On October 2nd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
An incomprehensible “rule of law” is exactly the same thing as tyranny. It means whatever the guy with the gun pointed at your head says it means.

Well said Roland. Short and to the point. No extra gibberish and a very clear message. Maybe you should be the next “law writing czar”?

On October 2nd, 2009 at 2:34 pm, AlohaGuy said:

Read – he probably can’t even color inside the lines.

Thanks AG, lmao at that.

but that piece of filth has no qualms at all about signing legislation he’s never read and admits he can’t understand.

Which is the point of the post and all the comments …

Piece of filth indeed, though. You really smacked it out with that one!

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

I have never understood why anyone would watch this annoying broad, I thought it was a “chick” thing… now I think it is a “stupid” thing.

So now Tom Carper is an “annoying broad”.

Wow.

Annoying, yes. Broad? Come on. Who would waste eye time on that!

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

It should be a requirement that all bills must be written in language that is understandable by the “common man”. That way judges would be limited in their ability to legistlate from the bench and the morons that are the “ruling elite” would know what is in the bill. Anyone with me on this?

Umm … Isn’t that what I just said?

If it can be so incomprehensible, why not stop writing stuff that’s incomprehensible?

Shouldn’t the whole point of it be for it to be comprehensible?

What an ID10T!

Just sayin’

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

I don’t necessarily disagree with this guy saying that the legislation is incomprehensible. It probably is.

Have you looked at the bills they write in Congress? They’re usually written with language kind of like this:

Strike the works “and” and “or” in paragraph 3 of section 5.11, subsection c and substitute the words “even if”.

Insert the phrase “; or similar situations” before the period of subsection f of section 6.32.

And so forth, ad nauseum. We’re not just talking about lawyerese here (which is bad enough). No, it’s like taking the output of a shredder and trying to understand that it’s the Next Great American Novel. No one can read such language and make sense of it.

And I think this is deliberate. No one is supposed to understand it except those that wrote it. If our congressional representatives were honest, they would never vote for such fractured bills. They know they don’t understand it, and if they can’t understand a bill because the authors deliberately intended that it be incomprehensible, then they darn well shouldn’t be voting “Yes” for it.

IMHO, not only do we need a “Read the Bill” law, we also need a “Plain Language” law. Bills which require cutting and pasting to see what the final language will look like should be illegal. Instead, the bills should include all the affected language, even if it duplicates some that’s already part of existing law.

Cowboy said:
It should be a requirement that all bills must be written in language that is understandable by the “common man”.

But then we would have no use for that special class of elite politicians and lawyers who claim that only they are qualified to be legislators. Except Sen. Carper let the cat out of the bag by admitting that even they don’t understand what’s in the bill.

They purposely make language in the bills impossible to comprehend. That accomplishes two things. It makes it impossible for the public to know what’s in the bill before it passes, and it allows the progressive bureaucrats, who implement the bill, to interpret the language as liberally as they choose. They can make the language mean whatever they want it to mean.

The best way to make sure bills are understandable is to first, stop voting for lawyers; and second, get a pledge from all candidates that they will absolutely vote against any bill that cannot be read or that is “arcane,” “confusing,” “hard stuff to understand,” or “incomprehensible.”