| Author | Message | ||
     Honolulu_blue_esq |
Dude, I have no idea what you are talking about with your "misrepresentation" nonsense. Talking about misrepresentation though, when in hell did i say "unequal representation in Congress is constitutional?" I've never agreed with you that this bill is an example of unequal represenation. | ||
| Moxnix |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_Infinite_C ornucopia | ||
| Sifo |
In the most simple terms, not it is not. This is why: (i) the decision to give the bill that "special treatment" was made by the entire Congress; and (ii) that "special treatment" consists of calling for a straight yes or no vote after 2 or 30 hours of debate, depending on whether you are in the HOuse or the Senate, whereas other bills are subject to being debated, amended, debated, amended, debated, amended forever until such time as they die without ever being voted on or become something they were never intended to be; and (iii) that "special treatment" can be revoked at any time by the entire Congress; and (iv) the bill proposed by the group of 12 can be shot down by Congress by the same size vote as it would take to shoot down any other bill; and (v) the president can veto the bill proposed by the group of 12 in the same way as he could veto any other bill. Sorry, I couldn't get simpler. It is what it is. And what it is ain't unconstitutional. You are referring to a hypothetical bill proposed in the future. I am talking about a group of 12 congressmen. Again you answer a question that was not asked. | ||
| Sifo |
Dude, I have no idea what you are talking about with your "misrepresentation" nonsense. Talking about misrepresentation though, when in hell did i say "unequal representation in Congress is constitutional?" I've never agreed with you that this bill is an example of unequal represenation. A group of 12 Congressmen will have powers different from the rest of Congress. Agree or disagree, but that is unequal. EDIT: And the misrepresentation part is that you keep answering questions not asked while ignoring the question that is being asked. (Message edited by SIFO on August 04, 2011) | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
DannyD: You can't be wrong if you keep moving the target. First, this thing was unconstitutional because it violated "congress has the power to" language. Then, it was unconstitutional because a retired Judge said it was. Then, it because unconstitutional because it violates "the spirit of the constitution." (my personal favorite) Then, it became a matter of it is unconstitutional because it sets forth unequal representation (which was never substantiated by facts, just assumption and opinion), so it is up to the folks who think it is constitutional to show where in the Constitution it says unequal representation is okay. Then, I became a liar saying "it seems like you guys have the following position...." You can't win for trying. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Wow. You asked: A bill proposed by the group of 12 is under a completely different set of rules from a bill proposed by any other member of Congress. THAT IS UNEQUAL REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS, IS IT NOT? I responded: IN THE MOST SIMPLE TERMS, NO IT IS NOT. THIS IS WHY: How is that not answering your question? As Blake often says "you no read good." | ||
| Sifo |
Honolulu, I hate to break this to you but all of the above has been the same basic argument. Rephrases many times trying to get an answer, but still the same basic argument, that this group of 12 is not Congress, and they are being given special powers above other Congresscritters. You have said, and been corrected numerous times that no one is claiming that this legislation prevents any Congresscritter from presenting their own bill. I have no idea where you got that from and you seem unwilling to share. I'm still waiting for an answer on how setting up 2 tiers of Congresscritters is allowable. | ||
| Sifo |
You completely ignore the unequal representation aspect of the question. First of all Congress has no authority to override the Constitution and give this legislative authority to a special group of 12. Remember the part about "congress has the power to"? It's still all part of the same issue. From there Congress also has no authority to set up a special group of 12 that has powers above and beyond the rest of the legislative body. (Can anyone else present bills that are immune to debate, amendment, filibuster, etc.?) The conversation has been stalled at this point all day long. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Sifo: You aren't listening. You are just saying the same thing over and over again no matter how many times I address you. I love a good debate, but this isn't one. You stay classy. | ||
| Sifo |
You are just saying the same thing over and over again You mean like "How is setting up 2 tiers of Congresscritters allowable"? Guilty! | ||
| Cityxslicker |
it has distinct and historical presidence... in the Communist Party. You have the representative Oblast and Duma members, and each indeed does get a 'vote' (of course you best had better follow the Party line) but the items and agendas of the 'vote' are driven and directed by the Politburo (Party Appartchik Agenda) the board of council members (similar to our cabinet, but only vaguely so) and the whim and impulse of the Leader - and at the time of Lenin and Stalin - that whim usually included the death of the opposition, resistance, and seizure of foreign investment assets.... which do you think happens first here ? All animals are equal, some more equal than others. | ||
| Blake |
Sifo speaks truth with clarity, but sadly it is lost on some. | ||
| Oldog |
I musta missed some thing, AS I understand it the Selected 12 are to draft a bill, this is to go to congress and be voted on strait up and down with no amendments and no additional items (pork) attached.. personally looks like more washington slight of hand .. A poll last reported on yesterday shows that 60+% of americans want the senate, house and whitehouse cleaned out all are fired, Humm darnd teabaggers .... | ||
| Sifo |
I wonder how Honolulu would feel about having a single party committee draft legislation that could not be debated, amended or filibustered. Seeing that his support for the current version of a Super Congress seems be based on efficiency, this should be quite appealing to him. Certainly not having a second party in the mix would streamline the process. Now it's a simple matter of appointing 6 Republicans into the Super Duper Congress and get the ball rolling. This would be a very easy thing to do to. Republicans hold a majority in the House and could easily draft it and muscle it through a vote. I suppose they could put 6 Democrats in the Super Duper Congress, but let's be realistic, the Democrats are the minority party right now. Don't worry about the Republicans running roughshod over anyone though. Any bills that come from the Super Duper Congress will get voted up or down by the Republican held house. No problems, right! What could possibly go wrong?  | ||
