Perspective: Slipping tech laws in via the back door

President Bush just signed into law a bill slapping more restrictions on online gambling. The odd thing, though, is that at his press conference on Friday, Bush mentioned neither gambling nor the Internet.

That's because the restrictions were buried in Section 801 of a massive port security bill, which had nothing to do with the Internet and became one of those must-pass-before-November-7th political gambits of which Congress becomes so enamored in election years.

If this happened only rarely, perhaps we could forgive our elected representatives for gluing unrelated amendments onto a proposal that's destined to become law. (With a tight election just weeks away, how many politicians have the mettle to vote against "port security"?)

But the problem is that the technique has become commonplace, meaning that even the sniping sessions that have come to define debate in the U.S. Congress are bypassed. Voters also lose a chance to learn how our supposed public servants vote on specific topics, rather than on a 300-page bill with scores of unrelated components.

Which, of course, is precisely the point. Because politicians dislike being held accountable for their actions--specific votes can be compiled into embarrassing scorecards and inconvenient voting records--they prefer to lump everything together. The U.S. Senate Web site offers an official definition of the practice: a "Christmas tree bill," meaning unrelated amendments that adorn legislation.

Another example is a proposal backed by the Bush administration, to force labels on certain Web sites. The measure says that commercial Web sites must not place "sexually explicit material" on their home pages upon pain of felony prosecution--and that they must rate "each page or screen of the Web site that does contain sexually explicit material" with a system to be devised by the Federal Trade Commission.

How Congress celebrates Christmas

Excerpts from an appropriations bill (HR 5672) to fund the State Dept., Justice Dept. and other agencies for the 2007 fiscal year:

"It is unlawful for the operator of a Web site that is primarily operated for commercial purposes knowingly, and with knowledge of the character of the material, to place sexually explicit material on the Web site unless--

(i) the first page of the Web site viewable on the Internet does not include any sexually explicit material; and

(ii) each page or screen of the Web site that does contain sexually explicit material also displays the matter prescribed by the Federal Trade Commission...

Violation of this subsection is punishable by a fine under title 18, United States Code, or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.

Such a law probably would be unconstitutional. Courts have taken a dim view of mandatory rating systems: In a 1968 case called Interstate Circuit v. Dallas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Dallas' ordinance requiring that movies be rated was unconstitutional because the criteria for rating were unclear and vague.

But the advisability is almost beside the point. Rather than permitting an up-or-down vote, the Republican leadership stuffed the language into a must-pass appropriations bill (HR5672) to fund the State Department, Justice Department, Commerce Department and other agencies for the 2007 fiscal year.

Even though that bill technically awaits votes in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, it already enjoys an air of inevitability. After all, how many politicians will uphold the First Amendment at the cost of shuttering large portions of the federal government?

An alarming trend
Other legislative Christmas trees include:

• The Real ID Act, which creates a national ID card starting in 2008, was glommed onto an $82 billion "emergency" military spending bill (HR1268) last year. Unless Americans are outfitted with these federalized ID cards, they won't be able to do things like board airplanes or enter national parks and some government buildings.

Rep. Ron Paul, a libertarian-leaning Texas Republican, warned at the time that the Real ID Act "offers us a false sense of greater security at the cost of taking a gigantic step toward making America a police state." But the spending bill sailed through the Senate unanimously and met with only a few dissenting votes in the House.

• Slapping a $15 tax on .com, .net and .org domain names in 1998 was part of an "emergency supplemental appropriations" bill (HR3579) to fund the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. The cash went to politically savvy Network Solutions, now part of VeriSign.

• Enacting a controversial proposal to punish Web masters with six months in prison if they publicly post anything that's "harmful to minors." Instead of holding an honest, up-or-down vote on the Child Online Protection Act, politicians slipped it into an "omnibus" bill (HR4328) to fund the bulk of the federal government, including the Treasury Department. COPA is being challenged in court by the American Civil Liberties Union.

• Coercing libraries and schools into filtering Internet connections was done through the simple expedient of attaching it to an unrelated spending bill (HR4577) to fund the Treasury Department, Labor Department and Congress itself. A divided Supreme Court upheld the restrictions as constitutional.

I could go on, but you get the idea. The practice of hanging unpopular amendments on a Christmas tree bill isn't even limited to spending measures: A few weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Recording Industry Association of America tried to insert its own copyright-hacking-authorization language into what eventually became the Patriot Act.

