Another huge part of the solution
To stop the myriad of shenanigans that go on in the federal government. You could call this another mistake of the founders, although it was harder to foresee than some other mistakes.
This is another example of an idea I’ve had that I have not seen anywhere else. Not that someone hasn’t suggested something similar at some point, but it’s not a common argument and it’s not one I’ve seen made. One of my previous big picture solutions dealt with how to stop businesses and billionaires from buying politicians:
Another huge problem is “lawmaking” itself. The situation today is that any group with ties to anyone in Congress can write bills, and those bills can be much longer than most novels and they can cover a multitude of topics that are unrelated. Whether these monsters come from outside groups funded by people like George Soros, or they come from staffers for Senators or Congressmen, or even from actual members of Congress, they need to be stopped.
For context, there is Pelosi’s famous 2010 quote about Obamacare.
Back in March 2010, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said out loud what most Democrats would only say in their own heads. In referencing a massive takeover of America’s health care system, also known as Obamacare, Speaker Pelosi suggested the House pass the bill so we could all find out what was in it.
The article pictured above is here, and it relates the prior story right before talking about a 10,000 PAGE BILL (!!!!) the democrats were trying to get passed late last year.
One obvious point is that there is no way in hell any member of Congress could know everything that was in that bill, or any multi thousand page bill. There is also no way that any one member of Congress, or even a dozen members working together could have written it. It’s also obvious that implementing it 100% properly would be very costly if not completely impossible. It’s highly likely that it contains conflicting provisions. And it is by no means a rare occurrence for behemoths like this to get taken up by Congress or even to get passed into law.
So how do you stop this?? Again it probably takes a Constitutional amendment with serious teeth for its violation or attempted violation. As before, felony level charges and immediate removal from office for those in office, and permanent disqualification from ever running for office in the future.
First. the amendment would LIMIT BILLS TO 100 PAGES AND ONE SINGLE TOPIC. The bill for the interstate highway system was 100 pages long, so that should be enough for any one topic. Of course the paper size, font size, and line spacing would be spelled out to prevent any circumventing by making page sizes bigger and fonts smaller. Topic wise for example, in no event could you have a “voting rights” bill that included rewarding invading illegal aliens for breaking the law by given them amnesty. While the latter is of course completely ruled out anyway in a sane world, it has nothing to do with voting rights.
Second, the bill would HAVE TO BE WRITTEN BY ELECTED MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. In no event could outside groups author bills (although of course voters could ask for specific provisions in writing or verbally), nor could Congressional staff do it. The members of Congress are referred to as “lawmakers” and they are paid quite well, so it’s appropriate that they are the specific ones writing the laws.
Third, every member of Congress voting on the bill would have to pass a test on the contents of the bill and the effects of the bill. If the member failed the test they would not be able to vote on the bill. The contents of the bill and the intended effects of the bill would of course be debated in open session, so every member would have plenty of time to study and get educated. (A side note for a future ‘solution’ article is that the Congressional debate from the prevailing side would be used by judges in making any rulings related to the law. This would be a firm requirement for judges. Using the rulings of other courts would NOT be allowed.)
There would be multiple versions of the tests and testing would be overseen by citizens to help prevent cheating, and acts of cheating would result in felony charges against those accused of cheating. (False charges made by biased overseers would result in felony charges against those making the false allegations, with the same punishment as what the falsely accused would face. An ideal to apply everywhere for false charges.)
There would also be required town hall sessions where each members’ voters/constituents could pose questions about the bill that the office holder would have to answer correctly. While one or two slightly incorrect answers would not be a disqualifier, evidence that the office holder was seriously ill informed and/or incorrect about a bill would require them to go back for retesting under greater scrutiny.
Fourth, any member of Congress who failed three tests in one session of Congress would be removed from office.
If you’re getting the sense that this would also keep idiots like Maxine Waters and Alexandra Ocrazio-Cortex and (even a much younger) Joe Biden out of office, you’re right. My ideas for requiring IQ testing plus governmental and U.S. history testing for any and all candidates is yet another topic for another day, but yes of course simply requiring a thorough knowledge of bills and their intended effects is going to preclude almost all idiots. You can speculate how many of the current members of Congress would be removed were this system to be implemented immediately, but it’s going to be at least half of them, and of course more of those removed would be on the left.
If you also get the sense that requiring knowledge of the bill would contribute to shorter bills and bills focused on one topic only, you’re right again. There’s nothing like a fear of failing tests and getting removed from office to persuade members of Congress to keep things short and simple. And contrary to what seems to be popular belief, if you always have capable and competent lawmakers in office, you really don’t need much new “lawmaking” in each session. This fact is even more accurate when your ideal is a proper smaller government.
If you also get the sense that these rules, all by themselves, would act to limit theatrics during debates in open sessions because lawmakers would need to pay attention to get educated on the bills, and would help to ensure attendance during open sessions, and in general would limit lawmakers’ time for public shenanigans (only useful for improperly trying to sway public opinion), you would be right again the majority of the time. Maybe throw in some requirements that members of Congress are also required to discuss the bill’s specifics in news interviews and you help even more. And by “specifics” I mean taking direct quotes from the language of the bill and discussing that language. Think back on how many times you’ve seen that happen in interviews. It’s probably almost never.
While there may be some argument for making the page limit 150 or even 200 pages for certain very complex topics, in no event would anything beyond 200 pages be allowed, and in no event would 200 pages become the de facto limit for all bills. Most topics can easily be covered in 100 pages or less, and even complex topics can almost always be broken down into simpler ones to facilitate the lower limit. As for rules for how you define a single topic, the first rule would be when in doubt break it out into another bill.
Limiting bills to one topic prevents the devil’s trade offs you have now, where left wingers in particular will cram as many things as possible into one bill, and make the functioning of government dependent on its passage. The “budget reconciliation” process discussed in the article linked above is probably the worst for this destructive crap, and it must be stopped if this country is to survive in the form the founders intended in the future.