| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
Representative government is more than just my opinion. It is the entire basis of the Constitution. This body of 12 excludes most of the representatives from the bulk of the legislative process. In what way at all is that a representative government? You offer nothing at all to support that view. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Reepicheep: I've never heard anyone make the points you just made, and I think they are great points. Particularly the one about viability. Devils Advocate position would be this I think: Life doesn't begin until viability (reasonable folks disagree). Once life begins, natural rights (liberty) attach. They do not end until life ends. So, perhaps there is a distinction between the fetus and the old man on life support. I really like your point, and will have to ponder it for a bit. I also really like that you put forth an "alternative standard" which makes some real sense. Particularly if there were exceptions for rape, incest, health of the mother, etc. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Sifo: Viability, as that term is used in the abortion debate, refers to the moment in time when life can continue outside of the womb. As science develops, this point will become more and more interesting, as I'm sure there will be a point when what you say is true: a fertilized egg will be removed from the womb and can reach maturity outside of the womb. Won't that make the debate an interesting one? | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Sifo: I've said my piece on the new law. I wonder if you've ever thought you lost an argument. All I'm asking is that you use the term "unconstitutional" more judiciously. The Constitution is a pretty important document. When something violates it, it should be a bid deal. When the talking heads and other folks call EVERYTHING they disagree with unconstitutional, it kind of waters down the term. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
The Dirty Dozen seems like a smaller version of what we have already. And totally un-neccesary. Bye.  | ||
| Dannyd |
The super dozen are only a committee that will make budget cutting proposals. But whatever they come up with still has to be approved by Congress. I swear some of you just love to get caught up in the conspiracy theories!!! Nowhere in the latest bill are they allowed to just pass stuff without full congressional approval. Now if they do not get approval then automatic cuts will happen especially in the defense budget but this was voted on by Congress the other day as well. | ||
| Sifo |
Sifo: Viability, as that term is used in the abortion debate, refers to the moment in time when life can continue outside of the womb. As science develops, this point will become more and more interesting, as I'm sure there will be a point when what you say is true: a fertilized egg will be removed from the womb and can reach maturity outside of the womb. Won't that make the debate an interesting one? I'm well aware of how the term "viability" was used in the abortion debate. I simply wanted to point out it's correct use. No life is viable is certain actions are taken. Your point about viability is also discredited with the use of late term abortions. Very "viable" (using your version of the word) fetuses are aborted every day. I will happily agree to not mess up this thread with the abortion topic any further though. Sifo: I've said my piece on the new law. I wonder if you've ever thought you lost an argument. All I'm asking is that you use the term "unconstitutional" more judiciously. The Constitution is a pretty important document. When something violates it, it should be a bid deal. When the talking heads and other folks call EVERYTHING they disagree with unconstitutional, it kind of waters down the term. I've made my case as to how this violates the very foundations of the Constitution by ignoring the very idea of a representative government. There's been nothing offered to refute what I've said. I'm really not sure what more, short of dictatorship, can be done to violate the intent of that document. Has anyone taken my challenge to explain why they think this is actually a good idea? If they have I don't recall seeing it. It's one thing to argue that something is doable (and I think this fails that test Constitutionally), but it's quite another to argue that it should be done. I'm interested in why it should be done. I see may reasons that it shouldn't be done. It make all animals equal. Some more equal than others. | ||
| Sifo |
The super dozen are only a committee that will make budget cutting proposals. Seriously? Can you not see that it limits members of Congress from having input into these measures that they have rights to as a member of Congress? The Constitution is quite clear in it's intent that Congress is meant to be the place to debate the ideas that will be implemented into law. This is now being given to a supreme group of appointees. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
"I've made my case as to how this violates the very foundations of the Constitution by ignoring the very idea of a representative government." No, but you think you have, which I suppose is good enough for you. "Has anyone taken my challenge to explain why they think this is actually a good idea?" You are calling for an opinion with that one, but yeah, I set mine forth above a while back. Maybe yesterday. Dannyd: I'm glad someone is paying attention. | ||
| Sifo |
And again you have NOTHING to refute anything. | ||
| Sifo |
Honolulu, I've found where you responded with...
