Keeping it Short and Sweet

Two interesting ideas coming out from The Economist - Democracy in America blog today about the legislative process.

The first post highlights another post by Bob Gale, suggesting that we pass a 28th Amendment limiting the written length of bills in state and federal legislatures to 2000 words or roughly five pages. His reasoning is simple - look at the Constitution:

I found the Constitution online and copied it into a Word document, in Times New Roman 12 point type. So how long is it?

Including the preamble, all signatures and all 27 amendments, it’s 20 pages.

Without the signatures and amendments, it’s 11 pages.

Think about that. The entire foundation of our country - the complete design for our entire government — is clearly explained in only 11 pages.

No single Amendment is a full page. Many are only a single sentence.

But as many have pointed out, there are a few flaws with this reasoning. First, the Constitution and the statutory laws that are passed by legislatures are two entirely different creatures - the Constitution is broad and encompassing, whereas statutory law is meant to be specifically applied. They are passed in very different manners and under very different circumstances for this reason. Second, despite what Bob Gale may suggest, shorter is not always better. Sure, it will make it more likely that legislators will do their elected duty and READ IT BEFORE THEY SIGN IT, but limiting length limits the specificity needed in statutory law, making it far more ambiguous, opening the door to interpretation and potentially giving judges the unconstitutional power to legislate from the bench.

That being said, I like that at least some people are trying to think of innovative ways of preventing corruption and "trimming the fat" from legislation beyond more oversight. I think some serious work and study would need to go into how to limit the wording of bills, but I like the ingenuity here. More of this kind of discussion needs to happen in both the public discourse and the halls of Washington.

The second post admits to having being inspired by the first, proposing that legislatures rid themselves of the practice of naming bills (aka, "The Patriot Act" or "Defense of Marriage Act"). It elaborates why not, and what to do instead:

No bill should be an advertisement for itself; it should stand or fall on its content, not on its title, which allows politicians to send out innocent-looking mailers saying, "Did you know that my opponent opposed the American Service-Members' Protection Act?" Let bills be known by their numbers—it's not so hard, and it's done at the UN. Or let them be known by their sponsors, like Waxman-Markey or McCain-Feingold. But no more American Values Act, Let's Have a Stronger Military Act, or Making Sure Grandma Gets Her Medications Act.

Amen. The bills already have numbers - use them rather that the ridiculous, self-aggrandizing names that legislators issue to bills that sometimes vaguely relate to what they are advertised as. Or, as the poster suggests, simply use the names of the bill's sponsors to describe it in everyday speech. But there's no need to continue the practice of naming bills after people or to help to promote it anymore than what one gets from the content of the bill.

The content. Meaning, legislators, that you read it. The whole thing. Not the Spark Notes talking points another legislator or lobbying group have given you.

A rose, by any other name, is still a rose. So too this applies to crappy legislation.