View Full Version : It's the voters fault
Don't know how many of you saw this, but on “Meet the Press” this past weekend, host David Gregory peppered a bipartisan panel of senators and representatives about the deplorable state of irresponsibility in the nation's capital. Without a hint of irony, Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA & Fannie Mae, offered this gem of accountability:
“Frankly, I think that part of the problem is the voters. You know, nobody in the Senate — well, a couple in the Senate — but nobody in the House parachuted in. And the voters have to be tougher. I don't think they hold us to a high enough standard.”
Everyone got that? The nation teeters on the brink of economic disaster, the result of a failure of oversight and regulation. Congress is doling out portions of the economic stimulus to special interests. The White House is letting the revolving door of insiders and lobbyists go supersonic.
And it's our fault, the voters. It's our fault. What an arrogant flaming A-hole!
Don't know how many of you saw this, but on “Meet the Press” this past weekend, host David Gregory peppered a bipartisan panel of senators and representatives about the deplorable state of irresponsibility in the nation's capital. Without a hint of irony, Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA & Fannie Mae, offered this gem of accountability:
“Frankly, I think that part of the problem is the voters. You know, nobody in the Senate — well, a couple in the Senate — but nobody in the House parachuted in. And the voters have to be tougher. I don't think they hold us to a high enough standard.”
Everyone got that? The nation teeters on the brink of economic disaster, the result of a failure of oversight and regulation. Congress is doling out portions of the economic stimulus to special interests. The White House is letting the revolving door of insiders and lobbyists go supersonic.
And it's our fault, the voters. It's our fault. What an arrogant flaming A-hole!
CSquare...
I have to concur with his statement. Voters aren't tough enough and for several reasons:
1. People vote within their party lines, never looking at what the opposing candidate might have to say (even if it might be agreeable to them).
2. People vote for the same candidate over and over again (better the enemy you know than the one you don't)
3. People don't pay attention to ALL the issues on a candidates platforms, but look at other things i.e., "oh I like him he's so handsome"; "oh yeah, he's cool, saw him playing the saxophone, he's just like us"; "oh I will vote for him/her because they are African American, Indian American, Muslim American" blah blah blah (I think I am starting to gag here)
4. People do not vote using the slightest amount of intelligence.
I am sure there are other reasons why we can blame the American public. We can look at the last Presidential election and see that American voters (and probably those illegals that snuck in as well) have put us in the toilet.
WE do need to hold them to a high standard. But in our society now, a higher standard is a lower standard compared to how most of us grew up and what society was like "back in the day". IMMHO
I think if the American public got tougher on these sitting politicians and voted their butts out of office after a low standard term, then those coming on board to run for office would realize, "HEY, I better have my act together and do my job right!" If we kept doing that, eventually, we might have a government that would be "of the people and for the people" (instead for the lobbyists and their perspective companies/corporations, etc)! Unfortunately, that is a utopian dream....because people just don't pay attention anymore. IMO
I don't normally agree with any DEM....just not in my physiological make up (:D) but this is one instance that I do agree. (OMG, where is my gun so I can shoot myself! :D)
Peregrino
02-12-2009, 10:38
I must respectfully disagree. I think he's absolutely right. In fact, I submit that his continued presence in Congress proves the point. An ignorant, complacent, disinterested, and uninvolved populace is the surest guarantor of inevitable tyrany. Chairman Mao said it best: "A people have the government they deserve." 65,000,000 voters drank the Kool-Aid; now we all live with the results. Anybody for a state by state campaign for a Constitutional Ammendment mandating term limits for ALL elected officials?
Dozer523
02-12-2009, 10:49
I must respectfully disagree. I think he's absolutely right. In fact, I submit that his continued presence in Congress proves the point. An ignorant, complacent, disinterested, and uninvolved populace is the surest guarantor of inevitable tyrany. Chairman Mao said it best: "A people have the government they deserve." 65,000,000 voters drank the Kool-Aid; now we all live with the results. Anybody for a state by state campaign for a Constitutional Ammendment mandating term limits for ALL elected officials?
I FEEL your pain!
I felt the same way four years ago and eight years ago. Of course, the number was A LOT smaller then!:p
(Backing toward the door. . . ;))
Barney was being interviewed on the CBS Early Show this morning--what an oxygen thief. Listening to him talk is like listening to that beaver in The Lady and the Tramp cartoon movie.
However, as far as his statement on Meet The Press--he's absolutely correct. Term limits for politicians (except for the POTUS) are established by the voting public...and if the voters shirk that awesome responsibility...Voila!...it's the Barney, Harry, Nancy, Chris and Barry Show! Admission to the show is free...but watch out for the price of the 'snacks' and 'Flavor-aid' they're selling! :mad:
OTOH--I'll bet ol' Barney doesn't see himself as one of those incompetents who should be voted out of office, either. :rolleyes:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
greenberetTFS
02-12-2009, 15:16
Richard hit the nail on the head. Barney has no clue that he's part of the problem. This is why this situation won't go away.....................:mad:
GB TFS :munchin
I heard it put this way. The US Capital Building is like a Roach Motel, Politicians check in but never check out. Many years ago a Citizen was elected to Congress, left his Home Town, did his Term. Then returned to his Home Town. IMO, Term limits would solve the majority of our problems. What I see today Disgust me.
I heard it put this way. The US Capital Building is like a Roach Motel, Politicians check in but never check out. Many years ago a Citizen was elected to Congress, left his Home Town, did his Term. Then returned to his Home Town. IMO, Term limits would solve the majority of our problems. What I see today Disgust me.
What would it take to get term limits? I never hear a regular person who is opposed to them.
Rep. Barney Frank...arrogant flaming A-hole!
I am learning not to drink anything while reading Csquare's posts. Very very disturbing imagery.:eek:
On the topic of voters' responsibility, a point that Frank appears not to have mentioned is the insidious practice of congressional redistricting. Using software, legislators can redraw the boundaries of their constituencies to exclude residents who might vote for a candidate of an opposing party. Add this practice to the advantages of incumbency, few congressional races in the House of Representatives are truly competitive.
An irony of Frank's statement is that he is acknowledging that he is not working as hard as he could: an admission that is as revealing as it is self destructive. Hopefully, a future opponent of Mr. Franks will run a television ad that juxtaposes Franks arguing that Fannie and Freddy did not need closer regulation (as the Bush administration requested) and this recent comment about voters.:munchin
What would it take to get term limits? I never hear a regular person who is opposed to them.
Congress votes on Term Limits. So they would have to vote themselves out of Office, never going to happen. To many benefits and to much income in that worthless White Dome Building. No matter what corrupt Party has control.
Radar Rider
02-12-2009, 18:03
One of the weakest arguments that I've heard against term limits is that the voters can limit the terms of the politicians, and they should therefore not have a mandated limit. The problem that I have with that is that I can't vote for the opponent of Patricia Schroeder, Ted Kennedy, or Tip O'Neil.
The President is limited to two terms; the rest of the gang should be limited to 12 years (Two terms for a Senator, Six for a Representative).
I still can't figure out why Robert KKK Byrd is still in Washington; that dude is older than dirt.
Congress votes on Term Limits. So they would have to vote themselves out of Office, never going to happen. To many benefits and to much income in that worthless White Dome Building. No matter what corrupt Party has control.
We need new founding fathers...:D
"We need new founding fathers..."
A little more SA on where you are posting (ie a open forum) and just whom might be reading this (ie the FBI etc.......).
One of the weakest arguments that I've heard against term limits is that the voters can limit the terms of the politicians, and they should therefore not have a mandated limit.
Kinda makes you wonder why the "Founding Fathers" set it up that way, does it? Perhaps you should read their arguments. Personally, I agree with their thinking behind this issue and am of the opinion that we don't need another amendment to the US Constitution in an effort to mandate something that should be a "cherished" duty as "responsibly educated" citizens and voters of a democratic republic. Unfortunately, pols like ol' Barney know how irresponsibly fickle the voting public can be, and cleverly use it to their benefit and our dismay...which inevitably leads to an expression of opinions fostering on-going arguments like this and the predictable call for quick reform. However, because I personally fear the inevitably far-reaching law of unintended consequences of such a reform, as a citizen, I prefer to have the power to 'limit' my pols as I see fit...and whether or how I choose to exercise that power or not is my choice, not theirs. Yet. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
We need new founding fathers...:D
Is this Newspeak revisionism from Oceania's Minitrue (Ministry of Truth)? :rolleyes:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Peregrino
02-12-2009, 19:30
What would it take to get term limits? I never hear a regular person who is opposed to them.
Constitutional ammendment. The Founding Fathers gave us three methods to ammend the Constitution. The first, Congressional initiative will never happen. The other two have never been used. One, Constitutional Convention, is generally considered too dangerous - everything is on the table; they can literally throw everything out and start from scratch. That leaves the State sponsored initiative. As some of our more learned members have pointed out - people like/vote for their representatives while holding everybody else's with contempt. Witness Congress' approval ratings. If the antipathy for "the other guy's dirtbag" could be converted into a national movement, it might succeed. After all (considering my current audience) who wouldn't like to oust the Pelosis, Reids, Schumers, et. al. that keep getting inflicted on the rest of the country term after term? Food for thought. :munchin
ETA: Richard, I understand and respect your reluctance. We learned the "Law of Unintended Consequences" from the same teachers. Unfortunately, I'm tired of being dictated to by career politicians representing 1/435th part of the population. The lunatic fringe has become the tyrany of the minority. A republic is intended to protect the rights of minorities, not enthrone them through a perverted seniority scheme that subordinates the rights of the majority.
One of the weakest arguments that I've heard against term limits is that the voters can limit the terms of the politicians, and they should therefore not have a mandated limit. The problem that I have with that is that I can't vote for the opponent of Patricia Schroeder, Ted Kennedy, or Tip O'Neil.
The President is limited to two terms; the rest of the gang should be limited to 12 years (Two terms for a Senator, Six for a Representative).
