Trib Article re: The Church & Members and Mass Deportations

[Rain]

33 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Maybe I should have read the whole thing? What do you think? ;o

Regardless, it's probably not the best course of action to argue immigrants can simply illegally cross to petition asylum. That might be granted but then again it might result in further prosecution.

Oh I agree!  Your article even said that.  I never felt it was best (like I said there are pros and cons to each method). I also saw some of the problems with people I worked with. I just knew it could happen, and I find it interesting to have both legal and illegal components. 

Edit: here I am talking about seeking asylum in the US.  Things may be different in other countries and circumstances. 

Edited December 13, 2024 by Rain

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Danzo said:

If a prosecutor declines to prosecute, then there really hasn't been any crime recognized by the state.

Respectfully, I think this is incorrect.  Prosecutors decline to prosecute all the time.  Sometimes there may be a question about whether the action constitutes a crime.  Much of the time, however, the action plainly was a crime, but prosecutors lack evidence sufficient to convict.

I have a friend who was sexually assaulted on a date.  She immediately reported the matter to the police, who took her clothes and collected forensic evidence.  The prosecutor eventually declined to prosecute, citing insufficient evidence.  Reasonable minds can disagree in this scenario, since whether the crime occurred depends on the consent or lack thereof of my friend.  She says she did not consent, but the prosecute apparently felt that this was not sufficient evidence.  The accused's family, meanwhile, may well have believed the charges to be false.  That's the way of things in some circumstances.

But not in others.  A brick thrown deliberately through an old man's front window is pretty much res ipsa loquitur as regarding criminal conduct.  But let's say that the brick was thrown through the window at 2:00 a.m., with no cameras or lights or witnesses around, and no fingerprints on the brick, and the brick was likely taken from a nearby construction site, and the investigation yields no leads and is subsequently closed.  Is it your position that the old man was not the victim of a crime?  That the unknown person who threw the brick did not commit an act in violation of penal law?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

The word "Crime" is a judgement word. In our system,  that Judgement is made by a court, not by Danzo, Not by smac97.

If a candy bar is stolen, and the officials decline to prosecute, after knowing who did it, then it means that that a court has not decided it is a crime.  In that sense, a crime can't be said to have occurred because the officials have declined to call what was done a crime, and/or have failed to successfully prosecute it. The officials may decide not to prosecute it for many different, good reasons.  maybe the offender was a Juvenile, Maybe the thief felt bad and returned it or paid for it later. Maybe the totality of the circumstances made prosecuting it unjust.

A crime is a crime because it is defined by the state as a crime.  Once the state declines to define said action as a crime, whether by refusal to prosecute,  legislating, a court refusing to convict, etc, It stops being a crime.

Just because it isn't a crime doesn't mean it is a moral act. That is decided by a different judge.  Just because an action is a crime doesn't make it immoral.

A crime is a crime because the state says it is a crime. When it stops saying it is a crime, (whether in the aggregate or individual case) it stops being a crime. 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The word "Crime" is a judgement word. In our system,  that Judgement is made by a court, not by Danzo, Not by smac97.

You persist in dodging questions regarding your reasoning.

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

If a candy bar is stolen, and the officials decline to prosecute, after knowing who did it, then it means that that a court has not decided it is a crime. 

Nope.  If the prosecutor declines to prosecute, then the court makes no decision one way or the other.

That does not mean that a crime has not occurred, only that it will not be prosecuted.  Do you think there is a difference here?

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

In that sense, a crime can't be said to have occurred because the officials have declined to call what was done a crime, and/or have failed to successfully prosecute it. The officials may decide not to prosecute it for many different, good reasons.  maybe the offender was a Juvenile, Maybe the thief felt bad and returned it or paid for it later. Maybe the totality of the circumstances made prosecuting it unjust.

Yes.  Circumstances may preclude the existence of one or both of the two ingredients to a crime: mens rea and actus reus.

Other times, though, both mens rea and actus reus may well be present, but the perp is still not charged (or charged but not prosecuted, or charged and prosecuted but not convicted).

