FW: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message

Dear Marcy and All,

Thanks, Marcy, for the information. I just called Feinstein’s Washington Office and found out some information. Why this information was not in Feinstein’s letter the lady at the Washington office did not know. Feinstein has co-sponsored another bill called “The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011.” There are 13 other co-sponsors. She told me to go on Feinstein’s web site and search for it. It is Bill S 2003. It is 2 pages long. ;Two of the other sponsors are Al Frankin and Rand Paul. It’s interesting when the most liberal and the most conservative Senators co-sponsor a bill. I don’ t have time right now to do more research as I’m babysitting for my in-to-everything 14 month old grandson. I encourage all of you to do your own research on this matter. Let us know what you find out.

arge

Marge

Dear Marge,

To her credit (or cleverness), Feinstein did introduce some lame amendments to the original S.1867, all rejected. S. 2003 appears to be still in the works. It is a couple of sentences long, and it clarifies that even in case of war (started by the President or by Congress), citizens or legal residents of the US cannot be held without charge. Well, I doubt that two conflicting laws can peacefully co-exists; so who knows. Here is a link, and I apologize in advance that my links never seem to work

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c1122Ocszg::

Interestingly, I am wondering how many people read the whole S. 1867, which is almost 1,000 pages long, deals with everything from health insurance to retirement benefits to gosh knows what. I would bet we are latching on to the indefinite detainment clause, without knowing what other unconstitutional stuff in in this bill (or most bills!)

Marcy

Hi Marcy,

I was taken by your comment, which I was glad you made:

Interestingly, I am wondering how many people read the whole S. 1867,
which is
almost 1,000 pages long, deals with everything from health insurance to
retirement benefits to gosh knows what. I would bet we are latching on
to the
indefinite detainment clause, without knowing what other
unconstitutional stuff
is in this bill (or most bills!)

Do you recall when Polosi famously said that we can find out what's
inside the pending "Obamacare" legislation, some 3,000 pages long, after
it's passed? That was her defining moment, wasn't it?

Anyhow, I recall someone proposed legislation to require Senators and
Representatives to sign a statement to certify that they read and
understood every bill they intend to vote on. Do you recall it?

If it were up to me, I would also require these bums, er, respectable
legislatures to present the actual copies of the bills they read,
showing their margin notes, annotations, and comments. I'd also require
them to name in those margins the specific Constitutional sections that
authorizes every section of the bill.

These annotated bills and signed certifications should be submitted to a
new department within the GAO or perhaps within the Library of Congress,
who could store these documents for posterity and convert them to PDF
format, searchable by We the People. And only after a Senator or a
Representative has done this, will they be allowed to vote on a proposed
bill.

If such a legislation, "I Certify I Read The Bill Act," were enacted,
I'll bet many legislatures will enroll in Evelyn Woods Speed Reading
classes. Or at the very least, no one will sponsor 1,000 + page
legislation lest they incur the ire of their fellow legislatures.
Hopefully, we'll see proposed legislation of one or two pages long,
plainly written without the convoluted phrasing that lawyers,
bureaucrats and legislatures love. Those newly "truncated" bills would
even be easily understood by people with sixth-grade reading levels!

Just my highly depreciated two cents.

Alton

BTW, do you think Feinstein actually wrote that letter? Or do you think
it was written by her staff and sent out to others who made the same
inquiry you made?

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "lpsfactivists" <amarcyb@...>
wrote:

Dear Marge,

To her credit (or cleverness), Feinstein did introduce some lame

amendments to the original S.1867, all rejected. S. 2003 appears to be
still in the works. It is a couple of sentences long, and it clarifies
that even in case of war (started by the President or by Congress),
citizens or legal residents of the US cannot be held without charge.
Well, I doubt that two conflicting laws can peacefully co-exists; so who
knows. Here is a link, and I apologize in advance that my links never
seem to work

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c1122Ocszg::

Interestingly, I am wondering how many people read the whole S. 1867,

which is almost 1,000 pages long, deals with everything from health
insurance to retirement benefits to gosh knows what. I would bet we are
latching on to the indefinite detainment clause, without knowing what
other unconstitutional stuff in in this bill (or most bills!)

Hi Alton,

Yes, somehow all the garbage..I mean, verbiage, generated in tons of rules and regulations has got to be curbed! I do not recall any actual bill being passed that requires Congress to read the bills they enact into law. However, "Downsize DC" has been promoting a "Read the Bill Act". You can go to their website, read about it, and click to send a letter to your Congressperson encouraging him/her to support the Act.

https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/rtba/

At least Pelosi was telling the truth for a change when she intimated nobody reads anything before signing the bills into the laws we are all stuck with forever.

Regarding whether Senator Feinstein actually wrote the letter responding to mine, of course she did. She typed it herself too.

Marcy

Hi Marcy,

Thank you for your reply.

[Aside: As I told previously told Marge, I referred to Representatives
and Senators as "legislatures." A legislature is the body of government
where laws and regulations are written. A legislator, however, is a
member or an actual body of the the legislature. Thus, I should have
referred to Representatives and Senators as legislators. Please pardon
my error.]

I also thank you for and greatly appreciate your "heads up" about
Downsize DC's proposed "Read The Bills Act."

I liked that RTBA would require "Any member of Congress wishing to cast
an affirmative vote for more spending, greater regulation, or the
creation or retention of a program or bureaucracy, must sign an
affidavit swearing that he or she has either . . .Read the entire bill .
. .."

I feel that doesn't go far enough. What proof do we have that the
legislator had actually read the entire bill? His/her word? (Would
reading the Cliff Notes® version of the bill be a valid claim of
reading the entire bill?) That's not good enough for me, which is why I
suggest we go further by requiring legislators to provide the actual
copy of the bill they read, that shows their margin notes, comments and
annotations. I'd also require they name in the margins the parts of the
Constitution that authorized every section of a bill. Of course,
legislators could have their staff do the "heavy lifting" by writing
those margin notes, but the scandal they'll risk might be one they'll
want to avoid.

