A Congress that reasserts its power

Originally posted by no1marauder
[ You're ridiculous and a compulsive liar.[/b]

Nice call Sheriff Dupnik. 😕

Originally posted by whodey
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?

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.

So what is your view?? Do you think it should be 51 votes to pass a bill? If so, then you can't disagree with the passage of the health care bill since it had that many votes.

I think the filibuster is important to have, but it should be returned to be a real filibuster - i.e. you have to actually be on the floor talking and filibustering. Also, no secret holds - you should not be able to block a bill without standing behind that decision.

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

It doesn't tell me anything about the health care bill or the procedure of reconciliation.

Originally posted by whodey
No arguments there. In fact, George Will would agree with ya!!

So you're supportive of increased governmental regulation, so long as said regulation originates from the legislative branch, and not from the executive branch? Interesting.

Originally posted by whodey
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.

Humor me, just for the fun of it. I have a copy of the constitution sitting here beside me.

Originally posted by whodey
Nice call Sheriff Dupnik. 😕

This is what you said:

I'm saying the Senator Kennedy tried to prevent the voters of MA from nixing Obamacare by electing someone who ran to oppose it.


This is an outright, bald faced lie. His letter of August 2009 said in pertinent part:

am now writing to you about an issue that concerns me deeply – the continuity of representation for Massachusetts should a Senate vacancy occur. In 2004, as you know, the law was changed to provide for a special election to choose a new Senator to serve for the remainder of an unexpired term. The law now mandates that the special election be held 145 to 160 days after a Senate seat becomes vacant. I strongly support that law and the principle that the people should elect their Senator; I also believe it is vital for this Commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election.

I therefore am writing to urge you to work together to amend the law through the normal legislative process to provide for a temporary gubernatorial appointment until the special election occurs. To ensure a fair election process, I also urge that the Governor obtain, as a condition of appointment of the interim Senator, an explicit personal commitment not to become a candidate in the special election.



Thus what Kennedy was requesting was that any vacancy caused by his death be filled but only until the special election. In no way would this deprive Massachusetts voters of anything; indeed if it hadn't been done they would have been deprived of 1/2 their Constitutional Senate representation for more than 5 months.

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?

The problem is that if Congress was to make their legislation a lot "more specific" than it currently is, those 2000 page bills would become 20,000 pages long. If this was to occur, do you promise not to complain about the length of the legislation?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
The problem is that if Congress was to make their legislation a lot "more specific" than it currently is, those 2000 page bills would become 20,000 pages long. If this was to occur, do you promise not to complain about the length of the legislation?

I suspect whodey's aversion to the federal bureaucracy may be down to his lack of understanding of the usefulness and necessity of its delegated regulatory powers.

Furthermore I doubt he would cease from denouncing big government even if Congress was to occupy itself with such regulation. In his eyes statism is statism, regardless of where it is coming from.

Originally posted by generalissimo
I suspect whodey's aversion to the federal bureaucracy may be down to his lack of understanding of the usefulness and necessity of its delegated regulatory powers.

Furthermore I doubt he would cease from denouncing big government even if Congress was to occupy itself with such regulation. In his eyes statism is statism, regardless of where it is coming from.

I guess I could also address this question to George Will who wrote the article posted in the OP -- will Mr. Will promise not to complain about the size of legislation that's much longer and much more complex than it already is now? Will he promise to write an article praising 20,000 page long bills because they are now more in keeping with the constitution as he views it?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I guess I could also address this question to George Will who wrote the article posted in the OP -- will Mr. Will promise not to complain about the size of legislation that's much longer and much more complex than it already is now? Will he promise to write an article praising 20,000 page long bills because they are now more in keeping with the constitution as he views it?

My sentiments exactly.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
[b]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.

So what is your view?? Do you think it should be 51 votes to pass a bill? If so, then you can't disagree with the passage of the health care bill since it had that many votes.

I would say that a great many people wanted reform, however, after they witnessed the train wreck known as Obamacare with all its myraid of earmarks and mandate to have health insurance etc, etc, they turned in droves against it. That is why I think Scott Brown was elected. In addition, I also believe the election results were an indication of this last year.

Having said that, now we see Dirty Harry objecting to having the House version to repeal Obamacare from being heard on the Senate floor. Why? If the Dems were concerned about democracy, which they are not, they would present the proposal and vote on it and allow voters in 2012 to decide whom they wish to vote for after the votes in question on the repeal legislation.

Originally posted by generalissimo
I suspect whodey's aversion to the federal bureaucracy may be down to his lack of understanding of the usefulness and necessity of its delegated regulatory powers.

Furthermore I doubt he would cease from denouncing big government even if Congress was to occupy itself with such regulation. In his eyes statism is statism, regardless of where it is coming from.

My aversion is that unelected bureaucrats seem to be in charge of regulation rather then elected members of Congress. In addition, my aversion is the scope and size of the federal government who I feel has usurped the authority of respecitive states to govern themselves. So essentially you have the states surrender power to the federal government and then you have Congress surrender power to nonelected officials.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I guess I could also address this question to George Will who wrote the article posted in the OP -- will Mr. Will promise not to complain about the size of legislation that's much longer and much more complex than it already is now? Will he promise to write an article praising 20,000 page long bills because they are now more in keeping with the constitution as he views it?

If it is that much of a problem maybe they should consider another coarse of action instead of pushing it off on unelected officials. My guess is that if they had to do the jobs themselves it would dramatically curtail all the crap that comes out of both chambers.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Humor me, just for the fun of it. I have a copy of the constitution sitting here beside me.

In case you don't get a newspaper where you live, Obamacare is being heard judicially on the grounds that it is not constitutional to force everyone to own health care insurance. According to Pelosi, however, this would have been absurd and nothing to worry about.

Originally posted by no1marauder
This is what you said:

I'm saying the Senator Kennedy tried to prevent the voters of MA from nixing Obamacare by electing someone who ran to oppose it.


This is an outright, bald faced lie. His letter of August 2009 said in pertinent part:

am now writing to you about an issue that concern ...[text shortened]... d have been deprived of 1/2 their Constitutional Senate representation for more than 5 months.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27066.html

"Overriding that law so soon afterwards with another one, again with an overt political design--to provide a possibly critical vote in favor of Obama's agenda this fall--is proving too much for some legislators to swallow.

"Should our loyalty be to being protective of the democratic process rather than to our partisan positions?, asked Democrat state senator Stephen Buoniconit.

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

So apparently this political move by Kennedy was seen by all to usurp the democratic process by everyone, including members of his own party, EXCEPT for one Marauder.

Originally posted by whodey
I would say that a great many people wanted reform, however, after they witnessed the train wreck known as Obamacare with all its myraid of earmarks and mandate to have health insurance etc, etc, they turned in droves against it. That is why I think Scott Brown was elected. In addition, I also believe the election results were an indication of this last yea ...[text shortened]... 2012 to decide whom they wish to vote for after the votes in question on the repeal legislation.

You didn't answer my question - should you need just 51 votes to pass a bill in the senate?

The debate over the health care bill went for over a year and you are suggesting that it was somehow not democratic to pass this healthcare bill? Ridiculous.

Reid is objecting to the house bill to repeal the healthcare bill because the repeal is a blatant political ploy. You're sad that Reid isn't just caving to do what the republicans want him to.

Again, do you think that 51 votes should be enough to pass a bill in the senate?