What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona?

Originally Posted by classicman

Oh. My. Gawd.

It is funny, in a diversionary sorta way.

But it wont deflect the valid criticisms and concerns expressed by many constitutional experts, many local elected officials and many law enforcement officials... as well as civil rights and other grass roots organizations.

[classicman]

not really - this was 10 pages not a couple thousand.

[Spexxvet]

I see. Not reading a bill is entirely different than not reading a bill. Gotcha.

[classicman]

You're right - all the D's who voted for a bill they hadn't read and all the R's voting against and criticizing it. I see what you're saying.

[classicman]

Its also funny in a pathetic that they're criticizing something they haven't even read. They've had weeks and its only ten pages.

Originally Posted by classicman

Its also funny in a pathetic that they're criticizing something they haven't even read. They've had weeks and its only ten pages.

It is a fallacy to believe that every state legislator or member of Congress or state/federal executive branch officials read every piece of legislation.

That is why they have staff...that is why there are committee structures and recognized experts in both parties who lead the initiatives and brief fellow party members on the details of legislation.

For any piece of legislation, state or federal, there are probably only handful of people who have actually read the bill...and that would most likely be the staff who wrote it.

I would bet very few of the AZ legislators in either party read the legislation. It is simply not how governing bodies work. In fact, it is not how most organizations work.

And it doesnt apply just to legislation. Do you think a president should read every intel report cover-to-cover before making a decision....or rely on detailed briefings/recommendations from staff (the director of national intelligence)?

In the private sector, do you think a CEO reads every report/recommendation directed to his/her attention? Delegation and division of labor recognizing particular expertise within the structure is the manner in which good organizations work most effectively.

added:
And in the legislative process, most bill amend existing laws and cant simply be read free-standing.

The AZ bill may only be ten pages, but this is is at the heart of it.

AMENDING TITLE 11, CHAPTER 7, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 8;

AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 15, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 13-1509;

AMENDING SECTION 13-2319, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES;

AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 29, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTIONS 13-2928 AND 13-2929;

AMENDING SECTIONS 23-212, 23-212.01, 23-214 AND 28-3511, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES;

AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 12, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 41-1724; RELATING TO UNLAWFULLY PRESENT ALIENS.

Reading a bill is not like reading a book or a magazine article.

To fully understand it, one would have to read it in the context of all these existing statutes or sections of the state code that the bill amends at the same time as one reads the legislation.

I can guarantee that very few legislators read it in such a manner.

You may think it is pathetic. I think it is representative of good organizational management.

[classicman]

Then they shouldn't comment on what it says if they do not understand it.
AND THEY ADMIT that all they knew was what they heard/saw from the press.
That is NOT representative of good organizational management.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

Then they shouldn't comment on what it says if they do not understand it.
AND THEY ADMIT that all they knew was what they heard/saw from the press.

It is possible that they do understand it, without having read it.

Originally Posted by classicman

That is NOT representative of good organizational management.

Yes, it is. Delegation is key to good management. Nobody can do everything themselves. Having aides read the bill and give a synopsis to the legislator is a valid management tool.

[classicman]

How could they possibly understand the specifics without reading it - GTFO

One of them admitted all he new was what he saw, read on tv - I think it was Holder. Sorry - thats not where I want my representatives forming their opinions. If they don't know, just admit it and say "I don't know." or "I haven't read it yet"

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

How could they possibly understand the specifics without reading it - GTFO

Intelligent, trusted aides read it and 'splained it to them.

[classicman]

One of them admitted all he new was what he saw, read on tv
Do you keep missing that or are you just choosing not to read it because he is one of the guys on "your team"

Originally Posted by Attorney General Eric Holder

I have not had a chance to, I've glanced at it. I have not read it.

... I have not really, I have not been briefed yet.

... I've only made, made the comments that I've made on the basis of things that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, looking at television, talking to people who are on the review panel, on the review team that are looking at the law.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

One of them admitted all he new was what he saw, read on tv
Do you keep missing that or are you just choosing not to read it because he is one of the guys on "your team"

Calm down. I'm ignoring it because I don't dispute this particular point in your argument. K?

[classicman]

k

[TheMercenary]

The whole thing will be more effective if we can get NM and Texas to adopt the same bills in their states. That would be most awesome.

[classicman]

I disagree completely.
The Fed should uphold its responsibilities and not put a state into this situation in the first place.