Still, I was intrigued by the proposed affidavit's second option that
any member of Congress "Heard the entire bill read."

Specifically, RTBA proposes a "quorum reading requirement" which will be
held "before a quorum of each chamber of Congress." This will mean that
"all floor business will halt while a Constitutional quorum is present
for a full, literal, word-for-word, in-order, reading of the entire
bill."

And this will be a wonderful idea, which it is, because:

In short, the quorum reading requirement will give Congress a huge
incentive to make bills shorter, clearer, and more focused, so that the
members of Congress can better endure the fatigue of hearing them read!

BTW, Article 1, Section 5, Clause 1 defines a "quorum" as "a Majority of
each [House]." That means at least 218 Representatives and 51 Senators
must be present for such a quorum reading. How will RTBA require a
quorum? Would a schedule be made? Would legislators be required to
attend based on seniority, relevant committee membership, amount of
influence the have with lobbyists, or amount of money they raised for
their campaigns? What if a quorum was originally met, but during the
reading several members leave and the quorum is no longer met? Will the
reading be null and void?

Nagging questions, sure, but I do like that RTBA "has several mechanisms
to compel compliance," of which two were noted:

First, RTBA is a law, NOT a mere rule. The evidence is overwhelming that
Congress doesn't obey rules. Enforceable laws are needed instead.

Second, Congressional rules can't be enforced by the courts. Properly
written laws can be. That's why RTBA contains the following enforcement
mechanism . . .

Any law enacted in violation of any provision of RTBA, OSTA, or WTLA can
be considered invalid in a court of law. How?

All citizens will have a sufficient defense, when charged in court by
presenting evidence that the law they're accused of violating was passed
in violations of RTBA, rendering the law null and void.

No mere rule can be enforced in this way. Only a law can give citizens
this kind of protection.

That sounds all well and good. But I'm uncertain how much success
citizens will have using the proposed defense "when charged in court." I
think of the Paperwork Reduction Act which requires the government to
provide an "OMB number" and an expiration date on every form it requires
We the People to complete. The government must also provide their
statutory authorization for creating the form, how much time is needed
to complete the form, why the information is needed, and whether
completing the form is voluntary or mandatory. All this information must
appear on every form, lest We the People could consider the form a
"bootleg" and ignore it.

It may surprise you that since Form 1040 and just about every IRS form
don't fully comply with PRA, they can properly be considered "bootlegs"
and legally ignored by We the People. But has anyone successfully used
PRA as a defense to stop paying their income taxes or filing such forms?
(See for example. http://www.paynoincometax.com/great_giveaway.htm)

Anyhow, RTBA is certainly a step, a huge one, towards reforming how
Congress write laws. And I certainly agree when Downsize DC concludes:

If the citizens Congress supposedly serves must be responsible for
obeying and paying for every word of every law Congress enacts, then
every member of Congress must be responsible for reading every word of
every bill before they vote to pass it.

<< At least Pelosi was telling the truth for a change when she intimated
nobody
reads anything before signing the bills into the laws we are all stuck
with
forever. >>

Yes. But many people probably correctly suspect that their
representatives never read the bills they propose or enact. But then why
should they? They could just let the bureaucrats do that when they
"enforce" the provisions of those bills.

<< Regarding whether Senator Feinstein actually wrote the letter
responding to
mine, of course she did. She typed it herself too. >>

My cynical question as to whether Sen. Feinstein actually wrote the
letter to respond to your letter was not meant to denigrate or cast
aspersion to your efforts to make Feinstein give some accounting for her
actions. I hope you didn't feel I did. Please keep up your efforts and
swell job.

It's just that Feinstein's letter reminded me of my contact with Rep.
Jerrold Nadler's office in 2003, just before the Iraqi invasion. I first
called his office from my job, which was located in his district. I told
his staff member my concerns that Congress did not declare war with
Iraq before allowing Bush to invade it. And I asked why Nadler did not
protest. The staff member asked whether I lived in Nadler's district.
When I said I didn't, she basically told me to get lost. I called again
a few days later, with the same concern and question and I said I lived
in Nadler's district. The staff member said she would bring my concerns
to the Congressman. A few weeks later, I got a form letter,
"hand-signed" by Nadler that said he appreciated my contact with his
office with "legitimate" concerns. He also said he supports Bush's War
on Terrorism and that he hopes everyone will support him. Or words to
that effect. I wished I kept the letter. But I do hope you'll keep
Feinstein's letter to you.

That's all for now.

Thanks again for your reply and the "heads up" to Downsize DC's proposed
RTBA.

Alton

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "lpsfactivists" <amarcyb@...>
wrote:

Hi Alton,

Yes, somehow all the garbage..I mean, verbiage, generated in tons of

rules and regulations has got to be curbed! I do not recall any actual
bill being passed that requires Congress to read the bills they enact
into law. However, "Downsize DC" has been promoting a "Read the Bill
Act". You can go to their website, read about it, and click to send a
letter to your Congressperson encouraging him/her to support the Act.

https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/rtba/

At least Pelosi was telling the truth for a change when she intimated

nobody reads anything before signing the bills into the laws we are all
stuck with forever.

Regarding whether Senator Feinstein actually wrote the letter

responding to mine, of course she did. She typed it herself too.

Marcy

>
> Hi Marcy,
>
> I was taken by your comment, which I was glad you made:
>
> Interestingly, I am wondering how many people read the whole S.

