Once Again, Madison Nails It...

In Federalist 62, Madison wrote:

The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

In The Wall Street Journal, L. Gordon Crovitz writes:

Technology moves so quickly we can barely keep up, and our legal system moves so slowly it can't keep up with itself. By design, the law is built up over time by court decisions, statutes and regulations. Sometimes even criminal laws are left vague, to be defined case by case. Technology exacerbates the problem of laws so open and vague that they are hard to abide by, to the point that we have all become potential criminals.

Boston civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate calls his new book "Three Felonies a Day," referring to the number of crimes he estimates the average American now unwittingly commits because of vague laws. New technology adds its own complexity, making innocent activity potentially criminal.

Colbert on Congress

The Word - Out of the Closet

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Michael Moore

An Alternative to "The Case for Not Reading Legislation"

Re: Congressmen not reading legislation & the Slate Article to that effect

An August Op-Ed in the New York Times informed readers of impending regulation which required that any health insurance policy in Rhode Island be written at the eighth-grade level. The author insisted that such a change was going to "[address] the need for consumers to be able to read and understand the provisions of their own health insurance policies."

Perhaps a similar need exists for Congress and its legislation - and, if potential bills can be turned into legalese, why can't they also be made available in plain English? Though Congress does use more easily understood "conceptual language" on some occasions, requiring both a legalese and an easy-read version of any bill would 1) make legislation accessible to even those citizens with lesser educations and 2) ensure that the legal versions of bills are as their creators intended.

The Op-Ed provided examples (in a potential health care insurance policy) of the difference between difficult-to-decipher legal jargon and an easy-to-understand policy written at the eighth grade level. The results were stunning:

Original:

The plan covering the patient as a dependent child of a person whose date of birth occurs earlier in the calendar year shall be primary over the plan covering the patient as a dependent of a person whose date of birth occurs later in the calendar year provided. However, in the case of a dependent child of legally separated or divorced parents, the plan covering the patient as a dependent of the parent with legal custody, or as a dependent of the custodial parent’s spouse (i.e., stepparent), shall be primary over the plan covering the patient as a dependent of the parent without legal custody.

"Easy-read":

What happens if my spouse and I both have health coverage for our child?

If your child is covered under more than one insurance policy, the policy of the adult whose birthday is earlier in the year pays the claim first. For example: Your birthday is in March; your spouse’s birthday is in May. March comes earlier in the year than May, so your policy will pay for your child’s claim first.

What happens if I am legally separated or divorced?

If your child is covered by your policy and also by the policy of your separated or divorced spouse, the policy of the parent with legal custody pays first. In other words, if you have legal custody, your plan pays first. The same rule applies even if your child is covered by a health insurance policy of a stepparent. For example: Your former spouse has legal custody, and his/her new spouse’s policy covers your child. The new spouse’s policy will pay your child’s claim first.

"Plan English" bills would be especially helpful in encouraging genuine debate among citizens, while simultaneously discouraging frivolous fears. The distracting "death panel" scandal, for instance, relied heavily on semantics and implications drawn from the complications of legislation. To see an example of this, watch the debate on "end of life consultations" between Betsey McCaughey and Jon Stewart:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Betsy McCaughey Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

Ron Paul on Daily Show

Ron Paul was interviewed last night on the Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart to discuss his new book End the Fed. According to Jon Stewart: "You seem to have put a lot of thought and effort into this book- and you call yourself a Congressman!"

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Ron Paul
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

Ron Paul believes the Fed commits fraud by simply printing money to their liking and creating an "illusion" of an economy. It destroys the value of money.

Read Bills? "Fuhgeddaboudit"

The Case For Not Reading Legislation

John Dickerson argues that Congressmen do not have to read legislation to fully understand a bill's merits:

"Drafting and reading legislative language is an art form. Staffers who know how to read it and write it are hired to translate the language. They get down in the weeds so the legislators can stay focused on the big principles."

It is perfectly fine and acceptable for Congressmen to rely on experienced, knowledgeable policy aides to decipher complicated legislative language. He compares it to a homebuyer who does not read the contract, but depends upon his lawyer to do so and raise any red flags if necessary.

The Case for Congressional Skimming

From Nick, a Slate article:

Just because lawmakers read legislation doesn't mean they understand it. The reverse is also true: Just because they understand it doesn't mean they've read it. Drafting and reading legislative language is an art form. Staffers who know how to read it and write it are hired to translate the language. They get down in the weeds so the legislators can stay focused on the big principles.

Plus, members of Congress have a hard enough time knowing where they stand on the big things. That's why they're always accusing one another of flip-flopping. Let's not confuse them by making them puzzle over something like this: "For purposes of extension of an agreement with a qualifying ACO under subsection (g)(2), the Secretary shall treat receipt of an incentive payment for a year by an organization under the physician group practice demonstration pursuant to section 1866A as a year for which an incentive payment is made under such subsection, as long as such practice group practice organization meets the criteria under subsection (b)(2)."

Congress in Action (The Onion)

BREAKING NEWS: BAT LOOSE IN CONGRESS