TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Semi formal bodies to "vet" legal issues related to new technologies to maybe move the formal legislative process a little faster.

This is from website http://www.i-m.co/Kellm44/LegislativeReserve/about.html. How many times have we heard "there ought to be a law" or the government can't keep up with...? You name the issues. Changing technology, medical advances, changes in climate? Legislative Reserve provides an opportunity to address these issues.

See the website and see the proposal. I included a little from the site below. But there is a lot more there particularly in the Methodolgy tab. Is it possible for this to work? Would it be helpful?

Just for another tid bit from the site since i have space to do it. See below.

Vision

A fully functioning Legislative Reserve with Representatives from every state addressing issues that matter; Taking up issues with the purpose to address ethical, legal, or other concerns that other Legislative bodies do not or can not address; Provide rapidly debated, carefully scrutizied, politically vetted, and reasonably workable solutions to issues at the cutting edge of technology, etc.

And then this.

Beyond Hopes

We believe this could become the model of how Legislative bodies would address those emerging ethical, legal, and other concerns bringing the legislative process into the 21 century while increasing the velocity for those new to the world issues and have them addressed as a society with limits or regulations as deemed appropriate.

The pictures at the top of the Methodology tab shows where we came from over the last two centuries. The pictures on the left show where we believe we should be in ten years.

We see the possibility that governments would recognize the value of such an institution and evenually provide funding for such a program.

Dare we suggest that something similar to the Legislative Reserve could one day replace our centuries old legislative process providing the means to govern the new, dynamic, and emerging American way?

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Aug 12 2013: I dislike that idea thoroughly. There is no need to pad a legislature with extra layers. In the USA, while Congress might have ultimate authority over regulations, Congress routinely delegates the day-to-day business of regulation to the Executive branch, though various departments and agencies. These agencies need to be brought to heel by Congress and be required to have personnel in authority who are conversant with current technology. However, with few exceptions (NIH being one) This is not done. USDA has a mixed mandate and its entrenched bureaucrats vigorously oppose applying real science to agricultural and food safety. EPA is a purely political entity that also is extremely hostile to science. FCC is run by people who probably still think Amos & Andy is on the air. The problem is not going to be solved by creating a quasi-Congress. The problem is within the agencies, and it has to be cleaned up within the agencies.
    • Aug 17 2013: The premise is not to create a proto Congress, but to create a group that can evaluate new technology issues and present them to Congress in a way they can understand. Much of this is done in committee already, but by lobbyists and their pet scientists that only present one side of any issue.
      As for your tirade against the executive branch, you obviously have little idea how the government actually works and what Congress is actually capable of. The EPA is given a law to restrict the disposal of 250 chemical with some vague rules. The EPA proposes specific rules and distributes them to industry and the public. They get comments back and tweak the rules. Then they send a report to Congress outlining the rules and their progress. The report is thrown away because Congress has no clue what they are looking at or they don't care. The EPA applies their rules and conducts studies to select their 250 chemicals. They send notifications to the public and industry and Congress and get waves of comments back. Public hearings are held, details changed, more notices and hearings and changes and 5 years later they produce a final rule. Congress has been given annual reports and members have sent letters defending one industry or another and they may also have passed some laws during this time to exempt those industries from the laws, such as the mining industry or the agricultural industry. All the reports to Congress join the first one in the circular file. Congress doesn't have the capability to understand or manage the amount of data required to micromanage the EPA, let alone every federal agency. You are talking about 535 people that are on vacation 2/3 of the year with little or no experience in the civil service micromanaging over 1.5 million civil servants and likely another 1.5 million contractors that keep our federal government moving. It isn't possible and Congress wouldn't do it if they could.
      • Aug 18 2013: GAH! It's no wonder that these TED "conversations" amount to nothing. How can I spell it out any more simply: THE APPROPRIATE BODIES ALREADY EXIST. We have agencies that can advise Congress. Congressmen have technical staffers. THE LAST THING WE NEED IS YET MORE BUREAUCRACY! How can anyone be so stupid as to not understand this? Please provide the CONCLUSIVE PROOF that this additional group's reports will not just be ignored. Well? WHERE IS THE PROOF?

        Dogmatic stupidity is worse than ignorant stupidity.
        • thumb
          Aug 18 2013: Bryan, Slow down. If you thought that TED conversations amounted to nothing you would not have posted this conversation on TED.

          IMO, you are seeing people who have lost trust in our system. Senators and Representatives who come in wealthy and leave really rich ... That they can be sold or bought ... that the party in power can go around congress with Executive Orders .... The government is growing and they see this as MORE government ....

          Since they see government as corrupt .... they do not see how this would stop the corruption ... Big money is the real power ... I contribute to your election in a big way and you owe me .... ahhh ... the problems of bought politicians.
        • Aug 18 2013: There are no "technical staffers" in Congress. Staffers study how government works not how computers work. They push papers, pass messages, schedule meetings and press briefings. Virtually none of them have ever had more than a couple "technical" courses in their lives and fewer have any real world experience in a technical field. They have spent most of their short careers in government learning how to play the system. There are government agencies that report to Congress on technical matters, but they do it upon request from Congress, generally. Congress will send them a request for information and they will produce reports and briefs for the Congressmen. No one is really looking at where the technology is getting past the legal boundaries until something big happens and they rush to play catch up. Even then, most Congressmen have no idea what to do with the issues because some of them still think the internet is some network of vacuum tubes passing notes. They make decisions based on this ignorance and then fund reports that back up their beliefs instead of demonstrating the truth of the matter. If you have any doubts, then explain to me the scientific basis behind the term "gateway drug".

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.