1867,

> which is
> almost 1,000 pages long, deals with everything from health insurance

to

> retirement benefits to gosh knows what. I would bet we are latching

on

> to the
> indefinite detainment clause, without knowing what other
> unconstitutional stuff
> is in this bill (or most bills!)
>
> Do you recall when Polosi famously said that we can find out what's
> inside the pending "Obamacare" legislation, some 3,000 pages long,

after

> it's passed? That was her defining moment, wasn't it?
>
> Anyhow, I recall someone proposed legislation to require Senators

and

> Representatives to sign a statement to certify that they read and
> understood every bill they intend to vote on. Do you recall it?
>
> If it were up to me, I would also require these bums, er,

respectable

> legislatures to present the actual copies of the bills they read,
> showing their margin notes, annotations, and comments. I'd also

require

> them to name in those margins the specific Constitutional sections

that

> authorizes every section of the bill.
>
> These annotated bills and signed certifications should be submitted

to a

> new department within the GAO or perhaps within the Library of

Congress,

> who could store these documents for posterity and convert them to

PDF

> format, searchable by We the People. And only after a Senator or a
> Representative has done this, will they be allowed to vote on a

proposed

> bill.
>
> If such a legislation, "I Certify I Read The Bill Act," were

enacted,

> I'll bet many legislatures will enroll in Evelyn Woods Speed Reading
> classes. Or at the very least, no one will sponsor 1,000 + page
> legislation lest they incur the ire of their fellow legislatures.
> Hopefully, we'll see proposed legislation of one or two pages long,
> plainly written without the convoluted phrasing that lawyers,
> bureaucrats and legislatures love. Those newly "truncated" bills

would

> even be easily understood by people with sixth-grade reading levels!
>
> Just my highly depreciated two cents.
>
> Alton
>
> BTW, do you think Feinstein actually wrote that letter? Or do you

think

> it was written by her staff and sent out to others who made the same
> inquiry you made?
>
>
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "lpsfactivists" <amarcyb@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Marge,
> >
> > To her credit (or cleverness), Feinstein did introduce some lame
> amendments to the original S.1867, all rejected. S. 2003 appears to

be

> still in the works. It is a couple of sentences long, and it

clarifies

> that even in case of war (started by the President or by Congress),
> citizens or legal residents of the US cannot be held without charge.
> Well, I doubt that two conflicting laws can peacefully co-exists; so

who

> knows. Here is a link, and I apologize in advance that my links

never

> seem to work
> >
> > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c1122Ocszg::
> >
> > Interestingly, I am wondering how many people read the whole S.

1867,

> which is almost 1,000 pages long, deals with everything from health
> insurance to retirement benefits to gosh knows what. I would bet we

are

> latching on to the indefinite detainment clause, without knowing

what

Hi Alton,

I would have two objectives in any RTB type act, 1. Make sure the act did not add another thick layer of bureaucracy designed to enforce the act. 2. Publicize the tons of rules and regulations uselessly addressing every aspect of our lives that comes out of legislative bodies.

Problem is, such a hefty number of folks out there view the government as their protector; and to protect, government needs to regulate the actions of those who are viewed as non cooperative. Thus, more laws are constantly being clamored for.

Marcy

Hi Marcy,

Thank you for your reply.

I see any "RTB type act" as a step in the right direction to impede and
discourage legislators from proposing new bills, especially 1,000+ page
ones with the convoluted language that only lawyers, bureaucrats and
politicians love. And if "another thick layer of bureaucracy designed to
enforce the act" is created, that won't be bad, since the bureaucracy
will be turned against politicians for a change. Who said turnabout
isn't fair play?

Still, when I proposed that Representatives and Senators submit their
annotated copies of the bills they read, along with their sworn
affidavits to either the GAO or the Library of Congress, I don't think
I've necessarily created "another thick layer of bureaucracy." Yes,
people will "audit" those copies, and keep records on who has properly
complied with the law, which legislators must comply with before they're
allowed to vote on the bill in question.

As for your objective to "Publicize the tons of rules and regulations
uselessly addressing every aspect of our lives that comes out of
legislative bodies," doesn't the Federal Register already do this? (If
you haven't done so, you must subscribe to it.) According to the GPO
(http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html):

Published [daily] by the Office of the Federal Register, National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Federal Register
is the official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and
notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as
executive orders and other presidential documents.

Of course, after all those "tons of rules and regulations" become newly
enacted, they're published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
According to the GPO (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html):

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the codification of the general
and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the
executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government. It is
divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to
Federal regulation. Each volume of the CFR is updated once each
calendar year and is issued on a quarterly basis. (My emphasis.)

Among those "Titles" is Title 26, "Internal Revenue" otherwise known as
"The Tax Code." Contrary to what many may believe, "The Tax Code" is not
just about the Income Tax since it contains the laws that pertain to
every tax, such as alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, tires, airline tickets,
playing cards (though since repealed), etc. Still, despite the
voluminous sections pertaining to income taxes, Title 26 contains not
one section that explicitly requires anyone to pay an income tax or file
such returns. Were such a section to exist, it would be
unconstitutional. Yes, I know that Amendment 16 authorizes an income
tax. Thus, the income tax is "constitutional." But the way it's
currently (and has been) collected is unconstitutional. (See for
example. http://www.paynoincometax.com/great_giveaway.htm)

Anyhow, I must sadly agree when you said:

Problem is, such a hefty number of folks out there view the government
as their protector; and to protect, government needs to regulate the
actions of those who are viewed as non cooperative. Thus, more laws are
constantly being clamored for.

Of course the current occupant in the White House agree with these
folks. He even said during a 60 Minutes interview that he sees the
President's job as one "to help people and solve [their] problems."

On that note, Marcy, I like to ask you to take a minute and recite
"Obama's Prayer" with me:

Obama is my Lord.
I shall always honor, cherish and obey him.

Obama is good. He will take care of me. He will look out for me.
He will provide for me.

Obama is beneficent. Obama is omniscient. Obama is omnipresent.

Obama is God.
God is Obama.

Mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm.

Amen.

Thanks again for your reply.

Alton

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "lpsfactivists" <amarcyb@...>
wrote:

Hi Alton,

I would have two objectives in any RTB type act, 1. Make sure the act

did not add another thick layer of bureaucracy designed to enforce the
act. 2. Publicize the tons of rules and regulations uselessly
addressing every aspect of our lives that comes out of legislative
bodies.

Problem is, such a hefty number of folks out there view the government

as their protector; and to protect, government needs to regulate the
actions of those who are viewed as non cooperative. Thus, more laws are
constantly being clamored for.

