First Up For Reform

When the next congress convenes, hopefully with Democratic majorities in both houses (we can dream, right), the first (of many) orders of business probably oughta be reforming this kind of crap.

I understand the utility of a court delving into the arguments and debates that brought a law into being, particularly if that law is older than any member of the court or congress. But when chuckleheads issue commentary and then tell the court that because they were acting as the official governmental peanut gallery, their opinions should trump the text of the law itself, there's a big, big problem.

What ever happened to "up or down vote"? What does the law say?

What I'm getting from this is that somebody could get elected, make a speech on the floor of the House or Senate in opposition to significant parts of a bill, and then when the bill that legislator opposed is subject to legislation down the line, that legislator can tell the courts that the minority opinion expressed in that floor speech sets the parameters of the court's jurisprudence.

It's insane. What does the law say? If it isn't clear, write clearer laws. Pass an amendment to clarify it.

This issue of signing statements and now congressional chatter that's inserted into the record is hugely problematic. It's an affront on all levels. The government must be bound by the laws it passes, and it shouldn't use these sneaky backdoor tricks to weasel out of its obligations or change the meaning of the law later.

My vote for reform #1.