Sir--
I respectfully disagree. In addition to QP Richard's point, I would suggest that due to the complexity of today's issues, a mandatory turn-over of representatives and senators could slow down the process of crafting good legislation. In coming congressmen and senators would need time to get up to speed on an issue before they could move forward responsibly.
Sir--
could slow down the process of crafting good legislation.
Monkeys flinging poo would be better then what we have had for the past bunch of years and foreseeable future.
Keep to the moral high ground! Peregrino
Peregrino
02-12-2009, 20:11
Sir--
I respectfully disagree. In addition to QP Richard's point, I would suggest that due to the complexity of today's issues, a mandatory turn-over of representatives and senators could slow down the process of crafting good legislation. In coming congressmen and senators would need time to get up to speed on an issue before they could move forward responsibly.
And I Sir, must respectfully disagree with you. "That government which governs least, governs best". (Mis)Quote from some dead guy. The Constitution restricts the Federal Government to providing for the common defense, conducting foreign relations, regulating interstate commerce, and collecting "taxes" to support the first three. Everything else is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! A higher turnover rate might encourage them to focus on their duties vs. armed robbery (taxes in excess of those required to provide for constitutionally required functions) and pandering to special interests in order to "buy" power/prestige.
Dozer523
02-12-2009, 20:34
The Constitution restricts the Federal Government to providing for the common defense, conducting foreign relations, regulating interstate commerce, and collecting "taxes" to support the first three. Everything else is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
What else is left? The common defense covers everything from inside and foreign relations covers everything from the outside and interstate commerce covers everything "in between" -- well, at least everything between the states. And taxes pay for it. Seriously, what falls outside those parameters?
As for limiting terms ,forget that! I'm from Spokane and it was WAY COOL when MY Rep (Tom Foley) was the Speaker of the House. We didn't get to be the most important district in the country by playing musical chairs. Oh yeah we ran into some "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" in a drone named George Nethercutt. He ran on the promise of "I'll only be there for 2 terms". (Four years . . . big whoop) Guess what? As a district we got nothing because he couldn't figure out the system. At year four he realized he hadn't gotten anything done. FNG switches to DIH. (Deer in the Headlights) He asked for more time. It was all BS. He got tossed and he never moved home. Stayed in Georgetown. At least we saw Tom a lot, and we saw his local staff even more.
Barney Frank was right on the money... the blame lies squarely on the voters. Our nations politicians have become a punch line. Yet, how many times have the good senators been re-elected? The voters bitch about gerrymandering and carpet baggers, yet ACORN gets away with fraud and Hillary was a New York senator able to walk on water.
Hell... ole' uncle Barney himself is the proof in the pudding. If the American voter had any good sense Mr Frank would be selling pencils on a street corner. Instead we let him help tug on the nations purse strings.
Term limits are a good idea on the surface, but then again, isn't the election booth the place where term limits begin? People dont want term limits or Ted Kennedy would have been out of a job 30 years ago. VP Biden couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat, but how long has he been on the national scene? Now he is the VP... This nations politics has become more bizarre than a bad Mefloquine dream.
As far as term limits slowing down progress... good. I'd like to see of fistful of sugar thrown into the gas tank we call Washington DC. If for no other reason it would be a lot cheaper.
Peregrino
02-12-2009, 21:32
What else is left? The common defense covers everything from inside and foreign relations covers everything from the outside and interstate commerce covers everything "in between" -- well, at least everything between the states. And taxes pay for it. Seriously, what falls outside those parameters?
As for limiting terms ,forget that! I'm from Spokane and it was WAY COOL when MY Rep (Tom Foley) was the Speaker of the House. We didn't get to be the most important district in the country by playing musical chairs. Oh yeah we ran into some "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" in a drone named George Nethercutt. He ran on the promise of "I'll only be there for 2 terms". (Four years . . . big whoop) Guess what? As a district we got nothing because he couldn't figure out the system. At year four he realized he hadn't gotten anything done. FNG switches to DIH. (Deer in the Headlights) He asked for more time. It was all BS. He got tossed and he never moved home. Stayed in Georgetown. At least we saw Tom a lot, and we saw his local staff even more.
It looks as though you and I are discussing this from differing interpretations of the Constitution. You appear to hold a "constructionist" viewpoint while I adhere to the "original intent" position. My interpretation is based on the Constitution itself and the supporting documents (DofI, Federalist Papers, and collected works of the FFs), yours appears to conform to the current "de facto" reality of ever increasing Congressional and Judicial manipulation to meet political agendas (my, but that's a biased statement :D). In my interpretation, the "common defense" is the standing army, the national borders, and legitimate expeditionary forrays in support of national objectives (none of which has been dealt with responsibly IMNSHO). Foreign Policy is treaties and declarations of war. Interstate commerce is about regulating trade within the various states; e.g. prohibition of internal tarrifs, standardization of weights and measures, etc. Those three powers are actually very limited in the original documents. My viewpoint restricts everything else to the States, per the 10th Ammendment (unfortunately largely discredited following the "War of Yankee Aggression"). The constructionist viewpoint has been expanding the scope of those powers at an ever increasing pace since the Civil War. Growth in the Federal Government became explosive under FDR. If you look at federal legislation a goodly percentage of it is a perversion of the interstate commerce clause.
Your argument about Speaker Foley reinforces my point in favor of term limits. The "largess" he bestowed on his home district was STOLEN from someone else. What is the moral difference between an armed robber and the tax man with the armed might of the government to enforce his "collections"? My .02.
Radar Rider
02-12-2009, 21:36
Kinda makes you wonder why the "Founding Fathers" set it up that way, does it? Perhaps you should read their arguments. Personally, I agree with their thinking behind this issue and am of the opinion that we don't need another amendment to the US Constitution in an effort to mandate something that should be a "cherished" duty as "responsibly educated" citizens and voters of a democratic republic. Unfortunately, pols like ol' Barney know how irresponsibly fickle the voting public can be, and cleverly use it to their benefit and our dismay...which inevitably leads to an expression of opinions fostering on-going arguments like this and the predictable call for quick reform. However, because I personally fear the inevitably far-reaching law of unintended consequences of such a reform, as a citizen, I prefer to have the power to 'limit' my pols as I see fit...and whether or how I choose to exercise that power or not is my choice, not theirs. Yet. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I don't disagree with your POV, and I do support the right of the electorate to choose their own representatives. The problem that I have is that I can't vote for the opponent of Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. I'm stuck with them in D.C. though, and that is what bugs me.
I don't disagree with your POV, and I do support the right of the electorate to choose their own representatives. The problem that I have is that I can't vote for the opponent of Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. I'm stuck with them in D.C. though, and that is what bugs me.
Yeah...but that's 'representative' government and those representatives do--for better or worse--represent their voting constituencies. My Congress-critter for a long time despite my voting against him every two years was Dick (appropriate name there) Armey; now I've got Pete Sessions, a rather decent pol. FWIW, I had TM LDRS and TM SGTS who weren't thought much of either...but--as a TEAM--we learned to function very effectively despite their...ahem...leadership. IMO, we need to do the same as a nation and support those who are competent while exposing and isolating into insignificance those who aren't.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Is it the voters' fault? Partly. I suspect the real problem is a failure of citizenship, with voting representing only a small portion of a greater challenge - a challenge once seen as a duty.
Congressman Foley seems to be a good case in point. He did what the voters who elected him wanted him to do. He was responsive to a majority of those voters within the standards the voters maintained. For this reason, term limits, while great fun, cannot solve the problem. The voters will simply elect whoever promises them the juiciest benefits and the tastiest pork.
And we have to ask ourselves about the voters. Saoirse points out that the vote is often applied capriciously. We may know something of the senior officials we elect - but I think few cast their votes carefully for the candidates for lower offices. Among voters, few inform themselves deeply of the issues; I wonder how many have the available time to do so.
What is the answer? I suspect it lies in full participation in the political process, from the level of party precinct chairman to the Presidency, by far more citizens. I think it includes informed and extensive discussion of key policy issues - not only on the internet (although that is important), but on the front porches (yes, I know, that's an anachronism) and at the dinner tables across the land. It may require us to define what our values really are, what we as a nation and a people truly desire - and what we're willing to do to accomplish those ends.
Will that happen? I'm sorry to say that I don't see any such trends. But perhaps such discussions as we enjoy here will form the seed.
Defender968
02-12-2009, 22:56
SI would suggest that due to the complexity of today's issues, a mandatory turn-over of representatives and senators could slow down the process of crafting good legislation.
Sigaba what is this "good" legislation you speak of, I've been watching pretty close this last year, and I've seen several trillion dollars of complete horse Sh@$ spending, lots of different bills to take away our rights and oh yes the national watermelon month, otherwise our elected officials have exchanged O2 for CO2 with little positive effect IMO. It appears to me when congress acts quickly we get bills like the TARP and this latest monstrosity which even the GAO clearly stated would hurt the economy more than by simply doing nothing.
Personally instead of passing ANY more bills I would rather all of our elected officials got into two equal lines, one facing the other, and then I'd like them to take turns poking each other in the eye with sharp sticks, the country and economy would be better off than what they've done in the past several years. I can't think of 1... not 1 problem they've come up with a solution for, in the past 6 years, they've done nothing but make things worse, the financial crisis is a perfect example.
Term limits are our countries only hope, but as others have said we will never get them because these idiots are not serving anyone but themselves.
As you can probably tell I'm a little frustrated watching what the morons like Frank and Pelosi are doing to my country. :mad:
I adhere to the "original intent" position. My interpretation is based on the Constitution itself and the supporting documents (DofI, Federalist Papers, and collected works of the FFs)
Sounds a lot like the current brand of 'original intent' philosophy we're facing with those whose interpretations of law and human rights are based upon the 7th Century Koranic scripture and its supporting documents...or historically, the 'original intent' philosophy of the 11th-13th Century Crusaders based upon Biblical scripture and its supporting documents. What me change? And as far as 'original intent' and the US Constitution...let's see, there are those historically sticky issues of voting...census...slavery...and the like.