The worrisome thing is that, even though politicians have left Washington to campaign, they've only enacted two of the 12 spending bills necessary to fund the federal government for the 2007 fiscal year. (WashingtonWatch.com estimates the remaining bills will cost each American family about $10,766.)

So we should expect plenty of mischief when they return after the election: Think of it as an early Christmas present that Congress gives itself every year.

Biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's chief political correspondent. He spent more than a decade in Washington, D.C., chronicling the busy intersection between technology and politics. Previously, he was the Washington bureau chief for Wired News, and a reporter for Time.com, Time magazine and HotWired. McCullagh has taught journalism at American University and been an adjunct professor at Case Western University.

More Perspectives

[twolf2919]

yet another complaint without solution

What exactly is the point of this article? It simply recounts what most Americans already know (or should know, given that the practice has been around forever and has been covered in the press many a times before.) Without an offered solution, it's just more whining by someone about a government he helped put in place - either by vote or by doing nothing. That seems to be the norm these days: a public too lazy to vote (if memory serves, the US has probably the lowest voter turnout of any industrialized country), somehow feeling an entitlement to complain when things don't turn out they way they want.

Obviously the people care less about corruption in government than they do about other things.

[ldonyo]

Yet another complaint

Oh, the irony! A complaint without a solution about a complaint without a solution.

The sad truth is that most Americans have no idea this sort of thing goes on. The solution should be obvious; legislation should not be allowed to have additional and/or unrelated legislation added to it once a draft has been formally introduced.

[Swalters1]

The Solution

Slip an amendment into a Military Spending bill that makes it illegal to amend spending bills with material unrelated to the bill.

Irony thy name is Congress!

[aabcdefghij987654321]

The real problem

is that the government is upside down. The Federal government should have the least effect and the smallest tax at the individual level while the local goverment should have the largest. The Federal government has stepped widely over the constitutional boundaries that were supposed to hem it in. I don't think we'll ever see it give up the wide powers it's aquired so the next best bet is to make your own representatives more locally accountable.

To do that I suggest we take advantage of the technology available these days to relocate each and every Congresscritter back to their own home district, even require them to have their offices within that physical district. Teleconferencing would allow them to participate in debates and hold hearings without requiring their physical presense in Washington. They would only need to travel to Washington for ceremonial purposes and special events like the annual State of the Union address. The rest of the time they could be present with their constituents and sharing their problems instead of slowly becoming citizens of DC with an occasional obligation to their former home.

As a side benefit, it would become a lot easier for their constituents to visit them to express their concerns while lobbyists would need to spend a whole lot more money to visit each congresscritter.

[letmetryit]

More pressing: eVoting without paper trail

Disclaimer: I think eVoting is a great idea & if implemented correctly can go a very long way to providing an incredibly efficient & accurate form of voting.

However....

We now have a voting system where the vote can easily be manipulated by just a handful of people -- the voting machine manufacturers.

Without a paper trail, how difficult is it to write code that changes election results by 3%? Either apply a 3% increase before printing results, or assign a 3% chance of changing a recorded vote. Not hard at all.

eVoting machines without paper trail make untraceable, unprovable, massive voter fraud as easy as ever.

I'm not saying this WILL happen in the next election. I'm saying that, as it stands it CAN happen. & that is wrong & must be changed.

Solution: eVoting machines produce two identical ballot cards. They are both human readable & computer readable. One is optically speed scanned & then stored. The other can go home with the voter.

At the end of the day, the stored scannable ballots are sealed & sent to a central facility that can do a mass, fast scanning again to verify results from polling stations. This service is provided for a random selection (approx 2-3% of the votes cast) & is intended to as a counter-measure to polling station optical scanner software fraud.

This solves:
* creates a paper trail in case a vote is later contested.
* by providing hard, tangible, hold it in your hand proof of voting which ensures voter confidence -- important in any democracy.
* optical scanner fraud by


Think about it. Its important.

Matt

[MythicalMe]

Not topical

While your comment is interesting, it has little to do with the topic, which was about Congress passing laws.

[letmetryit]

More pressing: eVoting without paper trail

Disclaimer: I think eVoting is a great idea & if implemented correctly can go a very long way to providing an incredibly efficient & accurate form of voting.

However....

We now have a voting system where the vote can easily be manipulated by just a handful of people -- the voting machine manufacturers.

