Constitutional amendment to end manipulation and secrecy of legislative process

It seems as if every piece of legislation passed by Congress is a ridiculously long document littered with earmarks and vague provisions amending prior laws. For example, omnibus spending bills are prime targets for lobbyists, such as Jack Abramoff, who recently revealed how easy it was to sneak language into these bills which went unnoticed by legislative staffers and gave preferential treatment to his Native American tribal clients. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 is another example of unnecessarily consolidated legislation which contained two (arguably unconstitutional) indefinite detention provisions amidst thousands of pages of defense spending authorizations. Many Representatives who disagreed with the legality of the indefinite detention provisions were still strongarmed into voting for the NDAA to avoid being accused of not "supporting our troops."

This makes absolutely no sense and is detrimental to our democracy. Our representatives should be required to openly debate the merits of each and every issue of law they vote on. As such, I recommend a constitutional amendment providing that each individual piece of legislation must state its intended purpose and effect and any section not substantially related to this stated purpose shall be subject to serverance and subsequent vote. This must be accomplished by Constitional amendment because Congresspersons will not voluntarily dismantle the system of earmarks that has helped them earn reelection. Furthermore, they will not want their voting records scrutinized more than they already are by voting on individual spending authorizations and controversial civil liberties issues out in the open, as opposed to buried in convoluted legislation that no one is even paying attention to. I welcome your comments. Thank you.

Vote

98%

Rating

Votes

Views

4136

Mark as inappropriate

7 Comments

Frankhey

Canada | 7 years ago

this is exactly what a world government proposes to bring with it, not to sound condescending but that really sounds like a localized issue, although that may apply to many governments across and around the world if other words were used, "congress" sounds like you refer to the United states and them alone. In Canada and many other countries a parliament is used , I use this as an example, many countries use yet other forms of government.
I really hope we all open our minds to a complete unity and not try to drag this into "fixing" one countries squabbles from within, and focus on the betterment of the world on a whole.
I do not mean that the issues you have within your government are good ,or bad for that matter not really my place to say, but until this idea of a one world government takes off the secrecies of individual governments will be unlikely to be influenced and will continue to be manipulated by the few in "power" /"control".
ok i feel like im rambling away here in the dark ima shut up.

1 2
Anonymous

6 years ago

Good idea, but there's a catch. Congress has to approve the Constitutional Amendment by a 2/3 vote in each house before it goes to the States for ratification! As you can guess, you will have tough time getting those Senators and Congressmen to vote for it!

2 0
Anonymous

6 years ago

This is a great proposal for the US. There are many countries outside of the USA, where corruption has not been legalized to the same extent. Thankfully, these countries have little use for this proposal. But this could still have a global impact, an indirect affect, inasmuch as the US is a world leader still.

1 1
Eldritchdancer

United States | 5 years ago

I'm of the opinion that there should -never- be a Rider Clause. Each vote should be for a single Bill. Period.

1 1
Anonymous

5 years ago

Great Idea

0 2
Anonymous

5 years ago

Know your rights or you don't have any, and, why the misrepresentation in "control" seems foolish and IS invalid. They aren't going for accuracy due to their literal "alien" agenda, their argument is actually a twisted metaphysical one. They really believe that they are "Over" this reality, (but what's wrong with it IS what they include themselves to be apart of [false light bringer & {poor business ethics and secret religion}]). These "good for nothings" should be removed by any means necessary if we ever have a chance to be free of these senseless limitations. (an abundance of words includes "sin", even though I really don't believe in sin [invention like careers are])

1 1
Anonymous

5 years ago

Oh, and there argument is only a lie (by principle) and they super-impose military when philosophy spats all reason of that purpose into smithereens.

1 0