Apparently, it is too much to ask our elected servants to read the bills before they vote on them:
Voting "Yes" on a bill you haven't read, and thus don't know whether its provisions are constitutional or not (even based on each member of Congress' own, often faulty interpretation of same), ought to be an immediately and automatically impeachable offense. How can you possibly fulfill your oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution, when you don't read and understand what you're voting on? In such a case the only honorable and acceptable alternative is to vote "No".
The fact that these bills are 1,000 pages (or more) long does not excuse a "Yes" vote on such bills. To the contrary, that fact ought to counsel even greater caution to read such a bill carefully before voting, because a bill that size has so many more opportunities to violate the Constitution's mandates. Of course, that would require our elected servants to actually want to keep their solemn word to protect and defend the Constitution, now wouldn't it? I guess it would also require members of Congress to have actually read our governing document, something I don't get the impression many of them have done.
The real issue in healthcare reform is neither Obamacare nor Trumpcare - Amid all the shouting and tumult over the defeat of "Trumpcare" in Congress, it's worth remembering that this is basically all political posturing. Both ...
25 minutes ago