A Congress that reasserts its power

Originally posted by whodey
With 46% of the American people desiring repeal of Obamacare, why not let democracy have a say? After all, when Scott Brown was elected the Congress chose Reconciliation to pass a bill so that Brown could not nix it. They then said they needed to pass it in order to know what was in it.

Is it just me or do the progressives think that democracy failed when the voters chose Scott Brown?

With 46% of the American people desiring repeal of Obamacare, why not let democracy have a say?

You seem to be under the illusion that the American system of government is one of direct democracy. The whims of the populace are fickle whodey, there was once a time not too long ago when the majority supported healthcare and elected representatives which vowed to carry out reform, if they feel there should be a change of direction they'll be able to make their voices heard once again when they cast their votes. Public policy isn't meant to be determined by the latest results of the gallup poll.

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]With 46% of the American people desiring repeal of Obamacare, why not let democracy have a say?

You seem to be under the illusion that the American system of government is one of direct democracy. The whims of the populace are fickle whodey, there was once a time not too long ago when the majority supported healthcare and elected representati ...[text shortened]... ir votes. Public policy isn't meant to be determined by the latest results of the gallup poll.[/b]

The people have responded. They elected Scott Brown to try and nix the train wreck unveiled as Obamacare. When that failed, they made their voices heard again in 2010 which was the most dramatic shift in the electorate in over 70 years. Soon the House will pass a reform bill which will once again be nixed by the progressives. So if the people really want reform I suppose they will have to make their voices heard in 2012, because Obama simply will not be a part of it.

Having said that, the article in question is not simply about Obamacare, rather, it is about an executive branch gone wild. It is about a Congress that has willfully passed down their legislative responsibilities to non-elected officials in the executive branch. This simply should not be.

Originally posted by whodey
The people have responded. They elected Scott Brown to try and nix the train wreck unveiled as Obamacare. .

Even assuming that was the reason they voted for Scott Brown - that was just the voters from Massechusets that voted him in for that supposed purpose.

Now you are saying that because of those voters the whole bill should have been nixed?

Originally posted by whodey
With 46% of the American people desiring repeal of Obamacare, why not let democracy have a say? After all, when Scott Brown was elected the Congress chose Reconciliation to pass a bill so that Brown could not nix it. They then said they needed to pass it in order to know what was in it.

Is it just me or do the progressives think that democracy failed when the voters chose Scott Brown?

Yes, please, let's give popular democracy a chance.

First, why don't we hold a popular vote on the DREAM act? Last time I checked (or last time CNN checked, rather), American support was at approximately 54%, and opposition was at 42%. Even with a 5% margin of error, that sounds to me like a law with support of a plurarilty of Americans, at the least. It's a shame that a majority of both houses of Congress can represent a majority of Americans, at least on this issue, and yet the government can't enact this law.

And, why don't we take another look at the CNN poll on health care reform, the one where 56% of Americans thought health care reform was at least headed in the right direction, to be defined as either thinking that the health care bill should be left alone or altered to be even more progressive.

I'll even admit to the fact that a supermajority of Americans dislike the health care mandate (which nevertheless seems to be one of the only feasible ways to keep costs low), but what doesn't make sense is for the House to hold a vote to repeal the entire package, when in fact many provisions are popular and the package as a whole even has majority support.

Is it just me, or do conservatives think that they have a patent on representing the "will of the people"?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Even assuming that was the reason they voted for Scott Brown - that was just the voters from Massechusets that voted him in for that supposed purpose.

Now you are saying that because of those voters the whole bill should have been nixed?

I'm saying the Senator Kennedy tried to prevent the voters of MA from nixing Obamacare by electing someone who ran to oppose it. I am also saying that Reconciliation was used to avoid Scott Brown whom the voters of MA chose to represent them in the legislation.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Is it just me, or do conservatives think that they have a patent on representing the "will of the people"?[/b]

Both parties seem to think that, however, what I'm most concerned with, as is the article, is the willful usurpation of power from the Legislative Branch to uneleced bureaucrats in the executive branch. What say you?

Originally posted by whodey
I'm saying the Senator Kennedy tried to prevent the voters of MA from nixing Obamacare by electing someone who ran to oppose it. I am also saying that Reconciliation was used to avoid Scott Brown whom the voters of MA chose to represent them in the legislation.

Reconciliation was used to avoid the inevitable republican filibuster. What is the problem with that?

Originally posted by whodey
I don't recall the article questioning ones patriotism. In fact, when Nancy Pelosi responded, "Are you serious? Are you serious?", to the question as to whether or not Obamacare was Constitutional, I think she was serious. I also think she thinks she is doing what is best for the country. However, just like her judgement as to whether Obamacare could be c ...[text shortened]... as waaaay out of wack, so to is her belief is that she is doing what is best for the country.