Marcy

>
> Hi Marcy,
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> [Aside: As I told previously told Marge, I referred to

Representatives

> and Senators as "legislatures." A legislature is the body of

government

> where laws and regulations are written. A legislator, however, is a
> member or an actual body of the the legislature. Thus, I should have
> referred to Representatives and Senators as legislators. Please

pardon

> my error.]
>
> I also thank you for and greatly appreciate your "heads up" about
> Downsize DC's proposed "Read The Bills Act."
>
> I liked that RTBA would require "Any member of Congress wishing to

cast

> an affirmative vote for more spending, greater regulation, or the
> creation or retention of a program or bureaucracy, must sign an
> affidavit swearing that he or she has either . . .Read the entire

bill .

> . .."
>
> I feel that doesn't go far enough. What proof do we have that the
> legislator had actually read the entire bill? His/her word? (Would
> reading the Cliff Notes® version of the bill be a valid claim of
> reading the entire bill?) That's not good enough for me, which is

why I

> suggest we go further by requiring legislators to provide the actual
> copy of the bill they read, that shows their margin notes, comments

and

> annotations. I'd also require they name in the margins the parts of

the

> Constitution that authorized every section of a bill. Of course,
> legislators could have their staff do the "heavy lifting" by writing
> those margin notes, but the scandal they'll risk might be one

they'll

> want to avoid.
>
> Still, I was intrigued by the proposed affidavit's second option

that

> any member of Congress "Heard the entire bill read."
>
> Specifically, RTBA proposes a "quorum reading requirement" which

will be

> held "before a quorum of each chamber of Congress." This will mean

that

> "all floor business will halt while a Constitutional quorum is

present

> for a full, literal, word-for-word, in-order, reading of the entire
> bill."
>
> And this will be a wonderful idea, which it is, because:
>
> In short, the quorum reading requirement will give Congress a huge
> incentive to make bills shorter, clearer, and more focused, so that

the

> members of Congress can better endure the fatigue of hearing them

read!

>
> BTW, Article 1, Section 5, Clause 1 defines a "quorum" as "a

Majority of

> each [House]." That means at least 218 Representatives and 51

Senators

> must be present for such a quorum reading. How will RTBA require a
> quorum? Would a schedule be made? Would legislators be required to
> attend based on seniority, relevant committee membership, amount of
> influence the have with lobbyists, or amount of money they raised

for

> their campaigns? What if a quorum was originally met, but during the
> reading several members leave and the quorum is no longer met? Will

the

> reading be null and void?
>
> Nagging questions, sure, but I do like that RTBA "has several

mechanisms

> to compel compliance," of which two were noted:
>
> First, RTBA is a law, NOT a mere rule. The evidence is overwhelming

that

> Congress doesn't obey rules. Enforceable laws are needed instead.
>
> Second, Congressional rules can't be enforced by the courts.

Properly

> written laws can be. That's why RTBA contains the following

enforcement

> mechanism . . .
>
> Any law enacted in violation of any provision of RTBA, OSTA, or WTLA

can

> be considered invalid in a court of law. How?
>
> All citizens will have a sufficient defense, when charged in court

by

> presenting evidence that the law they're accused of violating was

passed

> in violations of RTBA, rendering the law null and void.
>
> No mere rule can be enforced in this way. Only a law can give

citizens

> this kind of protection.
>
> That sounds all well and good. But I'm uncertain how much success
> citizens will have using the proposed defense "when charged in

court." I

> think of the Paperwork Reduction Act which requires the government

to

> provide an "OMB number" and an expiration date on every form it

requires

> We the People to complete. The government must also provide their
> statutory authorization for creating the form, how much time is

needed

> to complete the form, why the information is needed, and whether
> completing the form is voluntary or mandatory. All this information

must

> appear on every form, lest We the People could consider the form a
> "bootleg" and ignore it.
>
> It may surprise you that since Form 1040 and just about every IRS

form

> don't fully comply with PRA, they can properly be considered

"bootlegs"

> and legally ignored by We the People. But has anyone successfully

used

> PRA as a defense to stop paying their income taxes or filing such

forms?

> (See for example. http://www.paynoincometax.com/great_giveaway.htm)
>
> Anyhow, RTBA is certainly a step, a huge one, towards reforming how
> Congress write laws. And I certainly agree when Downsize DC

concludes:

>
> If the citizens Congress supposedly serves must be responsible for
> obeying and paying for every word of every law Congress enacts, then
> every member of Congress must be responsible for reading every word

of

> every bill before they vote to pass it.
>
> << At least Pelosi was telling the truth for a change when she

intimated

> nobody
> reads anything before signing the bills into the laws we are all

stuck

> with
> forever. >>
>
> Yes. But many people probably correctly suspect that their
> representatives never read the bills they propose or enact. But then

why

> should they? They could just let the bureaucrats do that when they
> "enforce" the provisions of those bills.
>
> << Regarding whether Senator Feinstein actually wrote the letter
> responding to
> mine, of course she did. She typed it herself too. >>
>
> My cynical question as to whether Sen. Feinstein actually wrote the
> letter to respond to your letter was not meant to denigrate or cast
> aspersion to your efforts to make Feinstein give some accounting for

her

> actions. I hope you didn't feel I did. Please keep up your efforts

and

> swell job.
>
> It's just that Feinstein's letter reminded me of my contact with

Rep.

> Jerrold Nadler's office in 2003, just before the Iraqi invasion. I

first

> called his office from my job, which was located in his district. I

told

> his staff member my concerns that Congress did not declare war with
> Iraq before allowing Bush to invade it. And I asked why Nadler did

not

> protest. The staff member asked whether I lived in Nadler's

district.