Without a paper trail, how difficult is it to write code that changes election results by 3%? Either apply a 3% increase before printing results, or assign a 3% chance of changing a recorded vote. Not hard at all.

eVoting machines without paper trail make untraceable, unprovable, massive voter fraud as easy as ever.

I'm not saying this WILL happen in the next election. I'm saying that, as it stands it CAN happen. & that is wrong & must be changed.

Solution: eVoting machines produce two identical ballot cards. They are both human readable & computer readable. One is optically speed scanned & then stored. The other can go home with the voter.

At the end of the day, the stored scannable ballots are sealed & sent to a central facility that can do a mass, fast scanning again to verify results from polling stations. This service is provided for a random selection (approx 2-3% of the votes cast) & is intended to as a counter-measure to polling station optical scanner software fraud.

This solves:
* creates a paper trail in case a vote is later contested.
* by providing hard, tangible, hold it in your hand proof of voting which ensures voter confidence -- important in any democracy.


Think about it. Its important.

Matt

[rorybaust]

The Irony

The irony is that as a citizen of a country that is not the USA, I can look surprised at the lack of accoutability, the absolute arrogance of your politicians and the ********* that they do, but I don't have to live with it, you the American people let it happen, after all you voted them in but even if you vote them out the system is so entrenched you won't even know till you have nothing left except the right to bear arms and to say as you please from the prison cell that will be the USA..

[therealCSMR]

badly argued article

The author should have resited the temptation to give his opinions on various pieces of legislation in the process of reporting the practice of bills with unrelated elements. Especially as they are backed up with spurious arguments: because one rating system was deemed unconstitutioally vague in 1968, a yet to be devised one will also probably be unconstitutionally vague? A disparaging remark from a republican shows that a bill with an ID card component received too many votes? Opposition from the ACLU similarly? Where is the argument that these elements of bills are universally unpopular? (Agreed, they are components that would be possible to stall if introduced separately, but possible to stall!= unpopular.)

[FooKBush]

He was just stating fact the arguement is....

The arguement would be if the add on has nothing to do with the original bill, (besides feds micro managing another part of american life doesn't count as something to do with it) it shouldn't be allowed on it. Each bill should stand on its own merits. Period...either it puts up or shuts up, no free rides. We founded on State soverenty the Feds are way over stepping there bounds now and, making each bill stand on its own two feet is just a start.

[anomalator]

Solution?

It's going to take a lot more then getting people to vote to fix our system. Our current "democratic" system is so broken and mangled that even when people do vote it comes down to a choice of the lessor of two evils, if your vote even gets counted. And lets face it, most Americans are too preoccupied, distracted, and complacent to get out and vote in the first place. As long as people have their SUV's and big screen TV's they won't give a damn what their government does until the price of gas goes up. It seems as though the American people prefer consumerism over socially and ethically responsible government. And this is exactley what the politicians are counting on.

"Be thankful we have commerce."

[Had_to_be_said]

Oh, I think its worse than that...

I just learned of a study, discussed last week, which discovered that about 40-percent (thats almost half) of all "American-voters" now seem to believe that "voting" is almost pointless (due to clearly-obvious political-manipulation, and a lack of faith, in the "voting-process", in general).

In other words...

At this point, almost HALF of all Americans truly seem to believe that "elections" are, ...WORSE THAN A JOKE.

Furthermore, other "polls" appear to indicate that MOST Americans feel that "The Government" is TOTALLY-CORRUPT, and/or, INCOMPETENT. Most Americans, when asked, also state that they are angry that their "rights" are "...all, but gone". And, MOST Americans are completely unhappy with BOTH of the "major political-parties", which they see as, effectively, "...abandoning the U.S. Constitution", "...the rule of law", AND, "...the will of the people", in favor of a few, powerful, special-interests desire for power.

...in short, huge-numbers of "citizens" are expressing the view that a corrupt-tyranny, has effectively seized control of "our nation".

And no... in the opinions of MOST analysts, this isnt simply, "normal grumblings", or "typical-levels of discontent", in the populace. These are the highest levels of anger, at those in power, in living-memory.

In fact, the last time, in our history, that there was THIS much discontent over such arbitrary, and corrupt, manipulation of "the system" (by "...those at the top", clearly for the benefit of a few), ...we had a WAR (...a REAL "war", not a, concocted, imaginary, vaporous, un-ending, state of national-emergency, ...and not an illegal-invasion of another country, made for "political" and "personal" reasons, ...and sold to the American-people on the basis of LIES). I am talking about an actual armed-conflict on American-soil.