1) The analogy about patriotism and taking pride in the sacrifices of servicemen and servicewomen was exactly that - an analogy. It seemed to me as though the author was criticizing those who would claim that the system (read government, etc.) could be improved even if those same people also held great respect for the system.

2) According to what standard do you assume that Pelosi's beliefs are "waaaay" out of wack?

Originally posted by whodey
Both parties seem to think that, however, what I'm most concerned with, as is the article, is the willful usurpation of power from the Legislative Branch to uneleced bureaucrats in the executive branch. What say you?

I say look at the absurd growth in the number of fillibusters in recent Senate sessons before you bemoan the demise of legislative authority. Since when did 60 become the new 51? See my point above.

I also say to you that the bureaucracy has always been the means through which laws enacted in Congress are executed by the executive branch, for presidencies and Congresses of both democratic and republican majorities. But if congressional republicans are all of the sudden so paranoid about the interpretive abilities of executive agencies, maybe they should write bills of more length, detail, and complexity to define their intent more clearly. (Except of course when they generate new laws about health care, like the democratic bill, which was apparently too technical and too lengthy and too detailed.)

Edit: Frankly what I'm most concerned with is Republicans' hypocrisy in their claims to want to represent the will of the people when on several occasions polls have revealed that their positions do not.

Originally posted by whodey
Face it, progressives could care less about democracy because they know what is best for the nation. Case in point was when Kennedy tried to get the laws changed in MA before he stepped down so that an election would not be held to prevent someone like Brown from getting into office who could nix Obamacare. Then when he loses this fight Brown is elected and is Reconciliation to avoid the Senate vote.

History will not be kind to the progressives.

Ted Kennedy didn't "step down"; he died. And he didn't try to get any laws changed while he was dying. And criticizing reconcilation for defeating the idea of a filibuster while lauding democracy (which a filibuster is meant to defeat) is hypocritical to the extreme.

You're ridiculous and a compulsive liar.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Ted Kennedy didn't "step down"; he died. And he didn't try to get any laws changed while he was dying. You're ridiculous and a compulsive liar.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702048844045743625410112511408.html

"Senator Ted Kennedy, who is gravely ill with brain cancer, has sent a letter to MA lawmakers requesting a change in the state laws that determines how his senate seat would be filled if it became vacant before his 8th full term ends in 2012. Current law mandates that a special election be held at least 145 days after the seat becomes available. Mr. Kennedy is concerned that such a delay would leave his fellow Democrats in the Senate one vote short of a filibuster proof majority."

--------------------------------------------

What can I say other than, liar, liar, pants on fire!! 😛

Originally posted by no1marauder
And criticizing reconcilation for defeating the idea of a filibuster while lauding democracy (which a filibuster is meant to defeat) is hypocritical to the extreme.

This is a fair argument. After all, the Constitution says nothing about the right to filibuster just as it says nothing about Reconciliation. Interestingly, however, in 1993 Bill Clinton tried to pass his health care plan via Reconciliation, however, Senator Robert Byrd objected by saying that it was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets. Then a decade and a half latter I guess they changed their minds.

I must note, however, that Reconcilation has been abused by Republicans more than Democrats and much to their shame.

So how would you feel about nixing both Reconcilation AND the filibuster?

Originally posted by wittywonka

But if congressional republicans are all of the sudden so paranoid about the interpretive abilities of executive agencies, maybe they should write bills of more length, detail, and complexity to define their intent more clearly. (Except of course when they generate new laws about health care, like the democratic bill, which was apparently too technical and too lengthy and too detailed.)

No arguments there. In fact, George Will would agree with ya!!

Originally posted by wittywonka
[2) According to what standard do you assume that Pelosi's beliefs are "waaaay" out of wack?[/b]

As the article states, there were those who told Nancy that the provisions in Obamacare could be challenged Constitutionally. She then responded as if to say they were nuts for thinking that.

There are then two possibilities as to why she could not invision the current challenge to Obamacare Constitutionally. She did not fully understand the provisions of Obamacare and/or she did not fully understand the Constitution. In short, she's an idiot.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Reconciliation was used to avoid the inevitable republican filibuster. What is the problem with that?

Both Reconciliation and the filibuster were created to "get around" the system in order to pass or nix pet projects they may like or hate. The system is now so jacked up it is no wonder they have surrendered much of their authority to executive departments.

Have you looked at the approval rating of Congress of late? It is around 10% I think. Does that tell you anything?