I hope you will give my brick-through-the-old=man's-window example some consideration.

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

A crime is a crime because it is defined by the state as a crime. 

Yes.  And when the act meeting that definition occurs, a crime has been committed, regardless of whether the perp is later charged/prosecuted/convicted.

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Once the state declines to define said action as a crime, whether by refusal to prosecute,  legislating, a court refusing to convict, etc, It stops being a crime.

Respectfully, your reasoning eludes me.  I do not understand the "stops being a crime" thing.

In the moment the unknown fellow throws a brick through an old man's window, the act was a crime, but weeks or months later, when the prosecutor sends an email to the old man telling him the case is closed and won't be investigated further due to lack of progress, then the act "stops being a crime"?  Retroactively?  How does that work?

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

A crime is a crime because the state says it is a crime. When it stops saying it is a crime, (whether in the aggregate or individual case) it stops being a crime. 

The State frequently allows crimes to to uncharged, unprosecuted, unpunished.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Respectfully, I think this is incorrect.  Prosecutors decline to prosecute all the time.  Sometimes there may be a question about whether the action constitutes a crime.  Much of the time, however, the action plainly was a crime, but prosecutors lack evidence sufficient to convict.

I have a friend who was sexually assaulted on a date.  She immediately reported the matter to the police, who took her clothes and collected forensic evidence.  The prosecutor eventually declined to prosecute, citing insufficient evidence.  Reasonable minds can disagree in this scenario, since whether the crime occurred depends on the consent or lack thereof of my friend.  She says she did not consent, but the prosecute apparently felt that this was not sufficient evidence.  The accused's family, meanwhile, may well have believed the charges to be false.  That's the way of things in some circumstances.

But not in others.  A brick thrown deliberately through an old man's front window is pretty much res ipsa loquitur as regarding criminal conduct.  But let's say that the brick was thrown through the window at 2:00 a.m., with no cameras or lights or witnesses around, and no fingerprints on the brick, and the brick was likely taken from a nearby construction site, and the investigation yields no leads and is subsequently closed.  Is it your position that the old man was not the victim of a crime?  That the unknown person who threw the brick did not commit an act in violation of penal law?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think in your example a crime was certainly suspected, but since the state took no action, you really can't say that a crime was committed.  That is not your judgement, that is the State's Judgement to make (through its court system).  That does not mean there wasn't a wrong committed.  That doesn't even mean that your friend can't get some justice. She could sue civilly.  Even if she gets a judgement, you really can't call it a crime. You could call it a crime, but that opinion has no practical effect.

In the second example you use the word deliberately.  How would one know it was deliberate unless you conducted an inquiry with a person and made some sort of judgement.

In dealing with the example of crossing the border illegally, we are not dealing with a situation where we don't know who did it, or we don't have evidence the event occurred, we are dealing with a situation where the state knows with very little doubt as to what occurred,  and who did it.  Yet the state, with very few exceptions has decided not to prosecute, and really never has decided to prosecute on a regular basis, from the beginning. Nearly everyone who deals with it on a practical basis realizes it, and behaves as if the law doesn't exist.  Its just a bad law that really was never intended to be enforced except in a highly selective way.

 

Edited December 13, 2024 by Danzo

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You persist in dodging questions regarding your reasoning.

Nope.  If the prosecutor declines to prosecute, then the court makes no decision one way or the other.

That does not mean that a crime has not occurred, only that it will not be prosecuted.  Do you think there is a difference here?

Yes.  Circumstances may preclude the existence of one or both of the two ingredients to a crime: mens rea and actus reus.

Other times, though, both mens rea and actus reus may well be present, but the perp is still not charged (or charged but not prosecuted, or charged and prosecuted but not convicted).

I hope you will give my brick-through-the-old=man's-window example some consideration.

Yes.  And when the act meeting that definition occurs, a crime has been committed, regardless of whether the perp is later charged/prosecuted/convicted.

Respectfully, your reasoning eludes me.  I do not understand the "stops being a crime" thing.

