A Congress that reasserts its power

Originally posted by whodey
The US has existed far longer without these agencies than they have existed with them. I suppose you could argue that in today's world you need them, but I would disagree. Simply put, the feds should only be there to make sure that state disputes are settled, and not to regulate the poo out of them. Then states can colaborate together to make the most business freindly environment possible.

So you're saying the Commerce Clause should be interpreted out of the US Constitution?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Let's get the facts straight; the health care reform bill was not passed by reconciliation. The House passed the Senate bill in its entirety. Then reconciliation was used to make a few improvements. But absent reconciliation, the health reform act was still passed.

Noted. I do remember there being a lot of talk about reconcilliation and I thought it had passed the senate using it - or at least part of it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Where is this "usurping of the democratic process" you were screeching about? If anything would have "usurped the democratic process" and the Constitution itself it would have been Massachusetts having only 1 vote in the Senate for 5 months.

Call up state Senator Stephen Buonicoati and maybe he can explain it to ya!! 😛

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Noted. I do remember there being a lot of talk about reconcilliation and I thought it had passed the senate using it - or at least part of it.

The first go round it was not used. But then it went through a second time to "fix" odds and ends. It was then scheduled to go through the House and Senate a second time, however, by that time Brown was elected. If it had gone to the Senate a second time Brown would have killed it. So in order to bypass him they used Reconciliation.

Originally posted by whodey
The first go round it was not used. But then it went through a second time to "fix" odds and ends. It was then scheduled to go through the House and Senate a second time, however, by that time Brown was elected. If it had gone to the Senate a second time Brown would have killed it. So in order to bypass him they used Reconciliation.

The question remains - you seem to have a problem with how this bill being passed despite the fact that it was done by a majority, democratically.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
However, you just said that you are against the filibuster so you would be in favor of the filibuster in this case?

Also, let's assume for argument's sake that he was elected to stop the health care bill. Should the voters of Mass. be able to have the power to stop a bill even though there is a majority supporting it?

I take issue with bureaucrats messing with the law in order to pass pet agendas. For them, the rule of law is nothing more than obstacles to overcome and/or bypass.

Originally posted by whodey
I take issue with bureaucrats messing with the law in order to pass pet agendas. For them, the rule of law is nothing more than obstacles to overcome and/or bypass.

In this case they didn't need to mess with the law in order to pass the health care bill - they had a majority with or without Scott Brown.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
In this case they didn't need to mess with the law in order to pass the health care bill - they had a majority with or without Scott Brown.

I understand that, however, the American people seem to have a change of heart about Obamacare after they witnessed the process. Now to change it they will have to overcome the threat of a filibuster. So what if both Houses have a majority but not filibuster proof? Will democracy prevail? No.

Originally posted by whodey
I understand that, however, the American people seem to have a change of heart about Obamacare after they witnessed the process. Now to change it they will have to overcome the threat of a filibuster. So what if both Houses have a majority but not filibuster proof? Will democracy prevail? No.

Ummm... no. They don't have 51 votes in the senate so no filibuster will be necessary.

Remember - I think the filibuster is a good thing as long as it is meaningful. That means that the representative has to actually stand there and speak so if they want to stand on principle then they actually have to literally stand.

Right now you don't have to actually do anything in order to filibuster or put a hold on something.

I think if you want to put a hold on something you have to put your arse on the line and stand up in front of everybody.

When you can just put holds on things without any sacrifice then you can do what the republicans have been doing, which is just plain obstructionism.

Originally posted by whodey
Better a group of people than one man.

Much easier for the voters to change one man (or woman) than to gain control of the House and 60 senators.

Originally posted by whodey
I understand that, however, the American people seem to have a change of heart about Obamacare after they witnessed the process. Now to change it they will have to overcome the threat of a filibuster. So what if both Houses have a majority but not filibuster proof? Will democracy prevail? No.

Now - if healthcare reform had been done entire by executive branch regulatory changes, all the voters would need to focus on is electing a new president. And all this filibuster stuff would be totally moot.

Originally posted by whodey
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.

Well yes, but there is a very good reason why this is the case, this is a state of affairs which has been brought into existence by the complexities of modern life, there is no sinister plot to usurp power as you have previously suggested.

Unless you want Congressional dealings to be even more dilatory than they are at the moment you should welcome the fact that there are federal agencies with the ability to regulate on areas in which they specialize. As far as Im aware the states still have in their hands significant freedom to legislate within their jurisdiction, I have seen no evidence of any significant shift in the federal government-state relationship.

Originally posted by whodey
Call up state Senator Stephen Buonicoati and maybe he can explain it to ya!! 😛

Why don't you explain it to me, loudmouth?

Originally posted by whodey:

"Under the Constitution it SHOULD be a majority vote in my opinion."

...

"You have to understand that one of the reasons I think Scott Brown was elected was voters understood that electing him would have caused a filibuster and stopped Obamacare. Now had the filibuster not been enacted, then the voters I think would have been less apt to vote for him."

So the will of the majority of Congressmen should determine action on legislation, unless it happens to conflict with your interests, or with the interests of the people of a single state? It is hypocritical to say that you do not support the existence of a filibuster and also to say that you think Scott Brown should have been able to assist Republicans in a filibuster of the health care reform bill.

I have a tangential question for you. Yes or no: according to your interpretation of the significance of a "majority" in Congress, should the Dream Act have been enacted?

____________________

Originally posted by whodey:

"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."

Please, feel free to copy and paste a summary of the plantiffs' arguments if you don't want to provide one yourself. I'm genuinely interested in reading your explicit (as in, opposite of implicit) opinion.

____________________

Originally posted by whodey:

"You asked me what benefit I saw in creating reglatory agencies in the legislative rather than the executive branch, however, I would ask the reverse. What benefit is there to having these agencies in the executive branch other than to strengthen the power of the executive branch?"

No, I never made any mention about creating "agencies in the legislative." I'm simply wondering how you envision Congress being able to handle technical details of policy if you think it is necessary, for whatever reason, that those details originate from the legislative branch. Do you think that congress should establish legislative "agencies"? If so, how is that any better than those evil, malicious "nonelected officials" in the executive branch? Unless you think that the next time Americans vote, we should also vote for "Advisor to Congress on Energy," "Advisor to Congress on Foreign Policy," "Advisor to Congress on Health Care," etc. I genuinely don't think I understand what your alternative to the current system is; or why it would be any better; or how it would reduce the regulatory authority of the government overall, when in fact it would seemingly increase the very legislative authority you feel is abused by regulation of interstate commerce (including health care).

____________________

Originally posted by whodey:

"I don't recall calling Obama a derogatory name. As for Dirty Harry, well, he's a slime ball punk."

Any reference to "Obamacare" is a dehumanizing and derogatory slur, and your reference to "Dirty Harry" is no better.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
Much easier for the voters to change one man (or woman) than to gain control of the House and 60 senators.

Why then did the Founding Fathers waste their time with three brances of government and federalism?