids we want.

OpenRoad
November 22, 2004, 07:02 AM
They don't even bother to read the bills anymore in all their 4,000 page glory. There are so many laws in the books, the legislators don't even have the foggiest idea what they're passing into law these days. Police state here we come.

Brett Bellmore
November 22, 2004, 07:49 AM
It's not a matter of "bothering" to read the bills; They're frequently deliberately prevented from reading the bills, forced to vote on things they have no way of knowing the contents of. It's a way of transfering power from the average member, to the leadership.

Did anybody notice this little tidbit from the followup (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/22/politics/22explain.html?ei=5006&en=51941cde1f521abf&ex=1101790800&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=)?

"The speaker of the House, J. Dennis Hastert, promised that he would convene a pro forma session of the House, with most of the members gone, on Wednesday to adopt the Senate resolution negating the provision."

Hey, Mr. Speaker; Have you heard of this thing called a "quorum"? I know it's common practice in Congress to pass things unconstitutionally without one, but you don't usually announce in advance that you're planning to violate your oath of office by doing that.

PATH
November 22, 2004, 09:54 AM
I believe we are not going to see bi-partisanship any time soon. :rolleyes:

TearsOfRage
November 22, 2004, 11:31 AM
Speaking of politicians passing bills they haven't read - the Texas legislature once passed a resolution honoring the Boston Strangler. :what:

http://www.snopes.com/legal/desalvo.htm

Werewolf
November 22, 2004, 11:35 AM
Ernest Istook (the guilty party) is :barf: my congressman.

He's a lackey pure and simple. Too stupid to do more than what he's told by his party masters.

When questioned by e'mail or snail mail he never ever responds.

I wouldn't shed a single tear if this incident ended his congressional career - but - it probably won't.

On the bright side he is a pro-gun politician. When one considers the liklihood of an anti-gun politician getting elected in OK though that's not really saying much.

DRZinn
November 22, 2004, 01:40 PM
From my blog:

Hopefully this will create a little more awareness of how disfunctional the legislature has become. Bills are passed and signed into law with the contents unknown! Do I really need to point out how dangerous that can be??? They caught one item out of 1000+ pages!

I propose three new constitutional amendments.

I. A. That no new law shall be more than 100 pages, as passed and signed, in 10-point single-spaced type.

B. That every member of Congress shall be required to read every bill in its entirety, and sign an affidavit to that effect, or shall not be allowed to vote on said bill.

II. A. That no amendments may be added to a bill after it leaves commitee.

B. That the commitee discussion of a bill, from introduction to final vote, be conducted in a special session with no other legislators allowed.

III. That to pass, a bill must have the number of votes equal to a majority of all members of the house of congress in which the vote takes place, not a majority of members present.

Comments?

Sam
November 22, 2004, 01:49 PM
Hey DocZinn,
I like your amendments, just one problem.
We would both be arrested on suspicion of smokin dope.

The possibility of something like that ever getting through is like the proverbial Iceickle in Hell. I would require that a large number of people exhibit character and morality.

Sam

Tory
November 22, 2004, 02:20 PM
by allowing "two committee chairmen to view the tax returns of any American?"

If tax fraud is an issue, the IRS has both jurisdiction AND the tax returns. Who needs any, still less TWO bloviating, posturing politicians to "review" the matter?

IF the claim is the usual, specious excuse "national security," then the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the FBI for civilians and the criminal investigations department of the relevant service for military personnel. Again, no political "review" is required.

What is this BS supposed to cover up/distract us from? :scrutiny:

detonics
November 22, 2004, 02:57 PM
its is about theres
having access legally to politicians or politicians relatives tax returns is a pretty damm good weapon of mass destruction
for instance what if george bush sr. owned a holding company that owned a oil services comapny that won a no bid contract for iraq?
look pretty bad for george jr wouldnt it?
what if you found out brady owns stock in a company that makes gun locks?
see what im saying
and i dont think it was an accident either
disclaimer
i made these examples up im sure if you use some imagination you can think of better ones please to flame me
if you want to see the presidents tax returns you can look them up
dick cheney only released a summary he will not release the forms the george bush does
so you have no way of knowing what his income is except from what he tells you

Fletchette
November 23, 2004, 12:08 AM
By DocZinn:
I. A. That no new law shall be more than 100 pages, as passed and signed, in 10-point single-spaced type.

Interesting. I have been thinking that we need an Amendment to address the length of laws too. In general, I don't like dickering with the Constitution, but when Capitol Hill routinely passes 1,000 page laws how in the hell are we supposed to know what the "law" is?

I would suggest that rather than 100 pages, aim for 5. Yes, five. How long is the Constitution, something like 20 pages? If you can launch a nation with 20 pages then you should be able to pass a single law with five. If it requires more wording, break it up into two laws with seperate debates and seperate congressional votes.

Upon reflection, I think it should be a LETTER count, not a page or word count. Otherwise, the lawyer-types will cram the page with words or makeup new 58 letter words (Whencebyetalhenceforth...). A letter count is hard to get around.

B. That every member of Congress shall be required to read every bill in its entirety, and sign an affidavit to that effect, or shall not be allowed to vote on said bill.

I am not sure this is enforceable (Congressman signs an affidavit and then votes on a bill he hasn't read. How do you "prove" he hasn't read it?)

I think the concept is good, but it should be modeled on the Posse Comitatus. That is, if a law is ever found to be un-Constitutional, the people that voted for that law are guilty of "conspiring to deprive the citizenry of their civil rights" by definition - a felony. Give it a 5 year minimum sentence and no statute of limitations and you better believe the they'll be reading those bills before they vote!

A nice side benefit is that we probably would have a lot less laws, too! :)

carpettbaggerr
November 23, 2004, 11:36 AM
My additions would be:

1. All laws must be reauthorised every 10 years. A simple majority vote in open session would be required, or the law is removed from the books.

2. Any rule or regulation passed by a federal agency which has the force of law shall be approved by Congress. A simple majority vote in open session would be required before any rule or regulation is enforced.

I think these two rules would fix a lot of what's wrong with this country today.

DRZinn
November 23, 2004, 12:09 PM
That is, if a law is ever found to be un-Constitutional, the people that voted for that law are guilty of "conspiring to deprive the citizenry of their civil rights" by definition - a felony.
I like it!
1. All laws must be reauthorised every 10 years. A simple majority vote in open session would be required, or the law is removed from the books.
I've thought about that, and I came up with a different set of rules depending on the type of law (ie laws that prevent the people from doing something, laws that allow the government to do something, etc). I don't remember too well how it all broke down.

DRZinn
November 23, 2004, 12:10 PM
I'm gonna go ahead and start a new thread on this.

If you enjoyed reading about "who did this?"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!