Ludicrous Laws: I found this one tonight

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

"Most of the stupid laws were passed because someone in town was doing it, and it uspet the Mayor (or more likely the Mayor's wife), so a law was passed. Others were passed to make a symbolic point. These stupid laws tend to be overturned by the courts if someone tries to enforce them. Often, though, nobody ever tries to enforce them, so there's never a case before the courts, so the law stays on the books until the legislature decides to get rid of it.

Sometimes the laws were passed so Senator/Representative SoAndSo could go back home to his district and proudly announce that he voted/passed/wrote x number of new laws and legislation for his constituants.

And some are added to other legislation for the purpose of stopping another law from being voted on. That's why when you read some of the actual legislation you'll find admendments or provisions that have nothing to do with the intended legislation. Like on the Health Care Acts, there will be new roads programs, construction passages, environmental items. These are often intended to cause enough ruckus that the bill doesn't pass through both houses. Some really stupid stuff sometimes.

Kerry, not to hijack this thread, has been accused of voting flip flop on issues. (Oh and I acknowlege that he is not the only representative who has this happen to him) What happens is that if he wants to vote positively on, say a Medicare provision, other members will slip in a variety of lesser provisions, like new roads funding in Macon, Georgia, into the Medicare bill. It then becomes a case of what is more important. Getting the Medicare provision passed or rejection the entire bill to not have to vote for the new roads funding provision attached to it. This is very commonly seen on Capital Hill which is why you hear about inconsistent voting records and will often see members vote down on programs they support - like some new age fighters - because it could contain provisions that legalize wiretapping, or something else completely out of context to the intended vote.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Text within hard brackets added by me.

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

And some [laws] are added to other legislation for the purpose of stopping another law from being voted on. That's why when you read some of the actual legislation you'll find admendments or provisions that have nothing to do with the intended legislation. Like on the Health Care Acts, there will be new roads programs, construction passages, environmental items. These are often intended to cause enough ruckus that the bill doesn't pass through both houses. Some really stupid stuff sometimes.

[Enlightening examples from the US. legislation snipped]

Why do US. lawmakers sink this low? It does not happen in the Swedish parliament - despite larger span in political beliefs here - and I am quite sure that it is not common in any other European parliament. I strongly doubt that our politicians are more saintly than the US. ones, so there must be at least one other reason. Any ideas?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[telkanuru]

They are specific attempts to sink the bill. Politics in the US has gotten very, very partisan, unfortunately. I think I'm moving to Canada

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by telkanuru

They are specific attempts to sink the bill. Politics in the US has gotten very, very partisan, unfortunately. I think I'm moving to Canada

But ours are also quite partisan - what gives?

Over here, a bill can not be altered once put before vote. Any single parliamentarian - or group thereof - can put a bill to vote, but the other parliamentarians can no alter it. What is the motivation for allowing alterations by others than the original bill-writers?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Peter:

Many of these laws date back a hundred years or more, and were often a form of "pet peeve" lawmaking by a busybody with access to a legislator. Also, if you examine some of the laws closely, they don't actually say things like: "No flamingos can be kept inside city limits in perforated cages without a permit." The law in question is usually overly broad or poorly written, so that one could extrapolate that flamingos might run afoul of the law, hence, the internet claims that flamingos are forbidden in Biloxi, etc.

One of the major weaknesses in American lawmaking, though, is not Biloxi
Flamingo Abatement style legislation. It's a practice called "riders". Here's how it works:

Senator Smith wants to write a "Relief for Victims of Fencing Overpronationitis" bill. Naturally, there is widespread support. But the chairman of the budget committee has promised a boat ramp project on the Pork River to a wealthy campaign contributor. The chairman tells Senator Smith that he'll advance the bill out of committee to the floor, IF the bill contains a rider funding the boat ramp.

Once the bill is on the floor, no one wants to go on record as voting against the vastly powerful fencing injury lobby, even if they detest the idea of a competely unrelated appropriations rider for the boat ramp. The bill is passed, fencers get a 2% tax credit for tendon therapy expenses, and the deep-pockets contributor gets a boat ramp only a short drive from his house.

This is why the State Governors and the US President need a power called the line item veto...where individual projects like this (or flamingo discrimination) can be stricken from approved legislation, without also vetoing the entire, more worthy bill.

Unfortunately, this seems to require a constitutional amendment, and is unilkely to happen anytime soon.

[blue_falcon]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

They are specific attempts to sink the bill. Politics in the US has gotten very, very partisan, unfortunately. I think I'm moving to Canada

Oh, sure! Move to Canada! Move to Ontario where the party that won the recent (as in last year) provincial elections completely RENEGED on their campaign promises. Yes, Bush Sr. did it to the US ("Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES") but at least he waited a bit before doing it! These Ontario Liberals didn't even wait a freaking year!

And partisan? Wow -- at least in the US you have something of an alternative. Federally we have the Liberals who have been in power since Methuselah was knee-high to a grasshopper (late 80s/early 90s) and who have been running roughshod over everything and spending like there was no tomorrow on everything including their friends! (Oh and on old Brit subs that LEAK!) But at least the Liberals are somewhat middle of the road. Then there's the Conservatives -- a coalition of old Conservatives and right wing nutcases from out west (my apologies to the west for actually HAVING said nutcases). And then there's the NDP -- left wing, bleeding heart liberals who want to take in every darned refugee and give away everything they can even if it ain't theirs to begin with. Let's not forget the Bloc Quebecois. A party dedicated to RIPPING the country apart (Quebec seceding). I always wondered about that. Wasn't this idea called TREASON at some point in time?

So, Canada's screwed -- Liberals are at least a known quantity. The Tories are ....... scary. The NDP will ....... bankrupt the country. The Bloc will rip apart the country. So ...... I'm thinking go with the party (Liberals) that will rape the country rather than one that will bankrupt, rip it apart, or turn it into a police state.

Sorry for the rant ........

I wanna move to ...... The Bahamas? At least it's warm there!

[telkanuru]

I was sort of referring to hiding myself in boundless wilderness. As you will.

[Soldier]

Try North Dakota. You've got the potato farmers, and you've got the beet farmers. And, well, they pretty much get along.

I think it's that everybody's united against a common enemy - the mosquitoes.

[blue_falcon]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

I was sort of referring to hiding myself in boundless wilderness. As you will.

Doh! My mistake. Yes, if you're looking for boundless wilderness, Canada is the place. Just make sure you're up north somewhere. I hear the fishing and hunting's great up there. Golf sucks though.

[Inquartata]

But how much fencing are you likely to find in the wilderness, really?

It's been awhile, and I don't recall whether this is done at the federal level, but in many state governments you can also have a swell little swindle called a strike-all amendment---essentially lets you toss out a bill and insert another under its same title and number, so that you have a boat-ramp bill INSTEAD of, not in addition to, the fencing injury bill...but still CALLED the fencing injury bill. And lawmakers who aren't paying attention, ie most of them, can vote for something they know not of at all...