However, the brilliance of the US Constitution is the 'elasticity' which allows it to remain a current and 'living' document rather than force us into an 'original intent' situation such as the one currently being waged with and within the Islamic culture. This was a part of the 'willful intent' of the FFs (who undoubtedly knew the world would change) that is often overlooked in such arguments. The Necessary and Proper Clause (also known as the Elastic Clause, the Basket Clause, the Coefficient Clause, and the Sweeping Clause) is the provision in Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18:
“The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
IMO--'original intent' has its historical place...but...well...this is not the 7th, 11th, or 18th Centuries...and "We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto."
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Sigaba what is this "good" legislation you speak of, I've been watching pretty close this last year, and I've seen several trillion dollars of complete horse Sh@$ spending, lots of different bills to take away our rights and oh yes the national watermelon month, otherwise our elected officials have exchanged O2 for CO2 with little positive effect IMO. It appears to me when congress acts quickly we get bills like the TARP and this latest monstrosity which even the GAO clearly stated would hurt the economy more than by simply doing nothing.
Personally instead of passing ANY more bills I would rather all of our elected officials got into two equal lines, one facing the other, and then I'd like them to take turns poking each other in the eye with sharp sticks, the country and economy would be better off than what they've done in the past several years. I can't think of 1... not 1 problem they've come up with a solution for, in the past 6 years, they've done nothing but make things worse, the financial crisis is a perfect example.
Term limits are our countries only hope, but as others have said we will never get them because these idiots are not serving anyone but themselves.
As you can probably tell I'm a little frustrated watching what the morons like Frank and Pelosi are doing to my country. :mad:
Sir--
I would be hard pressed to find any recent examples of "good legislation."
I myself lost a lot of faith in the legislative branch when the 107th Congress punted on the debate over what to do about Iraq. What might have been a star turn in which representatives and senators had the long over-due debate over America's role in the post-Cold War world, presidential war powers, and the utility of war, too many members of both houses were governed by how the soundbites would sound on the eve of midterm elections.
(To be clear, my point here is that October 2002 was a moment for the legislative branch to check the executive branch on general principle alone. It is my opinion that Congress is discussed in Article I and the Presidency in Article II to denote which branch was first among equals.)
But still, I hold high hopes that one day soon members of Congress will collectively gain a sense of professionalism, remember their history---Calhoun, Webster, Clay, Vinson--re-institute some of the traditions of their hoary predecessors- (not the least would be the thunderclaps of debate on the senate floor), and do good work for the good of the people.
(Can you tell that every time I watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington I manage to get something in my eyes?:boohoo)
Is it the voters' fault? Partly. I suspect the real problem is a failure of citizenship, with voting representing only a small portion of a greater challenge - a challenge once seen as a duty.
I agree with you... when I say it is the fault of the voters, I am referring not only to the ones that vote for the juiciest pork, but the ones who don't even bother to show up and drop a write-in vote for Mickey Mouse. The citizenship at large that don't vote deserve most of the blame. They sit and yell at the news and bitch about the gub-mint, but don't bother to get up and vote.
Its like the movies "Brewsters Millions" when everyone went out and voted "none of the above"...
ridiculous, but they went out and voted just same.
Peregrino
02-13-2009, 10:09
Richard - I find the examples you chose to support your position and summarilly dismiss mine both offensive and largely irrelevant. Unlike religions, the ideals expressed in the Constitution allow for dissenting opinions, encourage reasoned discussion, and provide mechanisms for rational compromise. True, the Constitution did not address slavery. Nor did it explicitly enfranchize every citizen. It did provide the latitude necessary to correct those "deficiencies". The Necessary and Proper Clause applies to "the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution", i.e. those powers explicitly enumerated in the base document and its ratified ammendments. Constructionists have expanded its purpose to cover virtually every political expediency imaginable. As a consequence, today we have a government that is the antithesis of the Founder's ideals of individual freedom/responsibility and government accountability. By this afternoon the "Porkulus" Bill will probably be law. Without decent debate, in opposition to common sense and GAO experts, and in the face of historical precedent. Using the "elastic clause" (and economic emergency argument) to excuse this excess is the practical equivalent of putting a thong on "Hogzilla" for modesty's sake. It's still socialism (read extra-Constitutional) and ignorant voters empowered the current Congress to inflict it on the nation in defiance of the FF's intent when they created the Constitution.
We all agree the voters are to blame. How do we fix it? I see two practical alternatives: Term Limits, or disenfranchize large segments of the populace. Personally I prefer term limits. It's far less dangerous.
(Retreating to my bunker to prep for incomming!)
FWIW--I'm not trying to offend or summarily dismiss anyone in this rather spirited debate, but I do have a healthy dose of angst whenever anyone--for whatever reason or for whatever issue--offers up a singular interpretation of a Commander's Intent from our FFs for which we have so many interpretations (by scholars, lawmakers, biographers, the FFs themselves), from which much was written in somewhat vague language, and from which we--as a nation--have used to arrive to where we are today. Also, as a point of discussion, I do not entirely disagree with a good portion of many of the arguments presented in this forum.
That being said, IMO, something about what is going on now, with a virtual political oligarchy controlling all legislative bodies of our government, is POTUS's oft parroted “Change we must.”
Besides being bad English, this mantra is the antithesis of what he has done: filled his cabinet with Washington insiders. Just because you have new talking heads, does not mean you have changed. As Thomas Sowell stated, "More frightening to me than any policy or politician is the ease with which the public is played for fools with words." :eek:
His economic stimulus package looks to be nothing more than typical Washington pork barrel spending...to the Nth degree as we really don't know how much it will eventually cost or what it will do. However, most agree it will not stimulate the economy; it will only push us close to or over the edge of a worthless fiat currency (not that we aren’t nearly there anyway)...and if that happens, it will not be pretty.
Here is a stimulus plan I would vote for:
Lower the tax rate significantly. Better yet, throw out 1040s, the IRS (for people) and all deductions: no forms, no wage taxes, and go to a consumption tax with some consideration given to the poorest among us. For them, an ad valorem tax is hardest because more of their spending is on the basics and that’s hard enough as it is.
To show support and to pay for all of this, cut back government spending by 20% to 30%. Get rid of some agencies. Cut staff by 10%, 20%, 30%. Get rid of stupid spending programs. Show that you can trim your expenses just like all the rest of us are having to do.
Provide consideration thru extended unemployment benefits and food stamps for those who have lost their jobs. This will help keep them afloat until the economy turns around and they can start working again.
Provide help for mortgages nearing or in foreclosure. You were the ones that pushed people into houses they couldn’t afford. You figure out a way to keep them there. Some aren’t worth saving as the people holding them were in way over their heads, but many others are so find a way to help such people out. Oh, and if this is going to cost money to do so, cut back some more on your spending or staffing in order to pay for it.
So think about this: consumer spending makes up 70% of our economic activity. Put the money back into the pockets of the consumers and they will start spending again. Cut back on your expenses to pay for it and the world will look upon you as wise in that you chose to spend what you had differently rather than just print more worthless fiat paper. Wall Street will see consumers immediately getting more money and the government acting with at least some fiscal responsibility. Stock will take off and we will work our way out of this in a good way, rather than by the current pork barrel spending spree and encroaching socialism advocated by Barry, Nancy, Harry, Barney, Chris, and the band of idiots (for lack of a better nuanced word here) currently running this country.
I remain cautiously optimistic that this whole current fiasco will finally be enough of a 'stimulus package' to wake us up to the shenanigans of our elected officials in a way that will bring us back to a more even keel as we inevitably sail into our collective futures...but without the need to force constitutional change or openly rebel. As Thomas Sowell said and I agree, "I know that there are still voices of sanity around because I have counted them...on one hand." The few, the proud, the sane. I just hope they are loud enough that we'll be able to hear them above the din of those currently occupying and guarding Emerald City.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
(Joining you in your bunker to prep for in-coming!)
Peregrino
02-13-2009, 13:12
I remain cautiously optimistic that this whole current fiasco will finally be enough of a 'stimulus package' to wake us up to the shenanigans of our elected officials in a way that will bring us back to a more even keel as we inevitably sail into our collective futures...but without the need to force constitutional change or openly rebel. As Thomas Sowell said and I agree, "I know that there are still voices of sanity around because I have counted them...on one hand." The few, the proud, the sane. I just hope they are loud enough that we'll be able to hear them above the din of those currently occupying and guarding Emerald City.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
(Joining you in your bunker to prep for in-coming!)
We have common ground! I have no desire to incite sledgehammer reform or rebellion. I would infinitely prefer a third option. To borrow from AA - is the impending disaster survivable and will it constitute a sufficient "significant emotional event" to wake up the electorate and force a change of attitude/assumption of personal responsibility? As the voters are the problem, so they are the only ones who can fix it. (Is there a 12 step program for recovering Citizens?) :munchin
2charlie
02-13-2009, 13:55
Richard, I think you hit the nail on the head. I am seriously concerned about this so called stimulus package. I am no economist but I see nothing but wasteful spending, slow or no economic growth, and an enormous price tag that we can not pay for. Doing nothing would be better than throwing $800 billion down the toilet. But, what do I know? I'm sure that Barney, Nancy, and the rest of the get a long gang have it all figured out. I probably should just sit back, relax, and drink a tall glass of hope.
-2charlie
(Is there a 12 step program for recovering Citizens?) :munchin
Hey...maybe we could start one. I'm sure there will be a great demand for such a program very shortly. ;)
FWIW--I'm just glad that I am not on the SS PSD for this POTUS and pray they do their jobs well as I don't even want to consider the alternative if they don't. :eek:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Dozer523
02-13-2009, 16:23
I B Fuzed. . .