But, more importantly, has anyone else noted "...the Governments" clear intent to "...deal with" the possibility of a widespread "citizen-revolt"..?

Or, should I simply refer to it as the "American Insurgency" (as the Government, undoubtedly, will..?

Of course, thanks to the "Patriot Act", and the latest legislation to come out of Washington, WE wont be the "American-People". We will be declared "Enemy-Combatants"... with NO RIGHTS... subject to COMPLETE SURVEILLANCE, without "Probable-Cause"... and risk TORTURE (I mean "intensive interrogation-techniques")... merely for questioning our Governments-actions (I.E. our ENSLAVEMENT).

Frankly, when "the Government", considers US to be "...the enemy", we, as Americans, should consider "the Government" to be THE PROBLEM.

[Had_to_be_said]

The REAL-NIGHTMARE of "REAL-ID". Calling Mr. "Orwell"...

>> "Unless Americans are outfitted with these federalized ID cards, they won't be able to do things like board airplanes or enter national parks and some government buildings"...

Actually, if you look beneath the "headlines", at the various interlocking-pieces of legislation, associated with calls for such Identification-strategies, its FAR more all-encompassing.

This -National BIO-Metric ID-Card- ("REAL-ID") in its final-form, at the very least, will contain a "machine-readable" computer-chip, your picture, your fingerprint, and, in the not too distant-future, most probably (according to several calls from elements within the Government), "DNA database" info.

ALL of this "information" is, eventually, expected to be accessible via a massively-interconnected, "single-entry point", "data-aggregation system". The supporters of this "system" claim that the information wont exist as a "single database" (since it will actually be "distributed"). However, the difference is purely semantic, because, it doesnt really matter where the data comes from... if... it can be accessed via a "single-point"... it IS, effectively, ONE CENTRALIZED-DATABASE.

As to the intended applications... thanks to some of the, latest, legislation (much already signed into law), ...and numerous "private-business policies"...

Soon...


Youll need a "REAL-ID" just to HAVE A JOB... (supposedly, this is to stop "illegal-immigration").


Youll need a "REAL-ID" to DRIVE A CAR... Your "Driver License" (or, usually, DMV-issued "State ID-card" for non-drivers) will, under FEDERAL-MANDATE, have to be a "REAL-ID".

I have to wonder, based upon previous calls for such legislation, how soon until automobiles will be required by law, to have a Drivers-License ("REAL-ID") Slot (into which a driver must insert their "License" and submit to a "fingerprint-scan" to confirm the "actual identity" of the driver) ...before a car will start..? Impossible..? Well, since 1996 all cars, manufactured for sale in the United States, HAVE been required, by Federal-law, to have a "driving-data" recording-port...

Furthermore, the government is currently experimenting with "RFID-License Plates" designed to allow "Law-Enforcement" to both, remotely "Ticket" traffic-violators and charge, the proposed, "road-use tolls". Both of these policies would, necessarily, be dependent upon "Government-Agencies" ability to identify the "actual driver" of a vehicle, at any given time.


Youll need a "REAL-ID" to VOTE... "Photo-ID" is to be required by law. Acceptable IDs would be your "Drivers-License", or "State-issued-ID", ...which, under the "REAL-ID Act" would now actually be required to be a "REAL-ID".


Youll need a "REAL-ID" to MAKE VIRTUALLY ANY PURCHASE... Using a "debit-card" or "credit-card", more and more often, requires producing "acceptable, photo-ID", I.E. a "Drivers-License" or a "state-issued ID" (which, under Federal-law, would be a "REAL-ID" National Identity-Card). Additionally, many businesses are apparently considering refusing "cash"-transactions altogether (Yes, its already legal in several places, ...such as, ...interestingly, "Washington D.C.") And, several types of businesses currently require "photo-ID" for ANY purchase ("Cash", or not).

Are you scared yet..? ...Because, soon...


Youll need your "National ID-Card" just to WALK DOWN THE STREET... (Elements in "Law-Enforcement" HAVE gone all the way to the "Supreme Court" to insure that "police officers" CAN demand ID from ANYONE, ...without any "probable-cause" (in fact, they CAN LEGALLY SEARCH, or ARREST, YOU simply for a refusal to produce it).


Incidentally, full application of these, already-existing, technologies and such legislation, will create a more effective capability to monitor, average, law-abiding citizens, far more thoroughly, than ever before in human-history.

