|
Post by mohavehiker on Jun 13, 2012 21:22:36 GMT -5
This is a grievance that I would like to propose: No more secret holds. A Senator who intends to hold up a bill or a nomination should not be allowed to do it in SECRET. If a Senator wants to hold up a bill or a nomination he or she must allow his or her colleagues and constituents to know who he or she is and the reasons for the hold or block. Full transparency.
The Senate allows unlimited debate on a bill, which gives Senators the opportunity to slow down the lawmaking process. In the past the the body allowed Senators to filibuster only by being present and continuously speaking on the floor. This needs to be reinstated. It has become too easy to hold up nominations and bills.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 13, 2012 21:54:16 GMT -5
I would agree with that.... and I'd also restore the rule that if someone wants to filibuster a bill, they (and any other Senator that agrees with them) must remain in the chamber and holding the floor the entire time. That means if they want to prevent a bill from ever going to a vote, they have to stay there and keep talking for however long they intend to hold it up - even if it's months.
That is the way it used to be, and the only way we can eliminate the filibuster that has literally forced Obama to go without many cabinet positions all the way into his 4th year in office because they can't even get a hearing in the Senate due to the filibuster being something you can now just claim and then go home to your family.
So we need to eliminate the possibility of Senators going home if they want to filibuster... and the minute we do, I doubt any filibuster lasts longer than a week.
|
|
|
Post by tonydestefanis on Jun 14, 2012 7:26:15 GMT -5
Great ideas. How many bills got killed or blocked by these right wingers whose only concern is not the American people, but just making sure Obama is a one term president. I am not too well versed in congressional procedure but any of these parliamentary rules decended from ancient times should be eliminated. Bills should be decided on their merits and any parliamentary procedure that lets them aviod debating and voting on the merits should be eliminated.
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 14, 2012 11:33:19 GMT -5
Lets broaden this and state that the government should be transparent in all aspects. All finances down to the itemized expenses, balance sheets, etc. should be freely available. The only exception would be for classified information pertaining to national security and information about military operations that are less than 10 years old.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 14, 2012 13:16:21 GMT -5
Lets broaden this and state that the government should be transparent in all aspects. All finances down to the itemized expenses, balance sheets, etc. should be freely available. The only exception would be for classified information pertaining to national security and information about military operations that are less than 10 years old. I understand the need for the national security exception, but how long do you think it will be before the politicians start classifying everything as being related to national security in order to keep their secrets? That particular problem is a tough nut to crack, as we DO need to protect ourselves, and we charge those we elect with that responsibility - but once elected, it's very hard to keep them honest.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 14, 2012 14:00:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kjlowry on Jun 18, 2012 18:16:53 GMT -5
I agree with the first two posts! KJ Lowry TX-12
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 21, 2012 8:39:39 GMT -5
I understand the need for the national security exception, but how long do you think it will be before the politicians start classifying everything as being related to national security in order to keep their secrets? That particular problem is a tough nut to crack, as we DO need to protect ourselves, and we charge those we elect with that responsibility - but once elected, it's very hard to keep them honest. I think we would have to create a very narrow definition for what would qualify as "national security." Some sort of ironclad text that stipulated only information directly related to terrorist activity, or monitoring criminals, information about US weapons and defensive maneuvers, etc. I'd also want a control put in place for a super-majority in Congress (75%) to be able to de-classify any classified piece of information if they believe there is a cover-up as a sort of check against what you described.
|
|