Why was President Bush's $700B TARP, that was a 3 page FRAGO; was approved by a Democratic Congress; then was completely changed so it could disappear into Wall Street and the banks; and ultimately didn't do anything. . . "good"?
But President Obama's* Economic Stimulus that actually written in some detail in less then 2 weeks; could easily be passed on "mandate" without the Republican vote at all (Oh how well I remember 8 years ago); has so much accountability built in that nothing can be diverted "as the situation changes"; and directs money to getting people paychecks; and taxcuts to people who really look alot like us . . . "bad"?
* I did that just to be mean, how many cringed?;)
Anybody know how much has been included in the Porculus bill for re-education camp expenditures for those who don't go along with Franklin Delano Obama's vision on all this? :rolleyes:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
....I adhere to the "original intent" position. My interpretation is based on the Constitution itself and the supporting documents (DofI, Federalist Papers, and collected works of the FFs).... My viewpoint restricts everything else to the States, per the 10th Ammendment (unfortunately largely discredited following the "War of Yankee Aggression").
Peregrino--
Sir, the difficulty I have with 'original intent' is three-fold. First, what happens when America encounters issues and dynamics beyond the comprehension and imagination of the Founders? Second, it is my understanding that scholars of all stripes who have made a career at studying the Early Republic still debate who thought what and who meant what. Third, the Constitution was a document of compromises: small state versus large state, free state versus slave state, and 'town versus country' (Hamilton versus Jefferson). As events unfolded, some of these compromises were, after a few extensions and re-articulations, untenable. Can an original intent approach to government mediate the colliding interests of contemporary America?
As for states' rights, I must confess that I am not yet dispassionate enough to separate the theory's less controversial aspects from its historical practice. I cannot but wonder if in a country as diverse as America could an emphasis on states rights work?
If, for example, the divisive issues of gay marriage, abortion, free speech, gun ownership, and others were left to each state, would residents of one state respect the decisions made by the residents of another state? Even in its current crisis, California is still the eight largest economy in the world and wields an incalculable amount of cultural power. What would protect smaller states if the residents of California decided to 'teach' them a lesson for their allegedly backward ways? Here, I am imagining a scenario that couples economic incentives to corporations that base their operations in the Golden State with a global cultural offensive that tars and feathers other ways of life.
A small but noteworthy example of a cultural offensive occurred in 1996 when the Los Angeles Lakers signed Shaquille O'Neal. His former team, the Orlando Magic, offered him more money but he was drawn to the lifestyle of Southern California and unhappy with the mores of Florida. Mr. O'Neal's presence in Southern California not only produced the economic benefits of the Lakers re-establishing itself as a premier franchise in American professional sports, but also the flow of more than three billion dollars to downtown L.A. in the form of development projects. And that's just one guy on one team.
Peregrino
02-13-2009, 22:44
Sigba - You're actually going to make me work for this one, aren't you? Turnabout is fair play and the quality of your "inquiry" demands parity.
Objectivity among historians, as you alluded in a previous post, is a professional standard. The fact that you expressed concern implies it’s not always attained. Whenever I read scholarly dissertations, I always try to discern the author’s prejudices/agenda. Most of what I’ve read has obviously been tainted to some measure by advocacy of or antipathy towards Federalism and whatever bias the author held for his subject (witness the latest popular works about Jefferson concentrating on the dichotomy of his personal issues with slaves and slavery).
I had the “benefit” of a varied education in Northern and Southern schools and from educators and peers of all persuasions. I’ve formed my own worldview from a synthesis of the information I acquired over the years. I am a staunch libertarian in most respects. I believe in a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people". I believe that government is accountable to the people and that it must respond to the will of the people with the caveat that adequate provisions exist to protect the rights of minorities. I do not believe our government has met any of those criterions for generations. I fear our “Noble Experiment” is destined to meet the same fate as the Roman Republic.
I hold with “original intent” precisely for some of the reasons you articulate – the Constitution was the best compromise the brightest minds of that time could hammer out. It is a NEGOTIATED compromise that required consensus and ratification by all parties. It provides a solid framework, fleshed out with the supporting documents, that guided our country’s development up to the New Deal. It is notable more for what it prohibits (e.g. the Bill of Rights – an afterthought forced by Anti-Federalists rightly fearful of the unbridled power of government) and what it leaves out (e.g. slavery) than what it includes. Both compromises had to happen if the Nation was to exist; the concerns that resulted in the protections provided by the BofR have been substantiated and slavery was eventually resolved IAW the “we hold these truths” ideals of the DofI “four score and etc.” years later. Unfortunately we haven't seen a similar quality of "deliberative debate" and "reasoned compromise" lately. As evidence, I submit the Porkulus Bill. Nobody can convince me that the founding fathers were any less partisan or contentious than our current Congress. So what's the substantive difference - quality of character?
States Rights discussions always seem to degenerate into a diatribe against the evils of slavery. Yes, it was evil. It was also only part of the state’s rights dispute. Our modern sensibilities and the ugly aftermath of the national trauma it took to eradicate the institution of slavery and its fallout prevents a dispassionate examination of the rest of the question. That’s about to change. I respectfully submit that we’re all about to find out if there are any limits to the excesses of the Federal Government. If you intend to “do your duty” as a historian, you need to get dispassionate about States Rights in a hurry. I know emerging history isn’t your primary focus but “the times, they be a changing”. For additional information please refer to: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88218
Your “divisive issues” are IMHO best addressed with limited government. The State and Federal governments already have far too much power over our lives. The CFR is so large it is impossible to comply with every regulation in it. Accept the fact that you are an unindicted criminal. Big Brother will eventually get around to telling you what they’ve decided to prosecute. As for the rest - Gay marriage is a morality issue. It’s also the purview of the States. The Commerce Clause is generally accepted to require one state to respect the actions of another. The lawyers and activists on both sides will work it out. And just because I’m tolerant – don’t expect me to approve. You’d damn well better not expect me to pay either. Government needs to stop legislating the activities of consenting adults – it doesn’t work. Noncompliance with stupid laws diminishes respect for all law and encourages disregard for legitimate regulation. (Refer to my “unindicted criminal” comment.) Abortion is murder. Stop allowing recidivists to block comprehensive sex education. Abstinence is a method; if properly implemented it’s as effective as sterilization. Enforcing abstinence only sex ed and expecting universal compliance from (effectively) children is as realistic as expecting the sun to rise in the west. Free speech and firearms ownership are already covered in the BofR. On the whole we – the people – have done a miserable job of protecting those rights. Their erosion has proceeded with barely a whimper from the majority. A docile electorate voluntarily depriving themselves of the means to educate, inform, and resist tyranny. I’ve always felt that the reason the Left hates firearms so much is because they actually understand the Founder’s intent better than the Right does.
California is a juggernaut on a death spiral. Their appetite has exceeded their grasp. Unfortunately their peculiar cancer is metastasizing, spreading throughout the country. Elevating themselves as the bastion of social and ecological purity by legislating the sky green just means everybody around them pays the social and ecological costs for California’s ideals. What happens next summer if the surrounding states refuse to sell them more electricity? (I don’t see that happening either – BUT, it could.) If the economy continues to worsen (as most economists expect, especially as the results of the Porkulus Bill and inevitable inflation take hold) how important will California trend setters be while the rest of the nation struggles to feed itself?
Good enough for the discussion? :munchin
ETA: To answer your question about "issues and dynamics" - I respectfully submit that everything does not have to be regulated/legislated.
USANick7
02-14-2009, 00:57
Peregrino--
Sir, the difficulty I have with 'original intent' is three-fold. First, what happens when America encounters issues and dynamics beyond the comprehension and imagination of the Founders? Second, it is my understanding that scholars of all stripes who have made a career at studying the Early Republic still debate who thought what and who meant what. Third, the Constitution was a document of compromises: small state versus large state, free state versus slave state, and 'town versus country' (Hamilton versus Jefferson). As events unfolded, some of these compromises were, after a few extensions and re-articulations, untenable. Can an original intent approach to government mediate the colliding interests of contemporary America?
As for states' rights, I must confess that I am not yet dispassionate enough to separate the theory's less controversial aspects from its historical practice. I cannot but wonder if in a country as diverse as America could an emphasis on states rights work?
If, for example, the divisive issues of gay marriage, abortion, free speech, gun ownership, and others were left to each state, would residents of one state respect the decisions made by the residents of another state? Even in its current crisis, California is still the eight largest economy in the world and wields an incalculable amount of cultural power. What would protect smaller states if the residents of California decided to 'teach' them a lesson for their allegedly backward ways? Here, I am imagining a scenario that couples economic incentives to corporations that base their operations in the Golden State with a global cultural offensive that tars and feathers other ways of life.
A small but noteworthy example of a cultural offensive occurred in 1996 when the Los Angeles Lakers signed Shaquille O'Neal. His former team, the Orlando Magic, offered him more money but he was drawn to the lifestyle of Southern California and unhappy with the mores of Florida. Mr. O'Neal's presence in Southern California not only produced the economic benefits of the Lakers re-establishing itself as a premier franchise in American professional sports, but also the flow of more than three billion dollars to downtown L.A. in the form of development projects. And that's just one guy on one team.
My very basic question is this...how does one NOT use originalism when interpreting the Constitution?
Suppose we used the "living document" theory as it applies to the legal document we call your "mortgage". What if your interest payments could be arbitrarily changed based off a 3rd parties arbitrary notions of "evolving standards of decency"?
In a Constitutional Republic law ceases to be law when Justices presume to change it through interpretation.
Attempting to judge a decision based off of anything other than the wording or context, automatically takes a decision form outside the realm of the legislature (where it belongs) and into the hands of the judiciary (where it does not).
Now I do agree that there is a problem with "original intent" as this can be somewhat subjective, but how is it anymore subjective than "later on intent"? In fact I would say that it is far more subjective and a great deal more inappropriate.