Just think of the potential for ABUSE, ...if virtually ANY "Government-Agent" (or for that matter, certain "private-institutions", such as your employer... your bank... etc...) could, for A MULTITUDE of alleged "...legitimate reasons", consult a National-Database, containing information on absolutely everyone. This is especially troubling since this "Identity system" CLEARLY WILL, actually, create the "technological", and "Legislative", ability to allow the recording of nearly EVERY SINGLE ACTION, undertaken by EVERY SINGLE PERSON.

That IS the potential of "REAL-ID" (both, the instrument, itself, and its proposed-applications).

Theres just no end to potential interference in peoples private-lives by such, invasive, PREEMPTIVE "identification" and WIDE-SCALE "cross-linking of information" (and therefore, "monitoring") ability being used upon EVERY-SINGLE CITIZEN.


Finally... on a more, directly, computer-related note...

You could soon find yourself required to use your "National BIO-metric ID-card" just to USE YOUR COMPUTER. No, Im not kidding. "Microsofts Vista" Operating System, already has the "programming-hooks", and other components necessary to REQUIRE you to, both, use your "machine-readable ID" ("REAL-ID"..?), and to use a "fingerprint scanner" ("Two-Factor Identity-Confirmation"), before you are "allowed" to access your own computer. This is hardly surprising, since Microsoft HAS expressed an interest in charging for each individual-person who uses a computer ("Individual-user Licensing" as opposed to "Individual-machine Licensing").

Additionally, this "Trusted Computing" technology would apparently also allow your "ISP" (Internet Service Provider) to enforce the same "IDENTIFICATION" requirement. And, if you follow "...the news", you know that Federal-legislation requiring something like this (along with repeated calls for "ISPs" to "...record ALL Internet-activity"), ...HAS been floated several times, ...using numerous rationalizations (...such as, stopping: "Identity-theft", alleged "Trade-Secret" Leaks, "Child-Exploitation", "Terrorism", "Copyright-infringement", etc.).

So... these things are NOT, ...just suppositions. The technical-infrastructure, and legislation, ...IS CLEARLY BEING PUT IN PLACE.

One has to wonder... just how far will people let this go..?

[MythicalMe]

One more reason that the US is in trouble

There is a solution to this problem and that is to let your congressmen know how you feel. Raise it as an issue during the elections and vote for the politician that represents your point of view, not the party line or those of their corporate sponsors.

On the other hand, if you don't know what is important to the health of our democracy, or are too lazy to find out, please don't vote. A big problem that we have is that people are voting for those who look good and not necessarily who lead best. Part of this problem is that people are shamed into expressing an opinion that they have not educated themselves about. There is no shame in not voting if you don't know.

The solution to this problem seems obvious, pass a law requiring each bill to be specific to the issue being addressed. If a bill is supposed to address military spending, issues regarding computing practices have no business being adressed in the bill. Congress, however, is unlikely to pass such a law just as Congress will never pass a balanced budget. It's unfeasible, as I understand it, because most bills would never pass.

Perhaps that is how it should be. I tend toward a more libertarian view that the government should be about protecting the rights of its citizens and less about figuring ways to control the masses. Whenever a bill is introduced I expect that first and foremost my representative knows what is in the bill, then to assess whether or not it is protecting the rights of the citizens. An effective politician is one who realizes the awesome responsibility they have. It's not about power. Anyone can wield power. The reponsibility is the one I entrust in my elected representatives to only use governmental authority when it is appropriate to use such power. Whenever the government takes some action it should weigh if it good for all citizens because surely if the action is designed to represent a select few it will deprive most citizens of an important freedom.

[lampietheclown]

Yea, Good luck with that solution

How's it been working out for you so far?
Do you honestly believe that your elected officials don't already
know how you feel, or hopefully more to the point, what you
think?
They know, and in an election year they might give it lip service
to get your vote, or not. The fact is, the people who you asked
not to vote, are the ones who vote how they feel. As such, they
can be swayed by a sound bite, or a rumor, or a media blitz at
the end of October. If your politician has enough money in his
war chest to effect how they feel, he won't care as much what
you think, or how you vote.
Once in D.C. a new reality sets in, and every politician weighs
how you feel / what you think against;
A. What the lobby's want (money has the weight of gold, not
feelings).
B. What contributers to the campaign expect for their money
( remember, the next election is only two years away ),
C. What is good for the party ( mostly money, but also a united
front against the "other" party )
D. What they personally think.
E. What the voters who disagree with you think.
F. How the people who don't think, feel.
G. At the bottom, what is the right thing to do.