> When I said I didn't, she basically told me to get lost. I called

again

> a few days later, with the same concern and question and I said I

lived

> in Nadler's district. The staff member said she would bring my

concerns

> to the Congressman. A few weeks later, I got a form letter,
> "hand-signed" by Nadler that said he appreciated my contact with his
> office with "legitimate" concerns. He also said he supports Bush's

War

> on Terrorism and that he hopes everyone will support him. Or words

to

> that effect. I wished I kept the letter. But I do hope you'll keep
> Feinstein's letter to you.
>
> That's all for now.
>
> Thanks again for your reply and the "heads up" to Downsize DC's

proposed

> RTBA.
>
> Alton
>
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "lpsfactivists" <amarcyb@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alton,
> >
> > Yes, somehow all the garbage..I mean, verbiage, generated in tons

of

> rules and regulations has got to be curbed! I do not recall any

actual

> bill being passed that requires Congress to read the bills they

enact

> into law. However, "Downsize DC" has been promoting a "Read the

Bill

> Act". You can go to their website, read about it, and click to send

a

> letter to your Congressperson encouraging him/her to support the

Act.

> >
> > https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/rtba/
> >
> > At least Pelosi was telling the truth for a change when she

intimated

> nobody reads anything before signing the bills into the laws we are

all

> stuck with forever.
> >
> > Regarding whether Senator Feinstein actually wrote the letter
> responding to mine, of course she did. She typed it herself too.
> >
> > Marcy
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Marcy,
> > >
> > > I was taken by your comment, which I was glad you made:
> > >
> > > Interestingly, I am wondering how many people read the whole S.
> 1867,
> > > which is
> > > almost 1,000 pages long, deals with everything from health

insurance

> to
> > > retirement benefits to gosh knows what. I would bet we are

latching

> on
> > > to the
> > > indefinite detainment clause, without knowing what other
> > > unconstitutional stuff
> > > is in this bill (or most bills!)
> > >
> > > Do you recall when Polosi famously said that we can find out

what's

> > > inside the pending "Obamacare" legislation, some 3,000 pages

long,

> after
> > > it's passed? That was her defining moment, wasn't it?
> > >
> > > Anyhow, I recall someone proposed legislation to require

Senators

> and
> > > Representatives to sign a statement to certify that they read

and

> > > understood every bill they intend to vote on. Do you recall it?
> > >
> > > If it were up to me, I would also require these bums, er,
> respectable
> > > legislatures to present the actual copies of the bills they

read,

> > > showing their margin notes, annotations, and comments. I'd also
> require
> > > them to name in those margins the specific Constitutional

sections

> that
> > > authorizes every section of the bill.
> > >
> > > These annotated bills and signed certifications should be

submitted

> to a
> > > new department within the GAO or perhaps within the Library of
> Congress,
> > > who could store these documents for posterity and convert them

to

> PDF
> > > format, searchable by We the People. And only after a Senator or

a

> > > Representative has done this, will they be allowed to vote on a
> proposed
> > > bill.
> > >
> > > If such a legislation, "I Certify I Read The Bill Act," were
> enacted,
> > > I'll bet many legislatures will enroll in Evelyn Woods Speed

Reading

> > > classes. Or at the very least, no one will sponsor 1,000 + page
> > > legislation lest they incur the ire of their fellow

legislatures.

> > > Hopefully, we'll see proposed legislation of one or two pages

long,

> > > plainly written without the convoluted phrasing that lawyers,
> > > bureaucrats and legislatures love. Those newly "truncated"

bills

> would
> > > even be easily understood by people with sixth-grade reading

levels!

> > >
> > > Just my highly depreciated two cents.
> > >
> > > Alton
> > >
> > > BTW, do you think Feinstein actually wrote that letter? Or do

you

> think
> > > it was written by her staff and sent out to others who made the

same

> > > inquiry you made?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "lpsfactivists" <amarcyb@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear Marge,
> > > >
> > > > To her credit (or cleverness), Feinstein did introduce some

lame

> > > amendments to the original S.1867, all rejected. S. 2003

appears to

> be
> > > still in the works. It is a couple of sentences long, and it
> clarifies
> > > that even in case of war (started by the President or by

Congress),

> > > citizens or legal residents of the US cannot be held without

charge.

> > > Well, I doubt that two conflicting laws can peacefully

co-exists; so

> who
> > > knows. Here is a link, and I apologize in advance that my links
> never
> > > seem to work
> > > >
> > > >

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c1122Ocszg::

> > > >
> > > > Interestingly, I am wondering how many people read the whole

S.

> 1867,
> > > which is almost 1,000 pages long, deals with everything from

health

> > > insurance to retirement benefits to gosh knows what. I would bet

we

Hi Alton,

You are correct; we already have ways to publicize the tons of silliness emanating from all our fearless leaders, such as the legislative registers you mention. I would go with publicizing that rather than creating more verbiage, even if the verbiage is directed against politicians.

No, the prayer you suggest does not do me much good, since in my opinion no point thinking badly of one politician, when we have so very many to absorb the blame for the mess this country is in.

Marcy

Hi Marcy,

I'm sorry Obama's Prayer didn't do much good for you. For most, if not
all, liberals, especially apologetic white ones, chanting Obama's Prayer
provides them with much spiritual uplift and helps them confirm their
fealities to their Lord and to their religion of socialism.

<< . . . since in my opinion no point thinking badly of one politician,
when we have so very many to absorb the blame for the mess this country
is in. >>

Yes, there are many politicians who share the blame for the mess this
country is in. At the federal level, we can name just about every member
of Congress and the Supreme Court. Many of whom I have criticized. But I
reserve my most vitriolic criticisms against Obama.

This is mainly because the mainstream mass media (mmm) has coddled him
from Day 1 of his 2008 campaign. Withness: No mmm outlet seriously
questioned his ability to manage the U. S, his squalid political past,
his connections with unsavory characters, or even whether he is
constitutionally qualified to be POTUS. And when after many demands,
the FEC refused to audit Obama's $760,000,000 campaign money, did you
hear the deafening outcry from the mmm?