Our Constitution is a living document as it applies to the legislature and to some degree the executive (the amendment process) but no where in the Constitution, nor our founding documents or debates do you see an argument for anything other than an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.
Unfortunately many modern justices simply refuse to except that there are simply some matters which are non of their business, such as issues dealing with those things which the Constitution does not address or take into consideration.
Even in the examples you provide of compromises in the constitution, weren't these compromises amongst legislators?
And as far as states rights are concerned, I think the examples you give are actually arguments for greater state sovereignty and local control, not less.
Its when we attempt to enforce the will of a slim majority at the federal level that we have the greatest amount of backlash to the decision. That is exactly why our Founders developed a difficult amendment process...a process that has largely been undermined by the federal governments ability to bribe states through federal funds.
Peregrino--
Thank you for your reply. "Good enough for the discussion?" Are you kidding? Exchanging views with QPs and many other members of this forum is like having a conversation with Lewis Gould. (He'd pick up his empty Styrofoam cup and start doodling on it if he found a student's contributions to the discussion vapid.)
FWIW, I'm a moderate who leans to the right. At one time, I was a left-leaning centrist who was increasingly put off by the tone of the political left, especially in regards to matters of national security policy and to race relations. Intellectually, I'm a bit of a throw-back in my approach to history. I am an antiquarian. I believe in the study of the past for its own sake rather than as part of a project to establish an objective 'meta-narrative' or to determine the 'lessons of history.' The social historians who currently dominate the profession frequently confuse me for a postmodernist--if they've not already dismissed me because of my interest in naval and military history.
Sir, in my estimation, at the core of our exchange of viewpoints are two questions. First, did previous generations of Americans do a better job at dealing with the issues of their day than we are doing dealing with our issues? Second, if they did, can our understanding of their best thoughts and practices inform positively how we deal with our present day issues?
I think that you and I agree broadly that the answers to the two questions are 'yes' and 'yes,' but we differ on how far back we can go to find useful examples. If I'm reading your posts correctly--and to mix metaphors--you see the solution as rebooting the system and going back to an earlier version of the operating system. I see the solution as rolling back to an earlier build of a later version of the operating system.
While I agree that there is an undeniable elegance to the original OS, I am of the view that over time, too many 'known issues' and 'bugs' became fatal errors. Moreover, unforeseen issues arose. (An example of the former would be the Dred Scott decision. Examples of the latter include the emergence of modern warfare during the Civil War and its degeneration into machine warfare during World War I, but also the rise of mass popular culture in the early 1900s, and the emergence of 'modern' America soon thereafter.) In combination, the original OS--the political system of the Founders--could not handle these fatal errors and the unforeseen issues--new versions of the OS were necessary.
Today, to continue the metaphor, we're stuck with Microsoft Vista--odd how my computer froze as I typed that--and a horse-cart load of bloatware. In my view, we can downgrade to Windows XP Professional (that would be the Eisenhower administration, the "Middle Way" and a culture of public service that was driven by a "passion for anonymity"). We can isolate the bloatware (many domestic programs, and, with apologies to Afchic, many of the Air Force's systems). But I don't know if the hardware (American society) could operate if we went further back. (I am leaving aside the 'should.' Your political philosophy is well-developed and articulate--the stillness of deep water; mine is inchoate and rambling--the babbling of a tributary.)
I will say that I do not agree with my respected friends who want 'hope' and 'change' and believe that the solution is to switch to Leopard or to Linux.
I do agree with you that, at the very least, we as end-users need to reclaim the sensibilities and practices of our predecessors. As well, I agree that we need to hold the developers and software engineers to a standard of care that would be on par with men who wrote the kernal.
My own preferences? I think that many issues cannot be addressed until we first make cultural adjustments. We use 'hacks' and 'cheats' rather than using great care in the collection and processing of basic information. We are sound-biting ourselves to death. We are talking past each other rather than to each other. We are reading materials that re-enforce our points of view more than materials that challenge us.
We write poorly. We speak inarticulately. We bludgeon each other with PowerPoint presentations that have ten times as many slides as they should. We don't take notes. We are losing the skill of knowing how to respect and to admire those with whom we disagree because they disagree. We do not heed the warnings of the baying sheepdogs until the wolves and jackals are at the door. We don't know the difference between sarcasm and irony. We mistake relativism for tolerance. We confuse sympathy for empathy. We would rather humiliate each other than understand each other. We don't know the difference between disinterest and indifference. We confuse cynicism for skepticism. We let disappointment become disenchantment which becomes disengagement which becomes self-disenfranchisement.
(I sure hope you're wrong about California!:eek: We have enough worries: fires, earthquakes, drought, and mudslides. And the mediocrity of Jay Leno.)
Wow...y'all were busy with this debate last night while I slept. Maybe a few points to consider here:
...the Constitution was the best compromise some of the brightest minds of that time could hammer out. It is a NEGOTIATED compromise that required consensus and ratification by all parties. It provides a solid framework, fleshed out with the supporting documents, that guided our country’s development...
IMO--it still is the best compromise, still requires interpolation for negotiated compromise and consensus for ratification of any changes, still provides a solid--yet flexible--framework for our form of government, and still guides our country's development...which is why it remains a singular beacon of political light amongst the various forms of governmental murkiness which have been tried in the past or exist in the world today. Admired by many, emulated by few. Why? Why not?
Suppose we used the "living document" theory as it applies to the legal document we call your "mortgage". What if your interest payments could be arbitrarily changed based off a 3rd parties arbitrary notions of "evolving standards of decency"?
I don't think the mortgage example works here because it is a contract and not a law. Laws do change when there is overwhelming evidence of extenuating or mitigating circumstances which make the 'original intent' of the law invalid or illegal through judicial review. The US Constitution, through its necessary and proper clause as assigned to our legislative body, is a 'living' document, the basis for our governmental and legal systems (USC), and an ever evolving--albeit slowly--entity.
And as far as states rights are concerned, I think the examples you give are actually arguments for greater state sovereignty and local control, not less.
The states do have the 'right' to legislate individually all such matters not specifically included under USC, and even to lesser extent for those things encoded in USC (e.g., the death penalty). However, I think the issue as we must see it today is a matter of how much 'sovereignty' a state truly wants vs (1) how much it is willing to concede through accepting federal government support and the many 'strings' which go along with such support and (2) how much has already been conceded and would be very difficult to regain because it has already led to revised legislation and accepted precedence. Seeing a politician 'grandstanding' in front of a bank of microphones and a crowd of constituents to profess a need for less federal government and a nostalgic return of states rights is one thing, but what the same politician actually can or will do about it is something else entirely when the reality of federal government support, funding, or employment for his constituents is threatened.
As for California, I grew up in a small ranching/farming community called Elk Grove. It is now a 10x larger than when I lived here, and the entire culture and look of the community has changed. There are still many ranchers/farmers in the area, but the town has become another of those 'bedroom' communities for the Bay Area and the Valley. When it comes to local control and laws, here is an example that still pisses me off whenever I think of it.
A local rancher was in town buying groceries at a local Bel Air market. His working pickup, a 4x4 with a trailer hitch, was legally parked in the store's parking lot while he and his wife were shopping. One of the 'imported' residents to the community was backing out of her parking space and backed into the trailer hitch, doing a great deal of damage to her car. Angry when the police cited her for the accident, she went to the city council and complained of all the ranch/farm vehicles in Elk Grove and the dangers of all those trailer hitches to all the residents now inhabiting the area. The city council then passed a new ordinance that says all trailer hitches must be (1) removable and (2) must be removed when not actually engaged in towing...and failure to do so is a ticketed offense. :mad:
Another example is that California--who has strictly limited burning of any kind--is now considering banning all wood burning fireplaces for environmental reasons. On a personal level, however, the burning restrictions have cost me a lot of $$ to get rid of all the old lumber and vegetation here on the family ranch because I now have to use trash dumpsters ($320 per) to get rid of it all when 10 years ago I would have burned it all in a bonfire and plowed the ashes into the field. :mad:
My point is that who amongst us thinks that just by having more state or local control will assuredly result in better government, governmental decisions, laws, or quality of life? :confused:
I do agree with you that, at the very least, we as end-users need to reclaim the sensibilities and practices of our predecessors. As well, I agree that we need to hold the developers and software engineers to a standard of care that would be on par with men who wrote the kernal.
My own preferences? I think that many issues cannot be addressed until we first make cultural adjustments. We use 'hacks' and 'cheats' rather than using great care in the collection and processing of basic information. We are sound-biting ourselves to death. We are talking past each other rather than to each other. We are reading materials that re-enforce our points of view more than materials that challenge us.
We write poorly. We speak inarticulately. We bludgeon each other with PowerPoint presentations that have ten times as many slides as they should. We don't take notes. We are losing the skill of knowing how to respect and to admire those with whom we disagree because they disagree. We do not heed the warnings of the baying sheepdogs until the wolves and jackals are at the door. We don't know the difference between sarcasm and irony. We mistake relativism for tolerance. We confuse sympathy for empathy. We would rather humiliate each other than understand each other. We don't know the difference between disinterest and indifference. We confuse cynicism for skepticism. We let disappointment become disenchantment which becomes disengagement which becomes self-disenfranchisement.
Well said.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
USANick7
02-14-2009, 11:50
I don't think the mortgage example works here because it is a contract and not a law. Laws do change when there is overwhelming evidence of extenuating or mitigating circumstances which make the 'original intent' of the law invalid or illegal through judicial review. The US Constitution, through its necessary and proper clause as assigned to our legislative body, is a 'living' document, the basis for our governmental and legal systems (USC), and an ever evolving--albeit slowly--entity.[/COLOR]
I realize that it is not a "perfect" example but I do think it adequately demonstrates the problem with arbitrarily changing the meaning of a law based off of "evolving standards of decency" or whatever arbitrary reasoning used to take power away from the legislature. I would also add that the Constitution is a "contract" with the American people, so I do not think that it as different as one might suggest. A contract is a legal document with legal ramifications if breached. By the same token the Constitution in its establishment of a Republican form of government and the subsequent amendments which limit governments ability to interfere in certain aspects of the private sphere, if radically altered by the judiciary is in fact a breach. While the example I used is somewhat crude, I think it maintains its validity.