By all means, make sure they know how you feel / what you
think. It can't hurt, but in the face of current campaign finance
laws, I'd hardly call it a solution.
You have to fight money and power with money and power.
Unfortunately I don't have enough of either one. There is also
revolution or a coup, but the (anti)Patriot act was the final nail in
that coffin. Since I could disappear without a trace just for
mentioning it, I'll end my post here.

Bill Gates

[duerra]

Simple Solution

The solution for this kind of thing is simple - no ammendment can be allowed to be tacked onto a bill unless it has the majority consent of the committee that it is originating from.

Done.

[anomalator]

Not really a solution

This solution doesn't really work when the originating commitee is bought and payed for by corporate interests, or extremely biased towards some sort of political agenda.

[jjacobus]

Just as devious as the Executive Branch

What makes matters worse is the Presidential Signing statments. Since 2001, Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that HE has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation. (See <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/" target="_newWindow">http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/</a>)
The President now has the same authority as a king.

[anomalator]

America 2.0: time for an upgrade!

I think it's sadly unfortunate, but very obvious, that the only ideas that our "elected" representatives are bringing to DC are their own self interests and self preservation. And they'll tell their constituants whatever thay have to keep it that way. How else can you explain the 98% incumbency rate of our representatives. At this point in time I think its going to take either divine intervention (if you believe in that sort of thing) or an all out revolution to get a true democratic government that actually represents the people and respects our constitution.

Yeah, like that's gonna happen!

[gunplay]

Thank You Declan McCullagh

Now it may seem to you and a few others that your article is simply pointing out the blatantly obvious. But sadly we live in a time when the blatantly obvious is simply not pointed out in todays society for we have been taught thats not politically correct. I ask correct for whom? People must remember In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell. Mr. McCullagh, I wish to thank you once again for overcoming the universal mainstream media blackout and writing about our truly extreme circumstances of government corruption. Simply by mentioning Ron Paul you have shown that you actually care about the American society and you want your future kids to live in freedom. You show that you care about your kids or future kids and the children of others more than that almighty dollar that will only comfort you today. Cnet please know that I am clicking the advertisement on this page simply because of this author and his uncompromising ability to write what he feels are the real issues. Cnet please realize what the other news outlets have failed to realize; please realize that you make more money in a free society than a Fascist or a Communist society. Cnet please realize what the other news outlets are too blind to see. There will only be room for government news and no other news once a takeover is complete. Cnet will fail to exist in the form it does now. Tell the truth! There are evil people out there hidden behind the cover of a mass media blackout. Expose them and there will be profit. There is only profit in risk! If you evolve beyond the other dumbed down mass media you will overcome their inherent marginalization. The people will come. The people will read your news above others. The people will click your advertisements above others. I promise you there is profit in seeking the truth! It is profit that your accountant may not initially see because it is not coming from the Fed. It is what an economist would call *real* profit. It is time to go after them. Those guys are stealing my profit and yours. They are the enemy of the both of us. Tell the people and they will understand. They just want to hear it from a major media outlet. But the most real profit is in the way you leave the state of the country for your children. That is what the Founding Fathers were all about.

[UKSalami]

Y do you put up with it?

Time and Time again, the media reports on crazy bills being passed.
Money for this toady of Bush, Tax incentives for companies that ally with the party in power, vote rigging, international bullying, etc etc etc..

Yet you still vote these loons into power.

With a country as large and diverse as America is, there must be some natural born leaders that you can elect?
What ever happened to men like Washington, Lincoln and JFK??

[patcheye.com]

Ultimate Irony

The ultimate irony is Congress itself has passed rules requiring amendments to be germain to the original bill. The hitch? Congress is responsible for enforcing those rules! They have never been used, no matter how obious nor how egregious the offense.
Set a thief to catch a thief, maybe. But set a council of thieves to enforce rules against thivery! Oops, we'e already done that.
the main problem I can see is that there is no reason for the size of the government. in 1776, the population of the thirteen colonies was less than most states. Why not make every state independant, with a loose confederacy to provide for a united armed forces, and a supremene court system to rule on whether a state bill violated the Bill of Rights. Then we could vote with our feet, any state that got too "big for its britches" would suffer a popluation loss.
If our government is Big, we end up with a "Big Brother", if our government were little, we could do wht is generally done with little brothers, go someplace else to keep him from bothering us