For the last two weeks our class has been trying to devise the best possible plan to rebuild the South after the Civil War. We've tried to pass train bills, land bills, teaching bills, and many others. Our goal was to repair the South as quickly and efficiently as possible. While our class is on topic, certain lawmakers are on a different schedule with the laws they make.
Nowadays, some legislators write up bills that they have no intention of passing. For instance, Idaho State Senator John Goedde introduced a bill that would make reading Atlas Shrugged a high school graduation requirement. Fox News reported that the bill was "bill as a protest to a state Board of Education decision to roll back online class requirements".
Ohio Senator Nina Turner also introduced a symbolic bill that would limit a man's ability to get a Viagra prescription. She wrote this bill to express her outrage at all of the birth-control laws being passed in her state. (Source)
I think that these types of legislation are wasteful. As you said, these laws aren't made with the American people in mind. I don't have a problem with a senator or congressman protesting other legislation, but using other laws to do this is not the right course of action. Lawmakers should have the best interests of the country when doing their jobs, and using their power like this is abusing that power. Not only do these counter laws take up the time of the person writing it, but then it wastes everyone else's time in review and voting, if it gets to that point.
ReplyDeleteJake, An interesting post here and a good job blogging overall this term. What this post needs, though, is a further consideration of the nature of these symbolic protests. Why, for example, did that Idaho legislator suggest the Ayn Rand book in particular? Why, in other words, those symbols? Are these bills really the "beliefs of the legislators" or are they a form of pandering to the legislators' constituencies?
ReplyDelete