[geeks] 4th Amendment Gone

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

Wed, 31 Mar 2004 @ 09:26 -0800, N. Miller said:

> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:49:55 -0600, "Jonathan C. Patschke"
> <jp at celestrion.net> said:
> > On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> > 
> > > Yup.  And Congress was intentionally not allowed time to read it before
> > > they voted on it.
> > 
> > Non-sequitur.
> > 
> > Anyone who didn't read it should've entered "Present, but not voting" as
> > their vote.
> 
> But many, many times, there are voice votes on critical issues where
> a "recorded" vote is refused by the leader of the House or Senate.  
[snip]

Then there should be a requirement of a quorum to say "yes, we've had
time to read it."

In fact, I bet there is.  Surely the whole process was not created
without regard for adequate time.

Or did they expect these people to behave reasonably?

> My belief is that all votes should be recorded votes.

Requiring recorded votes--yes, no, or nothing--is a good idea.

> The things that go on in our Congress are scary--it's no wonder 
> everyone cheered in Mars Attacks when "they killed Congress".

Wasn't that the only good part of the movie?



-- 
shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- ["I want this Perl software checked for
viruses.  Use Norton Antivirus." -- Charlie Kirkpatrick]