And during his (sad) presidency, the mmm have mostly treated him with
kid gloves and given him many passes. Even now, no mmm outlet is
decrying Obama's latest unconstitutional outrage with his "recess
appointments." (See for examples these items from the Washington Times,
hardly an mmm outlet:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/9/hurt-obamas-naked-thugger\\
y/
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/9/hurt-obamas-naked-thugge\\
ry/> and
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/6/no-time-for-advice-and-co\\
nsent/
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/6/no-time-for-advice-and-c\\
onsent/> )

Yes Marcy, there are many politicians to blame for the mess we're in.
But Obama is at the top of the heap. And while the mostly liberal mmm
continues to coddle Obama, their are many less liberal mmm outlets that
have focused on Obama's outrages, although they're often shouting into
the forest.

Still, here's a scary thought: When we focus on Obama's outrages such as
the Solyndra scandal, his failed economic policies, his constant class
warfare refrain, and his current "recess appointments," to name just a
few outrages, are we being manipulated? Think of a magician. To pull off
his magic trick, he often directs you to look somewhere else, so he can
perform his "sleight of hand." Is Obama serving as a misdirection, so
that a "sleight of hand" is performed while we're not looking? If so,
who are those magicians? And what are the tricks they're trying to pull
off?

In any event, I do thank you for your reply.

Alton

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "lpsfactivists" <amarcyb@...>
wrote:

Hi Alton,

You are correct; we already have ways to publicize the tons of

silliness emanating from all our fearless leaders, such as the
legislative registers you mention. I would go with publicizing that
rather than creating more verbiage, even if the verbiage is directed
against politicians.

No, the prayer you suggest does not do me much good, since in my

opinion no point thinking badly of one politician, when we have so very
many to absorb the blame for the mess this country is in.

Marcy

>
> Hi Marcy,
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> I see any "RTB type act" as a step in the right direction to impede

and

> discourage legislators from proposing new bills, especially 1,000+

page

> ones with the convoluted language that only lawyers, bureaucrats and
> politicians love. And if "another thick layer of bureaucracy

designed to

> enforce the act" is created, that won't be bad, since the

bureaucracy

> will be turned against politicians for a change. Who said turnabout
> isn't fair play?
>
> Still, when I proposed that Representatives and Senators submit

their

> annotated copies of the bills they read, along with their sworn
> affidavits to either the GAO or the Library of Congress, I don't

think

> I've necessarily created "another thick layer of bureaucracy." Yes,
> people will "audit" those copies, and keep records on who has

properly

> complied with the law, which legislators must comply with before

they're

> allowed to vote on the bill in question.
>
> As for your objective to "Publicize the tons of rules and

regulations

> uselessly addressing every aspect of our lives that comes out of
> legislative bodies," doesn't the Federal Register already do this?

(If

> you haven't done so, you must subscribe to it.) According to the GPO
> (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html):
>
> Published [daily] by the Office of the Federal Register, National
> Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Federal Register
> is the official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and
> notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as
> executive orders and other presidential documents.
>
> Of course, after all those "tons of rules and regulations" become

newly

> enacted, they're published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
> According to the GPO (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html):
>
> The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the codification of the

general

> and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the
> executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government. It is
> divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to
> Federal regulation. Each volume of the CFR is updated once each
> calendar year and is issued on a quarterly basis. (My emphasis.)
>
> Among those "Titles" is Title 26, "Internal Revenue" otherwise known

as

> "The Tax Code." Contrary to what many may believe, "The Tax Code" is

not

> just about the Income Tax since it contains the laws that pertain to
> every tax, such as alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, tires, airline

tickets,

> playing cards (though since repealed), etc. Still, despite the
> voluminous sections pertaining to income taxes, Title 26 contains

not

> one section that explicitly requires anyone to pay an income tax or

file

> such returns. Were such a section to exist, it would be
> unconstitutional. Yes, I know that Amendment 16 authorizes an income
> tax. Thus, the income tax is "constitutional." But the way it's
> currently (and has been) collected is unconstitutional. (See for
> example. http://www.paynoincometax.com/great_giveaway.htm)
>
> Anyhow, I must sadly agree when you said:
>
> Problem is, such a hefty number of folks out there view the

government

> as their protector; and to protect, government needs to regulate the
> actions of those who are viewed as non cooperative. Thus, more laws

are

> constantly being clamored for.
>
> Of course the current occupant in the White House agree with these
> folks. He even said during a 60 Minutes interview that he sees the
> President's job as one "to help people and solve [their] problems."
>
> On that note, Marcy, I like to ask you to take a minute and recite
> "Obama's Prayer" with me:
>
> Obama is my Lord.
> I shall always honor, cherish and obey him.
>
> Obama is good. He will take care of me. He will look out for me.
> He will provide for me.
>
> Obama is beneficent. Obama is omniscient. Obama is omnipresent.
>
> Obama is God.
> God is Obama.
>
> Mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm.
>
> Amen.
>
> Thanks again for your reply.
>
> Alton
>
>
>
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "lpsfactivists" <amarcyb@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alton,
> >
> > I would have two objectives in any RTB type act, 1. Make sure the

act

> did not add another thick layer of bureaucracy designed to enforce

the

> act. 2. Publicize the tons of rules and regulations uselessly
> addressing every aspect of our lives that comes out of legislative
> bodies.
> >
> > Problem is, such a hefty number of folks out there view the

government

> as their protector; and to protect, government needs to regulate the
> actions of those who are viewed as non cooperative. Thus, more laws

are

> constantly being clamored for.
> >
> > Marcy
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Marcy,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your reply.
> > >
> > > [Aside: As I told previously told Marge, I referred to
> Representatives
> > > and Senators as "legislatures." A legislature is the body of
> government
> > > where laws and regulations are written. A legislator, however,

is a

> > > member or an actual body of the the legislature. Thus, I should

have

> > > referred to Representatives and Senators as legislators. Please
> pardon
> > > my error.]
> > >
> > > I also thank you for and greatly appreciate your "heads up"

about

> > > Downsize DC's proposed "Read The Bills Act."
> > >
> > > I liked that RTBA would require "Any member of Congress wishing

to

> cast
> > > an affirmative vote for more spending, greater regulation, or

the

> > > creation or retention of a program or bureaucracy, must sign an
> > > affidavit swearing that he or she has either . . .Read the

entire

> bill .
> > > . .."
> > >
> > > I feel that doesn't go far enough. What proof do we have that

the

> > > legislator had actually read the entire bill? His/her word?