The states do have the 'right' to legislate individually all such matters not specifically included under USC, and even to lesser extent for those things encoded in USC (e.g., the death penalty). However, I think the issue as we must see it today is a matter of how much 'sovereignty' a state truly wants vs (1) how much it is willing to concede through accepting federal government support and the many 'strings' which go along with such support and (2) how much has already been conceded and would be very difficult to regain because it has already led to revised legislation and accepted precedence. Seeing a politician 'grandstanding' in front of a bank of microphones and a crowd of constituents to profess a need for less federal government and a nostalgic return of states rights is one thing, but what the same politician actually can or will do about it is something else entirely when the reality of federal government support, funding, or employment for his constituents is threatened.
I agree with your assessment that federal funding has been used to drastically undermine federalist concepts. I think the solution is to drastically alter the current methods of taxation. Its not as if the federal government is "making" all of this money that they then redistribute to the states, they originally take it from the states in the first place.
As for California, I grew up in a small ranching/farming community called Elk Grove. It is now a 10x larger than when I lived here, and the entire culture and look of the community has changed. There are still many ranchers/farmers in the area, but the town has become another of those 'bedroom' communities for the Bay Area and the Valley. When it comes to local control and laws, here is an example that still pisses me off whenever I think of it.
A local rancher was in town buying groceries at a local Bel Air market. His working pickup, a 4x4 with a trailer hitch, was legally parked in the store's parking lot while he and his wife were shopping. One of the 'imported' residents to the community was backing out of her parking space and backed into the trailer hitch, doing a great deal of damage to her car. Angry when the police cited her for the accident, she went to the city council and complained of all the ranch/farm vehicles in Elk Grove and the dangers of all those trailer hitches to all the residents now inhabiting the area. The city council then passed a new ordinance that says all trailer hitches must be (1) removable and (2) must be removed when not actually engaged in towing...and failure to do so is a ticketed offense. :mad:
Another example is that California--who has strictly limited burning of any kind--is now considering banning all wood burning fireplaces for environmental reasons. On a personal level, however, the burning restrictions have cost me a lot of $$ to get rid of all the old lumber and vegetation here on the family ranch because I now have to use trash dumpsters ($320 per) to get rid of it all when 10 years ago I would have burned it all in a bonfire and plowed the ashes into the field. :mad:
The same thing is happening in Chico CA, and I share your frustration. It would seem that after destroying their own communities in the Bay Area the same culprits are determined to show us "country hicks" how to do it, apparently forgetting that they came to OUR communities to get away from the mess they created in theirs in the first place.
My point is that who amongst us thinks that just by having more state or local control will assuredly result in better government, governmental decisions, laws, or quality of life? [/COLOR]:confused:
While I share your frustration I cant agree with your conclusion...
I see this ability to interfere on the local level and think of it applied at the federal level! At least right now I can still fall back to Texas! But if they are suddenly permitted to do at the federal level that which they currently have to do at the State and local levels, they will no longer even bother with city councils. I don't think that is the sort of change we are looking for.
Peregrino
02-14-2009, 20:55
Just got back from spending the day at a gunshow in Greensboro NC. A lot of nervous people exercising their rights, many in anticipation of restrictions on selfsame exercise. I'm glad this conversation has continued. Nick - Thanks for filling in some critical gaps in my arguments. Richard - Sorry, I agree with Nick about the "contract" analogy. All government is ideally a contract between the governed and the government. Good contracts require agreement among the parties, and contain stipulations for performance, limitations, penalties, and provisions for ammending the contract. The contract model is currently being used by Montana with respect to abuses by the Federal Government against their State Constitution and the Articles of Statehood that brought Montana into the Union. By their argument, the Federal Government is in breach of contract. If it continues, it'll be very interesting to watch play out. Our ideal of a Republican Government specifies that the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. There's an implied threat that the governed can withdraw their consent, thereby de-legitimizing the government. (The Second Ammendment gives teeth to that threat.)
I will make a minor concession to the "living document" group in that a mechanism exists, codified within the base document, to ammend the Constitution. It's not "carved in stone". The FFs recognized Sigba's "issues and dynamics beyond (their) comprehension and imagination". They created a method to incorporate change, so yes, it is a living document. My complaint is the amount of change and the manner in which it has been done. The Founder's careful balance and the deliberately difficult process they created to prevent frivolous change has been ignored (read trashed) for generations. I respectfully submit that if the FF's process had been followed, a good portion of our Nation's current problems would not exist (at least not in their current form :p).
Sigba - Too much fun. Nice to have an occasional discussion that requires more than two brain cells. You'll find that most "old Soldiers" have spent a fair amount of time over the years in introspective moments (there's a lot of them when you're waiting for something to happen) examining their belief systems. When you raise your right hand and swear to "uphold and defend", you'd better understand what you've pledged yourself to. Those who reach an understanding (even with the disagreements in details we have here) can be counted on to implement the intent, often going the extra measure. They're the ones who have contributed to things like "professionalizing" the LA militaries during the Reagan years. The current generations are doing their best in the sandbox and elsewhere, following the same ideals. Our belief in and understanding of the system we pledged ourselves to communicated itself to our counterparts; live/lead by example is the surest way to influence another culture. The ones who don't bother are rarely more than blunt insturments; not very useful outside of door kicking. Food for thought.
Peregrino--
Sir, a challenge we encounter when using earlier versions and iterations of the political system and their underlying intellectual and philosophical concepts as examples of 'best practices' is that such discussions are vulnerable to the 'yeah, but' argument. Appreciative comments about the FF and how we might benefit from their writing encounters 'yeah, but they were [insert attribute here].'
In many cases, the 'yeah, but' is just an excuse to grapple honestly with complex issues. In other cases, the 'yeah, but' can reflect a genuine reservation as people seek to reconcile the past with the present. If more groups of Americans were present at the creation of our government, I think looking back for answers would be an easier exercise today and the buy in would be greater.
For better and for worse, many Americans for what ever reason or reasons quickly get to a point where they say 'no' to interpretations of the past that they find discomforting. As an individual, I've been able to challenge my limits by using 'and' rather than 'yeah, but.' Even then, my admiration of men like John C. Calhoun is limited. Such can be the bittersweet legacies of one's family history when dealing with the history of one's country.
So the questions that I ask myself are these. How does one square the circle in the discussion of present day political reform, especially when the type of change you want needs the buy in of larger numbers of the 'yeah, but' crowd? Will the discussion inevitably turn into a diatribe against this injustice or that inconsistency? Can the political philosophy be separated from its history? In an era where millions of Americans are seeking to escape the past (the president's promise to get America 'back on track' really means to return to the fastest means of escape), does one have to repudiate elements of the past to get more people to listen?:munchin
I agree with Nick about the "contract" analogy. All government is ideally a contract between the governed and the government. Good contracts require agreement among the parties, and contain stipulations for performance, limitations, penalties, and provisions for ammending the contract.
OK--I'll concede the 'contract' analogy as the US Constitution is generally best described as a 'social contract' among the governed and the government. Fuzzy headedness abounds at times when my attention is divided amongst several things going on at the same time. However, I still don't think the 'mortgage' part fits--would anyone buy into a contract with no end-date other than such a philosophically 'social' one as the USC--and I obviously allowed the 'mortgage' part to obfuscate the point I was trying to throw into the argumental pot of this thread.
So the questions that I ask myself are these. How does one square the circle in the discussion of present day political reform, especially when the type of change you want needs the buy in of larger numbers of the 'yeah, but' crowd? Will the discussion inevitably turn into a diatribe against this injustice or that inconsistency? Can the political philosophy be separated from its history? In an era where millions of Americans are seeking to escape the past (the president's promise to get America 'back on track' really means to return to the fastest means of escape), does one have to repudiate elements of the past to get more people to listen?
This is a very good point as it was probably the major issue with which the EU struggled when seeking agreement to and implementing of the 1987 Single European Act. Francois Mitterand, then President of France, was absolutely correct when he told his EU peers something to the effect that to keep dredging up events that had occurred much longer than 25 years ago and denying those that had occurred in the most recent past would result in political stagnation which would imperil them all. I think he was correct, and the Iron Maiden (UK PM Margaret Thatcher) did, too, and was able to outmaneuver the foot-draggers and the Act was approved.
JMHO--but using the window of History as a guide to the future is one thing...as long as it is 'clean.' However, using a 'smudged window'--of which there are so many more--is another. Will we stagnate through indecision? Will we self-destruct in a nostalgic desire to return to a past promised in the lorelei-like songs of nostalgia? Will we continue to stumble forward as a nation of cautiously optimistic and mistake-prone idealists? History--whose past is often murkier than clean and whose future remains dark with unpredictability--will ultimately decide our fates...but it is patently obvious from this discussion that there are those who will not go quietly into that dark night without having given their all to continuing that noble experiment that is the United States of America.
"To the United States of America!"
Richard's $.02 :munchin
ZonieDiver
02-15-2009, 10:46
Will we continue to stumble forward as a nation of cautiously optimistic and mistake-prone idealists? History--whose past is often murkier than clean and whose future remains dark with unpredictability--will ultimately decide our fates...but it is patently obvious from this discussion that there are those who will not go quietly into that dark night without having given their all to continuing that noble experiment that is the United States of America.
"To the United States of America!"
<Raising my glass> To the United States of America!
Peregrino
02-15-2009, 13:42
---- it is patently obvious from this discussion that there are those who will not go quietly into that dark night without having given their all to continuing that noble experiment that is the United States of America.
"To the United States of America!"
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Hear, hear! (Clinking of glasses.)
