It's not what you know

Not knowing the Trade Minister you appointed is not a real person.
Not good.
Not knowing you've committed an act of war by getting lost.
Not good.
Not knowing the origins of lipstick on your collar noticed by spouse.
Not good.
Not knowing how fast you were going when the Traffic Nazi asks.
Not good.
Not knowing how much is in the account when you cut that check.
Not good.

Knowing that you don't know what you said you know and using it to influence how other people know or don't know things, then having a reporter know that you don't know, who in turn let's everyone know you don't know.

Well, that's just Wiki-scandalous.

It's not what you know, it's what you don't know. I suppose those are the same thing. Then again, maybe they're not.

Let's say you sponsor the re-authorization of the Patriot Act. You just might want to know what's in there.

Or, you are the Congressional Research Service / Library of Congress writing the "USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization in Brief" you should know what's in there.

Or better yet, when you're any of those people and you're confronted with something you didn't know was in there, you should be able to know how it got there.

For the moment, put aside the common arguments about the Patriot Act and Civil Liberties. Instead let us address the Reauthorization changed the process for appointment of interim US Attorneys. You knew that right?

Briefly: Previous to the Reauthorization, should a US Attorney have left the position, the replacement would go through a Confirmation process in the Senate. If this did not occur within a certain period, the Judges for the respective District were empowered to appoint one.

Back to the present, however, the Reauthorization changed this. Now, the appointments are for the duration of the Presidents term and there is no confirmation requirement.

No confirmation means the Senate doesn't know anything about these appointees. That could be bad. What's worse is the Senate (and the House for that matter) don't know how this happened. Should they know? Yes, they're the ones who did it. Now, that's realllly bad.

The Constitutional issues surrounding the new and improved appointment process are a worthwhile discussion of their own. Sub-topics of Congressional Oversight, the Separation of Power, and impropriety with influence are all worthy. I'll leave that up to someone else.

Instead, I'll just make fun of Congress. It's great to watch the Elected as they bitch and moan about how bad this change is for the known universe. Especially in light of the fact that it was their idea. They just didn't know it was their idea. Unless of course, it wasn't their idea, and they just don't know what the hell they're doing most of the time. The latter being my choice.

"Ignorantia juris non excusat"

Ignorance of a law is not a valid defense when a reasonable person in the same circumstance would know such an act or omission would constitute a violation of law. The governed populace is held accountable to the enacted statutory law. Offering a defense of "I didn't know" isn't valid.

Applying such a legal theory to the Legislators-with-their-panties-in-a-bunch; they have no defense to not knowing. Unless of course, (I may be on to something here) they aren't covered by the "reasonable person" standard. Yes that must be it. Clearly the best tactic Congress can apply to their defense at this point is to admit they're idiots. "We the Congress today enter an Alford Plea of guilty to the charge of being nincompoops."

"It isn't possible for a member of Congress to read every word of every bill."

I'll give you that. It's true. Given the current speed of deforestation by legislative activity, it certainly would not be possible to read each of those oh-so-enjoyable works of governing wonder.

There is something then, that can be fixed.

1. Current legislation is written so technically and verbose that it makes impossible to understand on it's face. Certainly, much of this is done to eliminate loopholes, but it also creates them and further renders the whole affair intangible. Legislation after enactment must commonly be interpreted by an intermediate who offers the opinion as de facto law.

2. There is no real enforcement of bill spirit vs. content in legislative administration. It's not an easy task on it's honorable side as there is so much to administer. On the less than honorable side wherein appropriations for angry, purple, lesbian, chinchilla breeding are tagged on as part of the NASA budget, it's not even attempted. However, if you don't want to be hoodwinked again and you want to restore some credibility to the institution, enforce content focus.

3. Lastly, don't write so much. Yes, you were sent there to represent the interests of your constituents. You went there with projects. You have pressing issues which need to be addressed. The issues addressed in the "Geneva Distinctive Emblems Protection Act of 2006" were keeping everyone up in terror until you resolved it. It may have prevented an Austrian invasion-by-accident of Liechtenstein. For that, we are all grateful.

4. If you sponsor a bill, you damn well better read the whole thing. Better yet, you should have to recite it from memory. AND if someone asks you (Sen Specter - sponsor) how this appeared in the final compromise version, you should have a better answer than " I don't know"

• (Sec. 502) Modifies provisions regarding U.S. attorney vacancies to provide that a person appointed shall serve until the qualification of a U.S. attorney for the district (currently, until the earlier of that time or the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General).

5. If you don't have time to read it, don't vote on it. It must not be that important. If you had read it, you would have avoided the embarrassment of complaining about the result as Senator Feinstein has done with the Appointment Issue within the Reauthorization.

She voted for it. Did I mention she co-sponsored the Senate Bill for it? It's okay though, she didn't know.