(Would

> > > reading the Cliff Notes® version of the bill be a valid claim

of

> > > reading the entire bill?) That's not good enough for me, which

is

> why I
> > > suggest we go further by requiring legislators to provide the

actual

> > > copy of the bill they read, that shows their margin notes,

comments

> and
> > > annotations. I'd also require they name in the margins the parts

of

> the
> > > Constitution that authorized every section of a bill. Of course,
> > > legislators could have their staff do the "heavy lifting" by

writing

> > > those margin notes, but the scandal they'll risk might be one
> they'll
> > > want to avoid.
> > >
> > > Still, I was intrigued by the proposed affidavit's second option
> that
> > > any member of Congress "Heard the entire bill read."
> > >
> > > Specifically, RTBA proposes a "quorum reading requirement" which
> will be
> > > held "before a quorum of each chamber of Congress." This will

mean

> that
> > > "all floor business will halt while a Constitutional quorum is
> present
> > > for a full, literal, word-for-word, in-order, reading of the

entire

> > > bill."
> > >
> > > And this will be a wonderful idea, which it is, because:
> > >
> > > In short, the quorum reading requirement will give Congress a

huge

> > > incentive to make bills shorter, clearer, and more focused, so

that

> the
> > > members of Congress can better endure the fatigue of hearing

them

> read!
> > >
> > > BTW, Article 1, Section 5, Clause 1 defines a "quorum" as "a
> Majority of
> > > each [House]." That means at least 218 Representatives and 51
> Senators
> > > must be present for such a quorum reading. How will RTBA require

a

> > > quorum? Would a schedule be made? Would legislators be required

to

> > > attend based on seniority, relevant committee membership, amount

of

> > > influence the have with lobbyists, or amount of money they

raised

> for
> > > their campaigns? What if a quorum was originally met, but during

the

> > > reading several members leave and the quorum is no longer met?

Will

> the
> > > reading be null and void?
> > >
> > > Nagging questions, sure, but I do like that RTBA "has several
> mechanisms
> > > to compel compliance," of which two were noted:
> > >
> > > First, RTBA is a law, NOT a mere rule. The evidence is

overwhelming

> that
> > > Congress doesn't obey rules. Enforceable laws are needed

instead.

> > >
> > > Second, Congressional rules can't be enforced by the courts.
> Properly
> > > written laws can be. That's why RTBA contains the following
> enforcement
> > > mechanism . . .
> > >
> > > Any law enacted in violation of any provision of RTBA, OSTA, or

WTLA

> can
> > > be considered invalid in a court of law. How?
> > >
> > > All citizens will have a sufficient defense, when charged in

court

> by
> > > presenting evidence that the law they're accused of violating

was

> passed
> > > in violations of RTBA, rendering the law null and void.
> > >
> > > No mere rule can be enforced in this way. Only a law can give
> citizens
> > > this kind of protection.
> > >
> > > That sounds all well and good. But I'm uncertain how much

success

> > > citizens will have using the proposed defense "when charged in
> court." I
> > > think of the Paperwork Reduction Act which requires the

government

> to
> > > provide an "OMB number" and an expiration date on every form it
> requires
> > > We the People to complete. The government must also provide

their

> > > statutory authorization for creating the form, how much time is
> needed
> > > to complete the form, why the information is needed, and whether
> > > completing the form is voluntary or mandatory. All this

information

> must
> > > appear on every form, lest We the People could consider the form

a

> > > "bootleg" and ignore it.
> > >
> > > It may surprise you that since Form 1040 and just about every

IRS

> form
> > > don't fully comply with PRA, they can properly be considered
> "bootlegs"
> > > and legally ignored by We the People. But has anyone

successfully

> used
> > > PRA as a defense to stop paying their income taxes or filing

such

> forms?
> > > (See for example.

http://www.paynoincometax.com/great_giveaway.htm)

> > >
> > > Anyhow, RTBA is certainly a step, a huge one, towards reforming

how

> > > Congress write laws. And I certainly agree when Downsize DC
> concludes:
> > >
> > > If the citizens Congress supposedly serves must be responsible

for

> > > obeying and paying for every word of every law Congress enacts,

then

> > > every member of Congress must be responsible for reading every

word

> of
> > > every bill before they vote to pass it.
> > >
> > > << At least Pelosi was telling the truth for a change when she
> intimated
> > > nobody
> > > reads anything before signing the bills into the laws we are all
> stuck
> > > with
> > > forever. >>
> > >
> > > Yes. But many people probably correctly suspect that their
> > > representatives never read the bills they propose or enact. But

then

> why
> > > should they? They could just let the bureaucrats do that when

they

> > > "enforce" the provisions of those bills.
> > >
> > > << Regarding whether Senator Feinstein actually wrote the letter
> > > responding to
> > > mine, of course she did. She typed it herself too. >>
> > >
> > > My cynical question as to whether Sen. Feinstein actually wrote

the

> > > letter to respond to your letter was not meant to denigrate or

cast

> > > aspersion to your efforts to make Feinstein give some accounting

for

> her
> > > actions. I hope you didn't feel I did. Please keep up your

efforts

> and
> > > swell job.
> > >
> > > It's just that Feinstein's letter reminded me of my contact with
> Rep.
> > > Jerrold Nadler's office in 2003, just before the Iraqi invasion.