JMHO--but using the window of History as a guide to the future is one thing...as long as it is 'clean.' However, using a 'smudged window'--of which there are so many more--is another. Will we stagnate through indecision? Will we self-destruct in a nostalgic desire to return to a past promised in the lorelei-like songs of nostalgia? Will we continue to stumble forward as a nation of cautiously optimistic and mistake-prone idealists? History--whose past is often murkier than clean and whose future remains dark with unpredictability--will ultimately decide our fates...but it is patently obvious from this discussion that there are those who will not go quietly into that dark night without having given their all to continuing that noble experiment that is the United States of America.
"To the United States of America!"
Richard's $.02 :munchin
You gave me chills...the good kind.
To my beloved Country!
With good people such as those in this forum - we will surely overcome our problems.
To the United States of America!
Surf n Turf
02-15-2009, 19:50
Will we stagnate through indecision? Will we self-destruct in a nostalgic desire to return to a past promised in the lorelei-like songs of nostalgia? Will we continue to stumble forward as a nation of cautiously optimistic and mistake-prone idealists? History--whose past is often murkier than clean and whose future remains dark with unpredictability--will ultimately decide our fates...but it is patently obvious from this discussion that there are those who will not go quietly into that dark night without having given their all to continuing that noble experiment that is the United States of America.
"To the United States of America!"
Richard,
Outstanding – I will also raise my glass.
SnT
USANick7
02-15-2009, 19:58
Will we stagnate through indecision? Will we self-destruct in a nostalgic desire to return to a past promised in the lorelei-like songs of nostalgia? Will we continue to stumble forward as a nation of cautiously optimistic and mistake-prone idealists? History--whose past is often murkier than clean and whose future remains dark with unpredictability--will ultimately decide our fates...but it is patently obvious from this discussion that there are those who will not go quietly into that dark night without having given their all to continuing that noble experiment that is the United States of America.
Very well written.
6.8SPC_DUMP
02-16-2009, 18:09
(Wish I had Richard as a Principal in HS)
I completely agree with Csquare.
It is the responsibility of Senators and Congressmen to act in the best interest of our Country, their State and constituency. To do this they need a basic understanding of the subject matter involved in their legislation and have some over site of how it is being implemented. IMO they have had neither recently.
787 billion Economic Stimulus Bill:
1. Signed by Obama on Feb. 15, this 1,071 page document was not read by any Senator's aides (no pun intended Mr. Frank), as they were given less than 12 hours to review the material
700 Billion "bailout":
1. The described purpose was to partially socialize failing mortgages.
2. This got a lot of criticism because:
(a.) It would reward incompetent bank investments and those without means to support their debt
(b.) It would be no help to those who live within their means but just lost 1/2 of their retirement
3. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson:
(a.) Told select Senators if failing mortgages were not bought up the country would go through a depression equal to the 30's and threatened to impose Martial Law to pass the measure do it it's urgency
(b.) The day after the "bail out" funds passed, they were diverted to the banks with no over site, with the new reasoning that the funds were needed to free up the credit flow
4. As of today:
(a.) The total amount of bail out funds would have paid for 90% of all current mortgages owed in the United States
(b.) The money appropriated to banks has not resulted in an unfreezing of the credit market
(c.) Banks have refused to disclosed an itemized account of where the tax payers dollars being spent
I have failed as a voter to hold politicians accountable in their decision making - so I wrote Rep. Frank for some advice on how to do so. :rolleyes:
I'd appreciate any input here as well.
Defender968
02-16-2009, 18:37
(Wish I had Richard as a Principal in HS)
I completely agree with Csquare.
It is the responsibility of Senators and Congressmen to act in the best interest of our Country, their State and constituency. To do this they need a basic understanding of the subject matter involved in their legislation and have some over site of how it is being implemented. IMO they have had neither recently.
787 billion Economic Stimulus Bill:
1. Signed by Obama on Feb. 15, this 1,071 page document was not read by any Senator's aides (no pun intended Mr. Frank), as they were given less than 12 hours to review the material
800 Billion "bailout":
1. The described purpose was to partially socialize failing mortgages.
2. This got a lot of criticism because:
(a.) It would reward incompetent bank investments and those without means to support their debt
(b.) It would be no help to those who live within their means but just lost 1/2 of their retirement
3. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson:
(a.) Told select Senators if failing mortgages were not bought up the country would go through a depression equal to the 30's and threatened to impose Martial Law to pass the measure do it it's urgency
(b.) The day after the "bail out" funds passed, they were diverted the banks with no over site, with the new reasoning that the funds were needed to free up the credit flow
4. As of today:
(a.) The total amount of money given to banks would have paid for 90% of all current mortgages owed in the United States
(b.) The money appropriated to banks has not resulted in an unfreezing of the credit market
(c.) Banks have refused to disclosed an itemized account of where the tax payers dollars being spent
I have failed as a voter to hold politicians accountable in their decision making - so I wrote Rep. Frank for some advice on how to do so. :rolleyes:
I'd appreciate any input here as well.
Where did you find this info, it looks to me like you're confusing the Porkulous bill and the TARP, please correct me if I'm wrong.
If they really only got 12 hours to review the material then I think the repercussions truly are on everyone of them as they had a duty to vote against a bill that they had not reviewed IMO. You don't just sign off and hope for the best....as I've been saying for over a year HOPE is not a strategy!
6.8SPC_DUMP
02-16-2009, 19:39
Where did you find this info, it looks to me like you're confusing the Porkulous bill and the TARP, please correct me if I'm wrong.
If they really only got 12 hours to review the material then I think the repercussions truly are on everyone of them as they had a duty to vote against a bill that they had not reviewed IMO. You don't just sign off and hope for the best....as I've been saying for over a year HOPE is not a strategy!
I wrote about both the TARP (700 Billion "bailout") and Porkulus bill (787 billion Economic Stimulus Bill). I don't see anything that confuses their content.
I got the information online from news articles, interviews, CSPAN clips ect. If you can't find any verification for something I wrote please tell me which part and I'll look for a link.
Rep. Boehner was my source for the 12 hours to read the 1100 page Porkulus bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvnwOjDjnH4
Added: I see the confusion; The TARP cost 700 billion - not 800 billion like I wrote before
<<SNIP>>
787 billion Economic Stimulus Bill:
1. Signed by Obama on Feb. 15, this 1,071 page document was not read by any Senator's aides..., as they were given less than 12 hours to review the material.
<<SNIP>>
This point raises a question. Do members of a senator's or representative's staff generally read the entire text of a bill before voting or is the reading done by members of the committee staff that drafts the legislation?
Defender968
02-17-2009, 09:15
This point raises a question. Do members of a senator's or representative's staff generally read the entire text of a bill before voting or is the reading done by members of the committee staff that drafts the legislation?
The next question I would ask is if in fact they are not reading these bills, wouldn't that be a very dangerous situation? What's to stop a very few people from hiding things in a bill this big which then passes, and we the people are left to deal with the repercussions.
Mr. "I have to pay taxes?" Daschel has already made the suggestion to the one about slipping universal health care into a spending/budget bill so no one notices or debates it. If our lawmakers are resorting to this type of thing I would argue we are only a few breaths away from completely loosing our freedom.
Where did you find this info, it looks to me like you're confusing the Porkulous bill and the TARP, please correct me if I'm wrong.
If they really only got 12 hours to review the material then I think the repercussions truly are on everyone of them as they had a duty to vote against a bill that they had not reviewed IMO. You don't just sign off and hope for the best....as I've been saying for over a year HOPE is not a strategy!
Unfortunately, that is how things work in Washington. And even though the Bill is 1027 pages long, you can get it read in 12 hours. Believe me, I have done it on numerous occassions when I worked Legislative Affairs for a COCOM. There were times we had less than 3 hours to formulate a stance on a particular piece of legislation, and you cannot formulate said stance without reading the entire bill.
So in my estimation this is just pure laziness, on the parts of the aides. yes DC is busy, yes everyone has a busy schedule, but if you are going to spend this much of taxpayers money you DAMN WELL better take the time to understand what your boss (Senator/Congressman) is voting for. Because believe you me, it WILL come back and bite them in the ass.
This point raises a question. Do members of a senator's or representative's staff generally read the entire text of a bill before voting or is the reading done by members of the committee staff that drafts the legislation?
In my experience, if a member is going to be required to vote on a piece of legislation, his personal staff will read the bill and determine which way he/she should vote.
In my experience, if a member is going to be required to vote on a piece of legislation, his personal staff will read the bill and determine which way he/she should vote.
AFCHIC is correct. I dealt with a Congress-critter from Georgia once who was at Fort Benning gathering first-hand opinions regarding a development program important to his district. He had this Dilbert on his staff who could damn near quote verbatim nearly any frigging paragraph from any military TM/FM or budget analysis or position paper for any development program when asked for such data by the esteemed voting member of Congress. I've never seen anything like it...but the enfranchised member of Congress made no decisions regarding the military without first consulting with this walking, talking data base--who BTW was around 30 years old. FWIW--after spending a day with them, it was obvious that this guy could cite chapter and verse minutiae on demand...but had absolutely no understanding of the 'BIG PICTURE' regarding anything he was talking about and the program we were discussing.
JMHO...but any Congress-critter who voted without 'staffing' the stimulus package should be removed for dereliction of duty and downright laziness.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
The next question I would ask is if in fact they are not reading these bills, wouldn't that be a very dangerous situation? What's to stop a very few people from hiding things in a bill this big which then passes, and we the people are left to deal with the repercussions.
Sir--
My concern would be less of two or more parts of the legislation having the same best intentions but ultimately being incompatible. Metaphorically, some parts being measured in centimeters and others in inches.
Afchic and Richard--
Thank you both for your insights. FWIW, I agree that it just makes good sense that if a legislator is going to vote on a bill he or a very trusted aide would know what the 'yea' or 'nay' meant.