| Moxnix |
Obamacare. Pelosi: "You have to vote for it in order to read it." | ||
| Oldog |
Dint recall hearing that the super congress bill could not be filibustered. just a strait up / strait down vote no amendments | ||
| Sifo |
And no filibuster. They've basically removed all normal procedures other than the up or down vote. It is a 2 tier system of representation. | ||
| Oldog |
perhaps with the 2013 housecleaning this can be corrected, and obama care repealed. | ||
| Dannyd |
90% of the problems with our government could be solved very easily. It's called Term Limits. 2 terms in each house MAX!!! And if you can pull that off then try to become President for another 2 terms. that would be your political career. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Oldog: You won't have to wait that long. Sifo will just go make his argument through the court system and stop the end of Democracy as we know it. His arguments are infallible and there is nothing to refute them. Its true! Blake said so! | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Dannyd: I'd vote for that. | ||
| Dannyd |
Unfortunately the folks who would make it a law are the same ones who would be affected by it so unless we get an amendment to the Constitution chaces of it ever happening are slim. Personally I would take it even a step further in that of the 2 Senators each state gets one of them would be chosen by a lottery each election. Every citizen that is not a convicted felon of that state would be eligible to become a senator by lottery for one. if you don't want the job then they keep drawing until they get somebody who wants the job with full standard pay and benefits. Party affiliation would not matter. And after your first term you could run to be the "other" senator for one more term but that's it. Same thing for half of the House at a time. That would really turn Congress on its head!!! (Message edited by dannyd on August 05, 2011) | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
That might be taking it to far. If they drew my name, North Carolina would have a lying Senator who believed in everything that is against the spirit of the Constitution, truth, justice and the American way. | ||
| Ulyranger |
Term Limits is a good start, but I would propose going much further to steal the honey from the flies swarming towards DC. We need to get back to the original intent (yeah, I know, not a chance).....of the People, for the People, by the People. Along those lines I have a few thoughts; 1. Term Limits. Dannyd's outline works for me, two terms then get the heck back out there and earn your keep. 2. No gravy. In keeping with the original intent of a body of ordinary citizens debating and making laws (at least with the House) we need to take away all the incentives for these dolts making permanent residence in our Capitol. No salary, no pension, no health care, no special perks. Let them keep their original job(s), pay and benefits. Whether they be farmers, tradesman, captains of industry or millionaires. They can receive a stipend and/or per diem for actual days worked on behalf of the People. They could also be compensated for actual costs incurred meeting their elected responsibilities (i.e. simple office supplies, mileage, etc). No big, high-paid staffs, cars, jets, etc.. No need for them to be in session all the time either. Let them convene twice a year, get the job done and go home and earn their keep like the rest of us. The idea that a Congress in permanent session between elections is pure insanity. No career = no pension, let's just erase the huge mistake. Probably other thoughts here, but you get the idea. 3. Campaign finance reform. Not an expert on this stuff, but have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express before so... Big money quite obviously begets big influence, no question. How to limit that influence while allowing for proper promotion of good candidates not easy to tackle. How about forgetting about arbitrary cash limits on certain segments of donors and just going for straight up declaration? On top of that making it individual donations only. No limit, but you have to declare it, every penny. Heck, make it tax deductible then it must be declared to the IRS & State Taxation. No Big (fill in blank here) corporations, No Big Unions, No slush-funded PACs that happens to file the right paperwork with the IRS as cover for ??, No Big Lobbyist (i.e. AARP, NRA, Apollo Project, Open Society, etc). If the limitless $ donations don't work for you, how about individual donations of $25, $50 or $100 with the "Big" restrictions above? As far as buying time & advertisements go, provision for equal time for any/all candidates that meet minimum standards for their State for nomination signatures, primaries and such. Dunno, just throwing stuff out there... Mccain/Feingold is a joke and only limits very limited groups of influence. 4. ???? WTF, lunch is over and I wasted my time typing a bunch of drivel. Back on to your Constitutional arguements......carry on. | ||
| Macbuell |
Term Limits and a Balance Budget Amendment would be two HUGE steps to fixing everything. That gets rid of career politicians and greatly reduces the power of lobbyist and special interest groups and makes it so they can only spend what is taken in during each year. I would also say that there needs to be a provision to allow the Balanced Budget Amendment to be temporarily lifted in times of National Emergency or War. What would qualify for lifting would need to be clearly spelled out and require a 2/3rds votes from both chambers and a signature from the President. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Ulyranger: The only problem I see on the "no gravy" front is that it would effectively eliminate most folks from the pool of potential candidates, in that most can't afford to spend that much time away from work without pay. Only those with nice deep pockets could afford to serve, which is basically the way it is now. | ||
| Sifo |
Honolulu, I suspect that my argument is rather solid or you would have answered the question that I have asked so many times in various forms... How is it allowable to have a 2 tiered system in our Congress? | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Yep. Your argument is rock solid. File your challenge in court. I'm sure you'll sail right through unchallenged. Unbeatable. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwx2ce_AyOE | ||
| Oldog |
Blue: listen, when political threads come up and you take a position here be prepared to site facts from a credible source, or state it as your opinion. its not personal, frankly I learn some things from these discussions seriously spend some time watching C-span and scan the channels, none are totally un biased but if you serf and listen to them ( networks & cable with the idea that none are entirely neutral or totaly factual, its eye opening, then some of the view points make more sense.. Washington by and large is outa control we need to review our federal reps votes and evaluate them against the events of recent days, and the current need. |
