Are you for or against it?
Why?

(Did a search and didn't see any threads on this.)

9/29/2009 8:44:45 AM

At least include some background info on the topic.

9/29/2009 8:49:06 AM

I'm forgainst it.

9/29/2009 9:35:43 AM

"Bipartisan duo of Rep. Brian Baird, a Washington Democrat, and Rep. Greg Walden, an Oregon Republican, came up with the "72-hour resolution," which would require all non-emergency legislation to be posted online, in final form, for at least 72 hours prior to a floor vote."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574434942340517648.html (op-ed btw)

9/29/2009 10:03:30 AM

I suspect all bills would suddenly find themselves declared emergency related. Congress currently functions because the people care little about what has been passed, only about what will pass. As such, a 72 hour delay would render most legislation unpassable after the think tanks and internet trolls trot out for the national press the intricate giveaways to the various special interests, giveaways which were necessary for the bill to pass.

I think it would be great for all bills to be exposed to the peer-review process, hence why the term 'emergency' would suddenly lose all meaning. "This is an emergency bill because the only way it can be passed is right now!"

9/29/2009 10:31:59 AM

^ similarly why funding for the Iraq war had been done as an emergency supplemental bill instead of included in the defense appropriations. easier to get the funding faster as an "emergency" bill and not subject to as much scrutiny

9/29/2009 10:38:20 AM

I'm for it.

9/29/2009 10:39:00 AM

I'm for it minus the emergency clause. Honestly, I can't think of a single piece of legislation, certainly none that has every been declared as "emergency" legislation that could not have waited 72 hours before being passed.

9/29/2009 2:09:49 PM

All I can think of is a Pearl Harbor type event

9/29/2009 2:18:45 PM

Quote :

"I'm for it."

Quote :

"I suspect all bills would suddenly find themselves declared emergency related."

9/29/2009 2:44:04 PM

^^ you mean like 9-11 and the patriot act?

9/29/2009 2:53:36 PM

or TARP when Paulson said congress had 24 hours to avert a depression.

9/29/2009 3:04:51 PM

Actually, nevermind. LoneSnark is right.

We can't tack an artificial 72 hours onto all bills, because at some point in time we will need to act immediately.

And any clause that allows for less time will be exploited.

9/29/2009 3:51:29 PM

^ True, but that doesn't mean the idea should be dropped. Maybe it can just be tweaked.

Here is a good idea: to pass an emergency resolution requires a 2/3rd majority. To pass a resolution with 72 hours (or more) of internet-peer review requires only a majority.

9/29/2009 4:00:11 PM

seems rational to me. What are the odds that congress would open themselves up to this scrutiny? Every lobbyist on the hill would be opposed to a bill like this.

9/29/2009 4:31:44 PM

^^Something based on that sounds pretty good.

9/29/2009 5:27:46 PM

2/3rds might be a bit hard to wrangle (thus, no one would agree to it), 3/5ths would probably be more appropriate.

That'd give the 60% "supermajority" while keeping it close to a simple majority. I know that 6% doesn't seem like much but it can be a nightmare to get 6% on your side in a hurry.

But seriously, this sounds like a great idea, with some kind of provision for limiting what can be declared an emergency.

9/29/2009 5:30:19 PM

I think they should make everyone take a 20 question quiz on the content of the bill before they're allowed to vote for it.

9/29/2009 5:30:42 PM

Quote :

"I'm for it minus the emergency clause. Honestly, I can't think of a single piece of legislation, certainly none that has every been declared as "emergency" legislation that could not have waited 72 hours before being passed."

i find myself agreeing

9/29/2009 6:56:01 PM

Quote :

"That'd give the 60% "supermajority" while keeping it close to a simple majority. I know that 6% doesn't seem like much but it can be a nightmare to get 6% on your side in a hurry. "

I think the point of the 66% was to keep it so only neccessary and obvious emergencies would get through. Things like the decleration of war after pearl harbor. Things that would probably more than likely be winning by 80-90% anyway because they are beyond party affiliation. I certainly don't believe that a "supermajority" should be given the power to emergencize anything.

9/29/2009 6:58:05 PM

Probably true, I'm just thinking about what it would take to get it passed.

I mean, if it's a matter of belief and doing this as a "it's the right thing" kind of legislation ^^/1337 b4k4 pretty much hits the nail on the head.

9/29/2009 7:00:30 PM

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 7:12 PM. Reason : double]

9/29/2009 7:11:12 PM

yeah, the more I think about it I think the only exception should be a decleration of war (as strictly interpretted)

9/29/2009 7:11:43 PM

the only hitch i can think of is if it truly is an emergency and congress isn't in session, getting 2/3rds could be tricky in a pinch. but that would only be in really extreme circumstances. but war-like circumstances would easily fall into the executive powers most of the time in a situation like that. so maybe it's not that big of a deal.

9/29/2009 7:18:38 PM

Quote :

"2/3rds might be a bit hard to wrangle (thus, no one would agree to it), 3/5ths would probably be more appropriate. That'd give the 60% "supermajority" while keeping it close to a simple majority. I know that 6% doesn't seem like much but it can be a nightmare to get 6% on your side in a hurry. "

But making it difficult is the whole purpose. The idea is that if it really is an emergency, you'll get it passed because everyone will agree its an emergency.

In fact, if you make it even more difficult (say 3/4th majority), then the only bills that could get passed would be bills so simple and direct that by their very nature they would have to be true emergency bills

9/29/2009 8:01:04 PM

I like the 3/5 idea, but in a magical universe where the bill had a chance in hell of passing unless that was added, I'd still say the thing in its current form is better than nothing.

We're dumb and all, but it won't take us long to notice that they're declaring everything an "emergency" and complaining about it.

9/30/2009 2:41:55 AM

Quote :

"3/5ths would probably be more appropriate"

you should say 60%

trust me, some dumbass out there would say 3/5ths is racist

9/30/2009 8:16:03 AM

good idea, but it should be any bill bound for floor vote as soon as the wording is finalized.

9/30/2009 9:46:41 AM

^^ I actually thought about that when I typed it, and almost included a "despite the historical stigma attached to that fraction"

Then I realized how silly it sounded. But you're right, that wouldn't stop anyone else from pitching a fit about it.

9/30/2009 10:24:12 AM

FWIW . . .

10/4/2009 9:54:25 AM

give me a few days to think about it

10/4/2009 11:54:00 AM