In the fine tradition...

of northwest radicalism, Representative Brian Baird (D-WA) offers a Washington Post op-ed with the provacative headline "We Need To Read The Bills." Hoo boy! He's really out there, huh?

Actually, Brian, a fine fellow of mostly moderate instincts, offers a proposal that's not quite as extreme as the headline suggests. He merely asks that Congresscritters get a chance to read the bills.

...House rules for the 109th Congress should insist that members have a minimum of three days to read legislation before voting and, further, that any waiver of this requirement require a two-thirds vote of the full House. Ideally, major pieces of legislation should be available for much more time so members have the opportunity not only to study the language personally but also to discuss the law with those who would be directly impacted.

Sounds kind of sensible, really. I mean, even given the chance, most members of Congress will doubtless palm the reading duties off on staff, but shouldn't the opportunity exist? And after all, as Brian points out, it's not such a novel notion...

The Republican Leadership Task Force on Deliberative Democracy stated the matter succinctly in 1993, "A bill that cannot survive a 3-day scrutiny of its provisions is a bill that should not be enacted. . . . The world's most powerful legislature cannot in good conscience deprive its membership of a brief study of a committee report prior to final action."

Of course, it's been a long decade. I suspect any common sense the GOP might have had was long since subjected to term limits.