In the moment the unknown fellow throws a brick through an old man's window, the act was a crime, but weeks or months later, when the prosecutor sends an email to the old man telling him the case is closed and won't be investigated further due to lack of progress, then the act "stops being a crime"?  Retroactively?  How does that work?

The State frequently allows crimes to to uncharged, unprosecuted, unpunished.  

Thanks,

-Smac

In all of the example you give,  someone has to make a judgment that the crime has occurred.   "Crime" and "event" need to have "judgement" to become equivalent.

In the cases you mention, judgment comes from you, then the state confirms your judgement or not.

You become the judge of what is criminal and what is not. The state can make the correct judgement which agrees with you or the state can make the incorrect judgement and decline to prosecute. If prosecution results in an acquittal, than obviously the state made the wrong decision, because I crime had to have been committed. You have already made that judgement. Which works for you,  I guess.  If you see something as a crime, then, in your mind it is a crime. 

However, without the blessing of the State, what you or I believe in our minds has to stay in our minds.

 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

In all of the example you give,  someone has to make a judgment that the crime has occurred.   "Crime" and "event" need to have "judgement" to become equivalent.

I think you are being pedantic in this.  A person steals a candy bar. This is a crime.  If he gets away with it, it's still a crime.

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

In the cases you mention, judgment comes from you, then the state confirms your judgement or not.

You become the judge of what is criminal and what is not.

I think any person who surveys the damage done by a brick through an old man's window can reasonably characterize that action by the brickthrower as "a crime."

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

The state can make the correct judgement which agrees with you or the state can make the incorrect judgement and decline to prosecute.  If prosecution results in an acquittal, than obviously the state made the wrong decision, because I crime had to have been committed. You have already made that judgement. Which works for you,  I guess.  If you see something as a crime, then, in your mind it is a crime. 

However, without the blessing of the State, what you or I believe in our minds has to stay in our minds.

So the old man with the broken window is not the victim of a crime.

The storeowner whose goods were taken without payment and without his consent is not the victim of a crime.

A woman who is subjected to forcible sexual assault by an assailant who is never identified or prosecuted is not the victim of a crime.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

I currently serve as an elected official in a legislative capacity. In theory, we could really decide to make anything we want illegal.  There are always complaints that, in theory, we could be resolved by just making a law that prohibits the annoying behavior.  In practice, making a behavior illegal doesn't stop the behavior.  We could make it a crime, but without the consent of the police force, (who would have to care enough about the issue to arrest someone), the prosecutor (who would have to care enough to put together a case to the court) and the Court (who would have to care enough to convict and decide our crime didn't conflict with other laws),  It really wouldn't be a crime.  Having a law on the books isn't enough.

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think in your example a crime was certainly suspected, but since the state took no action, you really can't say that a crime was committed. 

Respectfully, yes, I think I can say that a crime was committed.  A brick thrown through an old man's front window at 2:00 a.m. by an unknown person might have been thrown by someone who is so mentally deranged as to preclude the formation of mens rea.  But such definitive proof and reasoning is often not available.

20 minutes ago, Danzo said:

That is not your judgement, that is the State's Judgement to make (through its court system).  That does not mean there wasn't a wrong committed.  That doesn't even mean that your friend can't get some justice. She could sue civilly.  Even if she gets a judgement, you really can't call it a crime. You could call it a crime, but that opinion has no practical effect.

Broadly, a person who volitionally crossed the border in violation of the laws of the United States, without the consent of the United States, has committed a crime.  I think this is beyond reasonable dispute.  This happens millions of times every year.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So the old man with the broken window is not the victim of a crime.

Unless  crime has been committed. Windows can be broken for many reasons that are not criminal in nature. Who decides? You?

 

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The storeowner whose goods were taken without payment and without his consent is not the victim of a crime.

Goods from a store can go missing for many reasons that are not a crime. Who decides? You?

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Broadly, a person who volitionally crossed the border in violation of the laws of the United States, without the consent of the United States, has committed a crime.  I think this is beyond reasonable dispute.  This happens millions of times every year.

