| |
  
|
||||||||||
Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care Bill
Submitted by IPSecure on Mon, 07/27/2009 - 14:01
Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care Bill--Unless They Have 2 Lawyers to Interpret It for Them... http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51610 How can these people even vote on bills they know nothing about? » |
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
I see no point in John Conyers
If he doesn't read the bills, then what good is John Conyers? He's a waste of food and oxygen. Someone else could use those resources to actually help society.
He's no John Connor LOL. At
He's no John Connor LOL. At least he's on Hr1207 I think.
Ventura 2012
I thought most were already lawyers
so it takes 2 more. What chance do the rest of us have?
I would vote against anything that I could not read and understand. Clearly, these people could not care what they pass as long as they stay where they are.
_________________
Want Ron Paul? Register Republican Now
Doesn't anyone else see the problem...
Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care Bill--Unless They Have 2 Lawyers to Interpret It for Them...
"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."
--James Madison, Federalist 62
MAXIM(s) of Law... a maxim is a commonly agreed upon truth in law.
"No one should be judge in his own cause."
"Nothing against reason is lawful"
"Laws should bind their own maker."
When we get the country back this needs to be an ammendment to the Constitution (organic).
we can let the lawyers choose...
No LAWYER shall ever take part in ENACTING any LAW!
OR
No one ever having been a LAWYER shall be eligible as a JUDGE.
(JUDGE) shall be defined to include but but not be limited to Judge, Magistrate, Arbitrator, Presiding over any trial of the people.
(LAWYER) shall be defined as anyone practicing law or having ever belonged to any BAR association.
(LAW) shall include but is not limited to; codes, regulations, laws.
(ENACTING) defined as voting, conferrring, discussing, or any external influence no matter the degree. (The opposite of ANY IS NONE.)
The Liberty a society retains is inversely proportional to the number of Lawyers in the Government.
The Liberty a society retains is inversely proportional to the number of Lawyers in the Government.
yeah...
then logic would dictate that if you cant comprehend what you are attaching your vote for, you should vote it down.
The scary part is that he represents most Congresspeople.
Most admit they don't read the legislation. If they don't read a bill because it is to long, then they should vote against it. If a bill is to long to read, then write a shorter, easier understood bill. How tough is this to figure out?
Lol, exactly
"If a bill is to long to read, then write a shorter, easier understood bill. How tough is this to figure out?".
As long as they vote it
As long as they vote it down, I don't care whether they try to read it. It is sure to be incomprehensible in any event. If it takes two lawyers to translate it, it will take thousands of them to fight over it in court for generations to come.
Pat
BOHICA!!
Pat
BOHICA!!