- NEW!
by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on August 16th, 2009
Help answer this question below.
by Rude Bear Ready for Winter on August 16th, 2009
I think that would be totally unfair, as most Americans read at a third grade level. But, hey, why stop there. Lets lower the bar completely. If a concept cannot be explained in simple picture book format, it's needlessly complicated and should be abandoned.
by Im Alec has abandoned this account on September 8th, 2009
Not so much write as read. If every Congressman were required to read every page of every bill, and pass a simple test on it with a low pass mark, there would be a lot less and a lot better law. At the moment, in most cases nobody has read the bill all through, let alone tried to understand it. Each bill is a huge wodge of clauses bundled together on a "you vote for may clause, I'll vote for yours" basis.
Laws necessarily contain technical language, and may not pass the eight grade test, particularly for technical legislation. But they should be comprehensible to, and comprehended by, those who pass them.
by randomness - is now a Maestro on September 8th, 2009
Congress should not have to write bills at an 8th grade level... ALL adults who are concerned with said bills should be able to read at a far higher level. It's shameful that people need things to be simplified to such an extent.
by ChrisDC on September 8th, 2009
One of the reasons that bills are so confusing is that they use legal shorthand -- in other words, the use of a particular term plugs into a network of previous statutes, previous Congressional debates, and Supreme Court precedent.
.
If you want bills written at an eighth grade level, all of that would have to be explained in detail. (And I actually don't have a problem with that in concept.)
.
So those folks who are complaining about a health care reform bill that is over 1,000 pages long would then be complaining about a bill that is over 25,000 pages long -- because everything would have to be spelled out in detail.
.
One thing that people often forget is that when the Congress works in generalities in its legislative acts, that has the effect of turning most of the power over to the Executive Branch -- because the more general the wording of a statute enacted by Congress, the greater the range of interpretations the Executive Branch can claim are allowed under the law.
by Normal guy on September 8th, 2009
Should be at a high school level.
by Scifisuz on August 19th, 2009
I'd be ecstatic if they simply had to provide proof they read the bill before they could vote on it.
by The Wraith of God is Coming on August 31st, 2009
They'ed all be fired they are at a 8th grade level.
by Bob on August 16th, 2009
what? eighth grade level? most congressmen and senators i've known over the years wouldn't be able to read the bills. i also like rude bear's suggestion of using picture books to help explain bills.
SOPA and PIPA have been shelved by congress. Pleased?
by KDP on January 20th, 2012
| 5 people like this
On a scale of 1-10 how would you rate coporate influences upon American legislation? (1 being low, 10 being they write the legislation!)
by Doyler - you have got to be kidding me! on March 24th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Do you have to qualify in order to recieve government healthcare in 2014? If so, what is the income cut off before being unable to qualify?
by shermanator31 on November 24th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Poor house demorats.....ALL their amendments to the health care repeal was denied, and they were shut out of debate....
by Swami_Rick on January 7th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
can answerbag help you to solve your problem?
by Juju29 on June 9th, 2010
| 3 people like this
You're reading What would change if Congress were required to write all bills at an eighth grade level, and test it for comprehension on an average eighth grader reading at grade level? Would it improve public debate and public participation in government?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Why should you have to have a law degree to be able to understand and obey the law? The Reader's Digest is able to convey some pretty complex concepts in eighth grade English, which has always been their standard. They have always believed that the average working man or woman, or any immigrant learning the language, should be able to understand and learn from what is in their magazine. I would say that expecting everyone to understand what is written in legalize is elitist and discriminates against people with learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, and legal immigrants that are still learning the language. It also discriminates against hard working Americans who chose other avenues of making a living that did not require a college degree, such as electricians, plumbers and mechanics. They are worthy citizens deserving of our respect, and writing things above them doesn't seem very respectful.
by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on August 16th, 2009
So rather than doing a little work and improving yourself, stamp your feet and demand that everything be dumbed down until you can understand it.
by Rude Bear Ready for Winter on August 16th, 2009
No, I don't. I have a college degree and I'm halfway to a Master's and I read at a college level. I'm asking that things be made fair for the majority of people in this country, and not for the privileged few. And by the way, I doubt most lawyers can understand what is written there. It is purposefully written that way so that little tidbits can be hidden in it, I suspect.
by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on August 16th, 2009
How about you? Have you read it? Do you understand it?
by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on August 16th, 2009
The funny thing is, I already answered this in a prior question you asked earlier today. Yes, I do understand it. I haven't read the whole 1000 pages, but I've read the controversial parts.... and by "controversial" parts I mean the parts people such as yourself are intentionally misinterpreting.
But again, getting back to the point of my answer: Why do we have to dumb everything down and lower the bar, rather than holding people responsible to educate and improve themselves. What, exactly, would we accomplish if everything was written in single syllable words because some people can't be bothered to master the language?
by Rude Bear Ready for Winter on August 16th, 2009
Again, if you'd read my comments on that other thread, I'm not interpreting anything. I refuse to interpret anything until I finish reading it. And I'm not just going to read the controversial parts. I will not be told what to think by someone else on either side of the debate. I will read the whole thing and make up my own mind. I'm merely asking questions to see if others are holding themselves to a rigorous standard, or being lazy and letting others tell them what to think.
by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on August 16th, 2009
But it doesn't matter if you read the whole thing before making up your mind, when, by your own admission you don't/can't understand it.
by Rude Bear Ready for Winter on August 16th, 2009
I'm going to give it my best try. The problem here is, why can't Congress write it in language that someone who is halfway to a Master's degree understand?
by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on August 16th, 2009
My question would be: Why can't someone who's half way through their master's degree understand the language?
by Rude Bear Ready for Winter on August 16th, 2009
Because my degree isn't in law, and that isn't written to be understandable to anyone. I daresay you would have a hard time with some of the material written for my field as well. Jargon is not meant to be understandable. It takes time and effort to learn the vocabulary.
by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on August 16th, 2009
"isn't written to be understandable to anyone"
As I previously stated, I understand it.
"It takes time and effort to learn the vocabulary."
As is the case with all language....
And I only have two associates degrees, and not in law either.
by Rude Bear Ready for Winter on August 16th, 2009