Thanks,

-Smac

Except it is almost never treated as a crime.  Even though what is done is not in dispute and who did it is not in dispute. I have a strong feeling that if you were in position to decide whether to treat it as a crime, you would not treat it as a crime for many good reasons.

If no one treats it as a crime, is it really a crime?  Who decides?

Edited December 13, 2024 by Danzo

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

Broadly, a person who volitionally crossed the border in violation of the laws of the United States, without the consent of the United States, has committed a crime.  I think this is beyond reasonable dispute.  This happens millions of times every year.

Except it is almost never treated as a crime. 

All the efforts to secure the border would indicate otherwise.

17 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Even though what is done is not in dispute and who did it is not in dispute. I have a strong feeling that if you were in position to decide whether to treat it as a crime, you would not treat it as a crime for many good reasons.

If no one treats it as a crime, is it really a crime?  Who decides?

The law.  I think securing our border is an important, even vital, function of government.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The law.

Who makes the Law?

[MustardSeed]

Respectfully it is my opinion that getting hung up on definitions bogs down what otherwise might be a meaningful conversation.  FWIW. It happens far too much here IMO

Edited December 13, 2024 by MustardSeed

[Danzo]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The law.  I think securing our border is an important, even vital, function of government.

 

Against women and children?  How Heroic.

Against people who want to work (a rarity among our current native population)?

A law that makes ordinary and desirable traits illegal is not legitimate.

A law that oppresses women and children should not be legitimate.

A law that punishes people for getting married and rewards them for immorality should not be legitimate

A law that prevents families from visiting should not be legitimate

And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Danzo said:

For those who don't understand the process to be a criminal 

            1.      Someone does something that violates a law

           2.       The police (or someone in a police-like agency) has to care enough to investigate

           3.        The prosecutor (Department of Justice or other prosecutor) must issue an indictment, usually approved by a grand jury.

           4.        The prosecutor has to give enough evidence to a court of law to show they have prima facia evidence that the person did the thing that violates the law and must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt or the person can plead guilty

Only after these steps can someone be called a criminal.

Most of the time step 2 prevents the process going forward.

 

What would you call someone who was a habitual undetected, uncharged, or convicted lawbreaker?  Obviously you can call them “habitual lawbreaker”, just wondering if there is a legal term for it….

It is not surprising to me that calling someone a “criminal” when not convicted, etc. is highly problematic in a legal sense because it violates the “innocent till proven guilty” principle.

Do you have a problem with people using “criminal” in a casual conversation since outside of the law we assume guilt all the time and should in numerous cases where there is no conviction in order to protect ourselves and others?  Or do you think it leads to too many false assumptions?  Or something else?

Edited December 13, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

rarity among our current native population

All you have to do is look at people taking on home renovation projects, caring for their yards, doing volunteer work or some pretty strenuous hobbies to see working in general is not the issue for many people.  We have been taught some work is beneath us or is inherently unsatisfying…such as housework.  I get that many people don’t like the endlessness and often brainlessness effort, but when I was not so screwed up, I found it more restorative than meditation, which my brain hates.  Physical familiarity movement that does not require much attention lets my brain drift much better.

And having a clean house or nice meal at the end of it, great reward.

I also know a lot of people who enjoy housework itself, they would love to clean others’ homes; it’s the personal baggage that gets attached to home housework that diminishes the enjoyment…such as getting constantly confronted that certain family members are not picking up after themselves or contributing much to making the house a home while thoughtlessly benefitting from others’ efforts (never saying thank you, etc).

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

By and large, 8 U.S. Code § 1325 is enforced as a crime. Not treated as a crime.

Could you clarify this?  Enforced as a crime meaning when they care to enforce it, it gets labeled a crime (after someone is convicted? what would the prosecutor call the act in their opening statement where they are trying to persuade jurors that a crime has been committed?)?  But most of the time it is not enforced, so you are saying generally speaking it is not treated as a crime.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Is it your position that the old man was not the victim of a crime?  That the unknown person who threw the brick did not commit an act in violation of penal law?