IIRC, after the vote for (not during the debate over) the first appropriations bill for Iraq after the start of OIF, Representative Pelosi admitted that she had not read the bill and said, almost wistfully, that she hoped someone would before a dime was spent. At the time, I just thought the comment was odd: an insight into how she did things. I would not have guessed that that's the way things just get done these days.
Sir--
My concern would be less of two or more parts of the legislation having the same best intentions but ultimately being incompatible. Metaphorically, some parts being measured in centimeters and others in inches.
Afchic and Richard--
Thank you both for your insights. FWIW, I agree that it just makes good sense that if a legislator is going to vote on a bill he or a very trusted aide would know what the 'yea' or 'nay' meant.
IIRC, after the vote for (not during the debate over) the first appropriations bill for Iraq after the start of OIF, Representative Pelosi admitted that she had not read the bill and said, almost wistfully, that she hoped someone would before a dime was spent. At the time, I just thought the comment was odd: an insight into how she did things. I would not have guessed that that's the way things just get done these days.
While I was working LL, it really kind of scared me that you had, in many intances, these very young aides that were responsible for reading the legislation and for all practical purposes, telling the member how to vote. As Richard stated with his story, they may be very smart, but have no clue about the big picture. I have met some that are VERY knowledgeable, but they are usually professional staffers who are older and have been around the block a few times.
To exemplify how bad this has gotten, Sen Specter was on Fox after it was discovered he voted for the Senate version of the Stimulus Bill. Megan Kelly raked him over the coals because he had no idea of the ammendment about healthcare that had been added.
It basically stated the Federal Government will start tracking how someone is treated for whatever ailment they have. They will then have a database that eventually will tell them that for example: an 81 year old female with a broken hip is more often than not treated in such and such a manner. Then if her doctor recommends a different type of treatment than the "norm" the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will have a say as to whether that treatment is appropriate, and if it is cost effective.
So sad if you are said 81 year old woman and the government, not your doctor, gets to decide if you get a hip replacement.
So Senator Specter voted yes on the stimulus package, but had no idea this ammendment was attached, or the effect it will have on our healthcare system for decades to come, or until someone smart decides to get it repealed.
Did the good senator read the entire legislation? Of course not. Did an aide have the responsibilty to do so? You bet. Did said aide mention to the good Senator this provision was in the Bill, probably not because a) he didn't do his job with due diligence or b) he didn't think it was important enough in the big scheme of things to mention to his boss.
In my experience, the only part of legislation an individual Senator or Congressperson cares about is a) if they are a sponsor of the Bill. Most times co-sponsors have no clue what the bill says for the most part before they sign up as a co-sponsor. b) They have tacked an ammendment onto the Bill. they don't care about the primary legislation, only their ammendment.
This folks, is how laws are made in this country. Pretty sad state of affairs if you ask me.
6.8SPC_DUMP
02-17-2009, 20:24
afchic -
Thank you for your service and sharing your POV as a professional.
The only way I can think of to properly evaluate the merit of purposed programs / acts is to have them voted for, on an individual basis, not bundled up into a huge package.
Is it naive to think this could work?
Is it naive to think that Representatives would be open to this?
Why or why not?
afchic -
Thank you for your service and sharing your POV as a professional.
The only way I can think of to properly evaluate the merit of purposed programs / acts is to have them voted for, on an individual basis, not bundled up into a huge package.
Is it naive to think this could work?
Is it naive to think that Representatives would be open to this?
Why or why not?
I think it is a fabulous idea, much as I think the line item veto is a great idea. The problem is most senators and congresspersons will never go for it. In the world of the legislative branch, the game is played by providing "favors" for other members. You give me something I want , ie money to build a tropical rainforest in the middle of Iowa, and I will give you my vote on a piece of legislation you really want to see passed.
If you put every item up for a vote, a) there is a chance other members will vote down the items you want b) by putting it up for a vote, it goes on the congressional record and then the individuals voting will be putting their name on something they may not want their constituents to know how they are voting one way or another 3) you run the risk of pissing off members who weren't offered the same "bribe" for their district/state, and will stick it to you on another piece of legislation.
It is a dirty dirty business. It is really too bad that civic courses do not do a better job of teaching how the legistlative process works, other than the cursory "How a Bill becomes Law" as provided by the electric company and sesame street.
6.8SPC_DUMP
02-18-2009, 12:04
If you put every item up for a vote, a) there is a chance other members will vote down the items you want b) by putting it up for a vote, it goes on the congressional record and then the individuals voting will be putting their name on something they may not want their constituents to know how they are voting one way or another 3) you run the risk of pissing off members who weren't offered the same "bribe" for their district/state, and will stick it to you on another piece of legislation.
Can you think of a way to have a blind vote but not eliminate accountability?
Come on, solve democracy afchick :)
Can you think of a way to have a blind vote but not eliminate accountability?
Come on, solve democracy afchick :)
ONe way would have been a piece of legislation John McCain was trying to get passed a couple of years ago, but was voted down. I basically stated that anyone that receives an earmark in a bill will be named. Not a big deal, right? Hell hath no fury like a member of the US Congress who is outed for recieving an earmark, when they don't want to be outed. Can you imagine the backlash that would ensue if these guys had to explain these things?
Needless to say, most of our legislators did not want that bill to see the light of day, and even though it was presented during a republican congress, I don't think it ever left committee let alone made it to the Senate Floor for a vote.
Can you think of a way to have a blind vote but not eliminate accountability?
Some questions inspired by 6.8SPC's thoughtful posts in this thread.:lifter
Is the issue primarily one of procedure or of a dysfunctional political culture? Rules, no matter how well-thought out, are of little use if too many players are trying to game the system.
In times of national emergency, would rules designed to require more careful vetting still apply even though that vetting could make the passing of necessary bills untimely? (As the saying, "Study long, study wrong.") If the rules did apply, the legislative branch, not having enough time to act, could create a void which the executive branch might be tempted to fill.
If the public buys into more rules for legislators and other politicians, would the call for greater oversight then go to elements of the private sector starting with the banks?
In the private sector, much is made about 'certification.' Would a similar sensibility serve voters? For example, we started asking questions about a candidate's participation in ongoing ethics programs.
George Will offers a few salient points to the debate here.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
A Lesson from the Framers
George Will
Sunday, February 22, 2009
WASHINGTON -- A simple apology would have sufficed. Instead, Sen. Russ Feingold has decided to follow his McCain-Feingold evisceration of the First Amendment with Feingold-McCain, more vandalism against the Constitution.
The Wisconsin Democrat, who is steeped in his state's progressive tradition, says, as would-be amenders of the Constitution often do, that he is reluctant to tamper with the document, but tamper he must because the threat to the public weal is immense: Some governors have recently behaved badly in appointing people to fill U.S. Senate vacancies. Feingold's solution, of which John McCain is a co-sponsor, is to amend the 17th Amendment. It would be better to repeal it.
The Framers established election of senators by state legislators, under which system the nation got the Great Triumvirate (Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John Calhoun) and thrived. In 1913, progressives, believing that more, and more direct, democracy is always wonderful, got the 17th Amendment ratified. It stipulates popular election of senators, under which system Wisconsin has elected, among others, Joe McCarthy, as well as Feingold.
The 17th Amendment says that when Senate vacancies occur, "the executive authority" of the affected state "shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct." Feingold's amendment says:
"No person shall be a Senator from a State unless such person has been elected by the people thereof. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies."
Feingold says mandating election of replacement senators is necessary to make the Senate as "responsive to the people as possible." Well. The House, directly elected and with two-year terms, was designed for responsiveness. The Senate, indirectly elected and with six-year terms, was to be more deliberative than responsive.
Furthermore, grounding the Senate in state legislatures served the structure of federalism. Giving the states an important role in determining the composition of the federal government gave the states power to resist what has happened since 1913 -- the progressive (in two senses) reduction of the states to administrative extensions of the federal government.
Severing senators from state legislatures, which could monitor and even instruct them, made them more susceptible to influence by nationally organized interest groups based in Washington. Many of those groups, who preferred one-stop shopping in Washington to currying favors in all the state capitals, campaigned for the 17th Amendment. So did urban political machines, which were then organizing an uninformed electorate swollen by immigrants. Alliances between such interests and senators led to a lengthening of the senators' tenures.
The Framers gave the three political components of the federal government (the House, Senate and presidency) different electors (the people, the state legislatures and the Electoral College as originally intended) to reinforce the principle of separation of powers, by which government is checked and balanced.
Although liberals give lip service to "diversity," they often treat federalism as an annoying impediment to their drive for uniformity. Feingold, who is proud that Wisconsin is one of only four states that clearly require special elections of replacement senators in all circumstances, wants to impose Wisconsin's preference on the other 46. Yes, he acknowledges, they could each choose to pass laws like Wisconsin's, but doing this "state by state would be a long and difficult process." Pluralism is so tediously time-consuming.
Irony alert: Feingold's amendment requiring elections to fill Senate vacancies will owe any traction it gains to Senate Democrats' opposition to an election to choose a replacement for Barack Obama. That opposition led to the ongoing Blagojevich-Burris fiasco.
By restricting the financing of political advocacy, the McCain-Feingold speech-rationing law empowers the government to regulate the quantity, timing and content of political speech. Thanks to Feingold, McCain and others, the First Amendment now, in effect, reads: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech unless it really, really wants to in order to guarantee that there will be only as much speech about the government as the government considers appropriate, and at times the government approves."
Now Feingold proposes to traduce federalism and nudge the Senate still further away from the nature and function the Framers favored. He is, as the saying goes, an unapologetic progressive, but one with more and more for which to apologize.
GratefulCitizen
02-22-2009, 15:07
An interesting article on the issue:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/how_democracies_become_tyranni.html
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there anything of which one can say,
"Look! This is something new"?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
Ecclesiastes 1: 9-10 (NIV)
Very interesting, Grateful. Thank you for posting it.
The indications for the future of our own nation are chilling.