I

> first
> > > called his office from my job, which was located in his

district. I

> told
> > > his staff member my concerns that Congress did not declare war

with

> > > Iraq before allowing Bush to invade it. And I asked why Nadler

did

> not
> > > protest. The staff member asked whether I lived in Nadler's
> district.
> > > When I said I didn't, she basically told me to get lost. I

called

> again
> > > a few days later, with the same concern and question and I said

I

> lived
> > > in Nadler's district. The staff member said she would bring my
> concerns
> > > to the Congressman. A few weeks later, I got a form letter,
> > > "hand-signed" by Nadler that said he appreciated my contact with

his

> > > office with "legitimate" concerns. He also said he supports

Bush's

> War
> > > on Terrorism and that he hopes everyone will support him. Or

words

> to
> > > that effect. I wished I kept the letter. But I do hope you'll

keep

> > > Feinstein's letter to you.
> > >
> > > That's all for now.
> > >
> > > Thanks again for your reply and the "heads up" to Downsize DC's
> proposed
> > > RTBA.
> > >
> > > Alton
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "lpsfactivists" <amarcyb@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Alton,
> > > >
> > > > Yes, somehow all the garbage..I mean, verbiage, generated in

tons

> of
> > > rules and regulations has got to be curbed! I do not recall any
> actual
> > > bill being passed that requires Congress to read the bills they
> enact
> > > into law. However, "Downsize DC" has been promoting a "Read the
> Bill
> > > Act". You can go to their website, read about it, and click to

send

> a
> > > letter to your Congressperson encouraging him/her to support the
> Act.
> > > >
> > > > https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/rtba/
> > > >
> > > > At least Pelosi was telling the truth for a change when she
> intimated
> > > nobody reads anything before signing the bills into the laws we

are

> all
> > > stuck with forever.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding whether Senator Feinstein actually wrote the letter
> > > responding to mine, of course she did. She typed it herself too.
> > > >
> > > > Marcy
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Marcy,
> > > > >
> > > > > I was taken by your comment, which I was glad you made:
> > > > >
> > > > > Interestingly, I am wondering how many people read the whole

S.

> > > 1867,
> > > > > which is
> > > > > almost 1,000 pages long, deals with everything from health
> insurance
> > > to
> > > > > retirement benefits to gosh knows what. I would bet we are
> latching
> > > on
> > > > > to the
> > > > > indefinite detainment clause, without knowing what other
> > > > > unconstitutional stuff
> > > > > is in this bill (or most bills!)
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you recall when Polosi famously said that we can find out
> what's
> > > > > inside the pending "Obamacare" legislation, some 3,000 pages
> long,
> > > after
> > > > > it's passed? That was her defining moment, wasn't it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyhow, I recall someone proposed legislation to require
> Senators
> > > and
> > > > > Representatives to sign a statement to certify that they

read

> and
> > > > > understood every bill they intend to vote on. Do you recall

it?

> > > > >
> > > > > If it were up to me, I would also require these bums, er,
> > > respectable
> > > > > legislatures to present the actual copies of the bills they
> read,
> > > > > showing their margin notes, annotations, and comments. I'd

also

> > > require
> > > > > them to name in those margins the specific Constitutional
> sections
> > > that
> > > > > authorizes every section of the bill.
> > > > >
> > > > > These annotated bills and signed certifications should be
> submitted
> > > to a
> > > > > new department within the GAO or perhaps within the Library

of

> > > Congress,
> > > > > who could store these documents for posterity and convert

them

> to
> > > PDF
> > > > > format, searchable by We the People. And only after a

Senator or

> a
> > > > > Representative has done this, will they be allowed to vote

on a

> > > proposed
> > > > > bill.
> > > > >
> > > > > If such a legislation, "I Certify I Read The Bill Act," were
> > > enacted,
> > > > > I'll bet many legislatures will enroll in Evelyn Woods Speed
> Reading
> > > > > classes. Or at the very least, no one will sponsor 1,000 +

page

> > > > > legislation lest they incur the ire of their fellow
> legislatures.
> > > > > Hopefully, we'll see proposed legislation of one or two

pages

> long,
> > > > > plainly written without the convoluted phrasing that

lawyers,

> > > > > bureaucrats and legislatures love. Those newly "truncated"
> bills
> > > would
> > > > > even be easily understood by people with sixth-grade reading
> levels!
> > > > >
> > > > > Just my highly depreciated two cents.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alton
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, do you think Feinstein actually wrote that letter? Or

do

> you
> > > think
> > > > > it was written by her staff and sent out to others who made

the

> same
> > > > > inquiry you made?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "lpsfactivists"

<amarcyb@>

> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Marge,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To her credit (or cleverness), Feinstein did introduce

some

> lame
> > > > > amendments to the original S.1867, all rejected. S. 2003
> appears to
> > > be
> > > > > still in the works. It is a couple of sentences long, and it
> > > clarifies
> > > > > that even in case of war (started by the President or by
> Congress),
> > > > > citizens or legal residents of the US cannot be held without
> charge.
> > > > > Well, I doubt that two conflicting laws can peacefully
> co-exists; so
> > > who
> > > > > knows. Here is a link, and I apologize in advance that my

links

> > > never
> > > > > seem to work
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c1122Ocszg::
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Interestingly, I am wondering how many people read the

whole

> S.
> > > 1867,
> > > > > which is almost 1,000 pages long, deals with everything from
> health
> > > > > insurance to retirement benefits to gosh knows what. I would

bet

> we
> > > are
> > > > > latching on to the indefinite detainment clause, without

knowing

> > > what
> > > > > other unconstitutional stuff in in this bill (or most

bills!)

Hi Alton,

Great points. However, I have always maintained that "the magicians" are WE, the people. WE elected Obama, WE clamored for universal healthcare (liberals), WE clamor for industry subsidies (lobbyists/corporations). Recess appointments, you are correct, not so good. However, that action pales in comparison to the "Yes" votes of the legislators WE elected in the recent Defense Authorization Act. I say, rather than focus on Obama, focus on the failed system that WE are supporting. The few of us who are not supporting the failed system because it is too intrusive and borders on unconstitutional (as opposed to not supporting because the system is not intrusive enough, or the largess not big enough), might want to focus on exposing the weak points in the system and the hoards of minions that take advantage of them.

Marcy