Maybe the person thought he saw a fire in the home and wanted to wake up the inhabitants.  Maybe they thought they saw someone being assaulted and they wanted to scare off the predator.

Wouldn’t you need to know the reason for an action to accurately label it a crime in many cases?  I think personal assault cases that make no sense in any way as self defense such as in rape the reason probably doesn’t need to be known, but if one didn’t know the circumstances of an attack, could one automatically rule out self defense in many cases?

The woman whose car was stolen is a victim, but what if it was appropriated because a person found someone injured and bleeding out on the sidewalk, lacked a cell phone and couldn’t get the woman’s attention or anyone else’s to get them to call an ambulance, so they took the car to rush the injured individual to the hospital, but the person died on the way, so traumatizing the person who tried to save them that they just abandoned the car somewhere and walked off forgetting they had done so.  Highly unlikely of course, but a possibility, correct?

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Respectfully it is my opinion that getting hung up on definitions bogs down what otherwise might be a meaningful conversation.  FWIW. It happens far too much here IMO

But it brings out nuances that can be fun to explore sometimes.  I am finding the conversation fascinating myself.

I do agree even I get annoyed at times when definition debates occur though and I also realize many people don’t want to drill down details quite as minutely as I often do.

Edited December 13, 2024 by Calm

[Danzo]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

What would you call someone who was a habitual undetected, uncharged, or convicted lawbreaker?  Obviously you can call them “habitual lawbreaker”, just wondering if there is a legal term for it….

It is not surprising to me that calling someone a “criminal” when not convicted, etc. is highly problematic in a legal sense because it violates the “innocent till proven guilty” principle.

Do you have a problem with people using “criminal” in a casual conversation since outside of the law we assume guilt all the time and should in numerous cases where there is no conviction in order to protect ourselves and others?  Or do you think it leads to too many false assumptions?  Or something else?

The term "Criminal" in casual conversation can be problematic because most people think "Criminal' Means "Bad" or "Illegal".  While it is true that much of what people view as Criminal is bad, very few things that are "illegal" are actually "Criminal". 

Also much of what is "Criminal" is really not considered "Bad" by most people.  I have heard it said many times that the Federal government has actually lost track of how many things are "Crimes" because the multitude of "criminal" offences that reference other laws and statutes and Administrative law. Even violating the laws of foreign governments can be the basis of a Federal Criminal Violation.  I have heard it said that you should never talk to a police man or other law enforcement agent, even when you know you are innocent because no one can really know they are actually innocent because if you don't know all of the laws how could you know you are innocent of all the laws?   I have found that to be true in my profession with clients who have unknowingly confessed to violations that they might not have even committed because they didn't understand the law they being asked about.

i think when people use the word criminal, they really mean "someone who does bad things" instead of "Someone who has been convicted of violating a criminal statute".

I would prefer people just say someone who does bad things (what ever bad things they may have done). Its more clear that way.

People come to me all of the time to confess to doing things that they did that were "illegal" or "against the law".  They often ask me whether they should be afraid of going to jail for these illegal things that they did.  Most of the time I tell them with 100% confidence that they are not at risk of going to jail. Even though there are laws on the books that could give them the impression that they are at risk. The reason they are not at risk is because of the policies of the government to not charge people criminally in most of these cases.  If the government ever were to strictly enforce theses criminal statues they would probable have a mob outside their offices with pitchforks and torches. Even though I can find a criminal statute that would indicate some risk of going to jail it would be irresponsible, and probably unethical to tell them they committed crimes. 

Calling something a crime almost always means "Something someone else does that is bad", but it were to be used mean "Something someone does that could be interpreted by someone to voilate a law that calls for criminal penalties"  We could just say everyone is a criminal and commits crimes all the time. 

Then it really wouldn't mean anything (however it may inspire people change some of the stupid laws out there).