You offer nothing different that what Congress already is/does. They are already "bipartisan" as used in your sentence, and just as much in theory at least propose a bill that stands a chance of passing. You offer very little promise of anything better, and there are plenty of reasons why it is a very bad idea. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
You are right. I've got nothing....except for that whole Constitution document thingy which has some words in it that actually say things that support what I'm writing. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
What I offer as the benefit is: "the 12 are responsible for writing a bill that they think actually has a shot of passing by a majority vote and that will reduce the deficit (which is what most of you argue for regularly), as opposed to one that has no chance at passing but which "looks good" to their respective bases." I can see where you might have missed that part. | ||
| Sifo |
The problem is that we are giving a body of 12 the powers granted to Congress. Your argument is one of efficiency. The founders recognized that rule by a King was very efficient, but not desirable. They also recognized that complete democracy, while in many ways desirable, was terribly inefficient on any large scale. They wrote into the Constitution very specific rules as to the make up of the legislature to strike a balance between these two extremes. It was carefully crafted to protect the rights of all states equally. What is now being proposed changes all of that. It gives more power to certain members of Congress over others. In what possible way is this in the spirit of the Constitution? We are clearly making some animals more equal than others. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Now we are talking about the "spirit" of the constitution? "The problem is that we are giving a body of 12 the powers granted to Congress." I still disagree with you here. Congress is still the only body with the powers "granted" to it. It has simply elected, by passing this bill, to modify the method in which it will exercise its powers with respect to select future bills. [There is a little dude breathing fire below. I don't know he got there, and I can't get him to go away. Seriously]. "  They [the Founders] wrote into the Constitution very specific rules as to the make up of the legislature to strike a balance between these two extremes. It was carefully crafted to protect the rights of all states equally." I agree, but you see this bill as an infringement upon those rules regarding the make up of the legislature. I don't. | ||
| Sifo |
It has simply elected, by passing this bill, to modify the method in which it will exercise its powers with respect to select future bills. And they are doing so by giving their powers to a group of 12 appointed individuals. I ask again... In what way, shape, or form is this a representative government? If you are from a state that isn't represented on this panel, then your state is at a disadvantage in it's representation. Yes, this is against the spirit of the Constitution as a whole. It is also against specific areas of the constitution that I have detailed previously. I'm sorry, but if you can't see how this creates a system where states are not represented equally as specified in the Constitution then you will never understand any finer points. Let me state in one last time in the simplest terms possible... This creates a system where 12 members of Congress have higher powers than all the rest of Congress. If you can't address this point directly then please don't bother at all. | ||
| Drkside79 |
Sifo just out of curiosity how many Congressmen do you require to be constitutional? Or should all 435 of the house and 100 of the senate have each written three words? They all had a chance to vote and did so in essence they all had their say. | ||
| Drkside79 |
No it doesn't sifo. Let me ask you a question. Did congress vote? or was it only twelve votes? If they all got a chance to vote then they all got equal say. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
"If you are from a state that isn't represented on this panel, then your state is at a disadvantage in it's representation." We've now come full circle. This kind of logic means that if your State isn't represented on every subcommittee that writes each bill ever written, you are at a disadvantate in it's representation. I don't buy it. Every representative (House and Senate) gets a vote. And here is a key point. Please read this and try to understand it: Every represenatative (House and Senate) can still write and bring forth any bill it wants to through the normal mechanisms. This bill does not prohibit such action or activity. All this is is the establishment of a committee with a singular purpose. You are trying to make a mountain from a mole hill. Don't kid yourself in thinking you've "detailed" any specific areas of the Constitution that this violates. You haven't, and you can't, because no such provisions exist. We've covered that already. "Let me state in one last time in the simplest terms possible... This creates a system where 12 members of Congress have higher powers than all the rest of Congress." No it doesn't, unless having the OBLIGATION to propose legislation is somehow "higher powers." | ||
| Sifo |
Damn Drkside, How many times must this be covered. There's no mandate that every Congresscritter touch the bill at every step. There are actions that they must have available to them though such as, but not limited to the ability to debate, amend, filibuster, etc. blah, blah, blah... | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
This is an end-run around the Tea Partiers. Both sides (Dems and Repubs) dont want the apple cart upset and the TP's threw a monkey wrench into the plan by actually insisting the government tackle their debt problem. There may be differences between the Dems and Repubs but at the end of the day they are on the same team and don't care for newcomers or outsiders trying to muscle in on their turf. Expect more of the same. | ||
| Sifo |
This is for both of you. Please explain to me how when one member of Congress has the right to debate and amend a bill, but another has no such right, are the two members of Congress equal? Clearly they are not. Honolulu, Regarding every other bill from any other subcommittee... When those bills are brought forward, they can be debated, amended, filibustered, etc. by ANY member. A blind man can see the difference. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I was thinking that same thing von. But if Congress thinks this approach will make the tea party go away, they must think that you can put out fire by spraying gasoline. | ||
| Sifo |
This is an end-run around the Tea Partiers. Both sides (Dems and Repubs) dont want the apple cart upset and the TP's threw a monkey wrench into the plan by actually insisting the government tackle their debt problem. There may be differences between the Dems and Repubs but at the end of the day they are on the same team and don't care for newcomers or outsiders trying to muscle in on their turf. Expect more of the same. Exactly! Having others see this truth is why this entire, otherwise worthless discussion is worthwhile. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Sifo: I'm kind of tired (and more than a little bored) of "explaining" things to you. If you were willing to see why you are wrong when you are wrong, you'd already have seen it here. You can tell yourself you've "won" if you'd like. | ||
| Dannyd |
Sifo, I don't think you have a clue as to how bills get before Congress to be voted on. Every bill is started in a committee before it ever get on the floor. Many, many bills die before they are ever debated on the floor. How is this committee of 12 any different? I guess you did not watch "schoolhouse rock" on saturday mornings very much as a kid? You really should understand how things work before you start arguing and make a fool of yourself. | ||
| Moxnix |
I'm invoking The Law of Infinite Cornucopia between you three. | ||
| Dannyd |
The funny thing is it sounds like a couple of folks are trying to make this a democrat or republican issue and it is neither. It is a frickin committee for cripes sakes. The same thing they do for almost every bill ever passed in America. Some people read too much crap on the internet and take it as gospel!! | ||
| Sifo |
How is this committee of 12 any different? This committee is different because it has been defined differently. Have you read any of the above? Bills coming from this committee are exempt from the normal process that bills go through. No debate. No amendment process. Exempt from filibuster. No input from anyone outside of the supreme 12. How in God's name is that like every other bill? | ||
| Sifo |
The funny thing is it sounds like a couple of folks are trying to make this a democrat or republican issue and it is neither. That may be your take on it. At this point I have no idea which side actually proposed this stupid idea. Then again, you may be right. I am saying we should pay attention to the Constitution. Same old partisan argument.  |
