[FedCom] IMPORTANT BAD NEWS - Homeland Security bill includes HR3482

[Harry Marnell]

We're getting pretty far afield here, but I'll "second" what you're saying.
That's the reason I get uncomfortable when the same party holds the White House
and BOTH houses of Congress, whether it's all Democrats or all Republicans; too
easy to shove stuff through without having to pay one whit of attention to the
opposition party at all.   At least when the gov'ment is "divided," there has to
be SOME compromising.  <sigh>

On the other hand, did you see the vote on HR3482 in the House?  It passed 385
to 3.  I guess everyone is afraid of being labelled as "soft on terrorism" (and
scanners).

hm

----- Original Message -----
From: "A10382" <a10382@snet.net>
To: <fedcom@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 15:46
Subject: Re: [FedCom] IMPORTANT BAD NEWS - Homeland Security bill includes
HR3482


> The very real, and very sad, fact is that our elected reps hardly ever
> actually read the legislation they vote on.  They typically follow party
> guidance (and that's not always what's in the best interest of their
> electorate).  I find it almost sinful that most legislation is voted along
> party lines....
>
> The inclusion of riders and other non-related bills on a piece of
> legislation are all done in the name of efficiency.  It's apparent to me
> that our Congress just does too much.  They should have a set of written
> legal constitutional principles - and if a piece of legislation does not
> advance, foster or fix those principles, it never should make it to the
> floor .. plain and simple.
>
> What ever happened to the government 'of, by, and for' the people ??
>
> The fact that the legislation may never be enforced is as sinful as
> legislation that potentially makes felons of millions of citizens for rather
> innocuous activities.  It IS the first step toward a much less free & open
> society in which selective prosecution becomes a reality.  Unenforceable
> legislation creates an atmosphere of non-compliance and anarchy - something
> we already have in more than a few venues.
>
> Frank