 

 

[Danzo]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Could you clarify this?  Enforced as a crime meaning when they care to enforce it, it gets labeled a crime (after someone is convicted? what would the prosecutor call the act in their opening statement where they are trying to persuade jurors that a crime has been committed?)?  But most of the time it is not enforced, so you are saying generally speaking it is not treated as a crime.

Its not treated as a crime, because the government does not want to use that particular law.

According to this report the government only charged 5,340.00 people of a first time violation in Fiscal year 2024.  (oddly enough, no one in Utah was charged, I guess you don't have an immigration problem in Utah). Most of these were probably ad-on charges to other offences as plea bargaining chips or consolation prizes to the prosecutors for failing to get bigger charges to stick.

What this really means is that the government uses other tools and laws to try and enforce immigration.  Charging people criminally is a lot of work for the prosecutors.  They need to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt.  Then they might get a Jury that doesn't agree with them,  They need to get the other guy a lawyer.  Its too much work and my experience with government is that extra work is Kryptonite to government workers.

Mostly the government uses civil enforcement proceedings (fines and deportation).  This has many advantages for the government.  You don't have to deal with the annoying Judicial Department (Immigration Judges are ALJs that report to the president and his minions rather than judges and juries. You also don't have to worry about that annoying "beyond reasonable doubt" standard that criminal convictions are subject to.

The biggest reason to pursue civil enforcement rather than criminal enforcement is that criminal enforcement has a statute of limitations. while civil enforcement doesn't have any. The government gets forever.   I have seen 30, 40 and even 50 years since the evil deed happened. The get to punish elderly people who came over as children of teenagers;  Mothers with children.  Children who were brought here as babies.  Adults with spouses and families who were brought over as children. Without a statute of limitations, and with the lower burden of proof, the possibilities are literally endless!

 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The get to punish elderly people who came over as children of teenagers;  Mothers with children.  Children who were brought here as babies. 

Why have they chosen to punish in these cases in your experience?

[let’s roll]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

I currently serve as an elected official in a legislative capacity. In theory, we could really decide to make anything we want illegal.  There are always complaints that, in theory, we could be resolved by just making a law that prohibits the annoying behavior.  In practice, making a behavior illegal doesn't stop the behavior.  We could make it a crime, but without the consent of the police force, (who would have to care enough about the issue to arrest someone), the prosecutor (who would have to care enough to put together a case to the court) and the Court (who would have to care enough to convict and decide our crime didn't conflict with other laws),  It really wouldn't be a crime.  Having a law on the books isn't enough.

With your current position, I’m interested in your thoughts on why the legislative branch of the Federal government has the lowest approval rating (38%) of the three branches (executive branch was 43% and judicial 47%).  
 
Years ago when I was a K Street lawyer, someone expressed to me their frustration with legislators by saying the problem with legislators is that, like the old adage, they spend far too much time talking about whether a sound is made when a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, when their constituents would prefer they stop talking in hypotheticals and deal with the realities of the consequences of the fallen tree.  

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

With your current position, I’m interested in your thoughts on why the legislative branch of the Federal government has the lowest approval rating (38%) of the three branches (executive branch was 43% and judicial 47%).  
 
Years ago when I was a K Street lawyer, someone expressed to me their frustration with legislators by saying the problem with legislators is that, like the old adage, they spend far too much time talking about whether a sound is made when a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, when their constituents would prefer they stop talking in hypotheticals and deal with the realities of the consequences of the fallen tree.  

I think you are spot on.

I think the main problem that people see with congress is that they really don't anything.  Congress seems to have abdicate their legislative duties and just given it to the executive branch.  Immigration law is a prime example.  Pretty much everyone agrees it is broken, but few attempts are made at fixing it.  I am not talking about major policy changes, I am talking about removing absurdities in how the law is implemented.

My main specialty is tax law, there are so many examples where everyone has agreed that laws are written so poorly that they couldn't possibly mean what they say.  I can give examples where the IRS pretty much assumes that congress was drunk when they wrote the law and it can be ignored because it doesn't make sense to anyone.

If Congress would get things done and actually pass laws, i think congress as an institution would get a bigger reputation. (although individual congressmen might suffer).