A Congress that reasserts its power

Originally posted by generalissimo
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 ...[text shortened]... , I have seen no evidence of any significant shift in the federal government-state relationship.

Did I say there was a conspiracy abroad? No, what I am saying is that our human nature dictates that we seek power, secure power, and then acquire more power. Therefore, the "natural" order of things is collectivism and what we have seen over the last century in the US.

Originally posted by wittywonka
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 ...[text shortened]... pretation of the significance of a "majority" in Congress, should the Dream Act have been enacted?

What I am saying is that an election may have had a different turn out had the voters not been aware that the legislative gymnastics would have made their selection moot in terms of stopping "progressivecare".

Edit: Is this better than Obamacare? 😀

Originally posted by wittywonka
[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"? I ...[text shortened]... is that any better than those evil, malicious "nonelected officials" in the executive branch?

If you go back and read my posts, you will see why I object to the legislative branch delegating to the executive branch. It all has to do with the Constitution when it talks about nondelegation amongst the branches. Although the Supremes nixed the Constitutional objections, I still feel it is a breach of the seperation of powers that was intended.

Originally posted by wittywonka
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.

To make things short and sweet, I would say that stretching the commerce clause to allow the government to mandate purchases is unconstitutional. It would be akin to the government mandating that everyone buy GM's. Of course, I'm not saying that this would come next, rather, I am simply saying it opens a rather preturbing window of oppurtunity.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Any reference to "Obamacare" is a dehumanizing and derogatory slur, and your reference to "Dirty Harry" is no better.[/b]

I have to say, everyone I know, including "liberals" refer to it as Obamacare. I mean, its not like we are calling him a "teabagger". You know, its not like we are using a sexually explicit derogatory term to bash him. Sorry, I really don't understand the objection.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
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.

I would only agree with this. 😀

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
[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.[/b]

So what have the republicans obstructed? Was it Obamacare? Was it finance reform? Was it the stimulus package? What exactly have the Republicans stopped from occuring?

If memory serves, the Republicans voted in mass to oppose Obamacare, but then, they knew their ideas were not welcomed. In addition, they had nothing to benefit from voting for any of those peices of legislation. It was going to pass with or without them. If the peices of legislation were successful, the democrats would be crowned as the victors, however, if it was not then they had an upper hand of sorts if they opposed it.

Now we have a repeal vote that both democrats and republicans have voted for, only, it seems that Dirty Harry does not want to bring it to a vote in the Senate. So who are the obstructionists? Is it a political group out of power or is it one that forbids debate and voting on passed legislation?

Originally posted by whodey
So what have the republicans obstructed?

What haven't they?

Why do you think that so many of Obama's nominations for positions that required senate confirmation remained unconfirmed for so long? Why were there so many more of Obama's nominations that remained unconfirmed than GWB or other presidents?

Why do you think Reid set a record for actually avoiding filibusters?

http://www.rollcall.com/news/-201997-1.html

Look it up... why is it that the number of filibusters skyrocketed after Obama's election? It's not because the democrats were filibustering.

Originally posted by whodey
What I am saying is that an election may have had a different turn out had the voters not been aware that the legislative gymnastics would have made their selection moot in terms of stopping "progressivecare".

Perhaps. But would you agree that the inferences the people of Massachusetts made should not have affected the passage of the bill as willed by the majority of Senators?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
What haven't they?

Why do you think that so many of Obama's nominations for positions that required senate confirmation remained unconfirmed for so long? Why were there so many more of Obama's nominations that remained unconfirmed than GWB or other presidents?

Why do you think Reid set a record for actually avoiding filibusters?

http://www.roll ...[text shortened]... ters skyrocketed after Obama's election? It's not because the democrats were filibustering.

Didn't the Supreme Court actually call out Republicans for obstructing judiciary confirmations? Also, don't forget the DREAM Act, as well as the 9/11 First Responders' Health Care Act, which Republicans didn't support until public pressure mounted.

Originally posted by whodey

"So what have the republicans obstructed? Was it Obamacare? Was it finance reform? Was it the stimulus package? What exactly have the Republicans stopped from occuring?"

See my earlier post above regarding Republican obstructionism. Don't be ridiculous.

"In addition, they had nothing to benefit from voting for any of those peices of legislation. It was going to pass with or without them. If the peices of legislation were successful, the democrats would be crowned as the victors, however, if it was not then they had an upper hand of sorts if they opposed it."

This is exactly what is wrong with politics. The Republicans had a lot to gain by enacting a law that provided health care for millions of people, but instead they used every means available to them to prevent that from happening (for political purposes) and went out of their way to use the passage of the bill as a scapegoat to vote out Democrats, who were actually brave enough to risk their careers to enact that legislation. That is indeed a shame.

"Now we have a repeal vote that both democrats and republicans have voted for, only, it seems that Dirty Harry does not want to bring it to a vote in the Senate."

Nice way to generalize there. Three, and only three, Democrats voted for the bill in the House, meaning that less than two-thirds of the House supported the bill. Every single Democrat in the Senate voted for the original health care bill originally, and only three Democrats of the previous Congress lost their seats (or gave them up if they retired) to other Democrats, so at best the vote on repeal would be 50-50, and Biden would vote down the repeal. On top of that, nobody questions the fact that Obama would veto the bill. So to drag out the process would be pointless.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Didn't the Supreme Court actually call out Republicans for obstructing judiciary confirmations? Also, don't forget the DREAM Act and the 9/11 First Responders' Health Care Act, which Republicans didn't support until public pressure mounted.

I think there were some high up judges who said that the judiciary is in trouble because there were so few nominations that had been confirmed - in fact most of those had not even come up for debate.

The republicans never supported the DREAM act during the Obama administration. There are good parts of the dream act that were originally sponsored by republicans - but those republicans wouldn't come close to voting for it now.

Originally posted by whodey
If you go back and read my posts, you will see why I object to the legislative branch delegating to the executive branch. It all has to do with the Constitution when it talks about nondelegation amongst the branches. Although the Supremes nixed the Constitutional objections, I still feel it is a breach of the seperation of powers that was intended.

1) So you believe that Congress' "delegation," or perhaps, "deference," is intentional? If that is the case, then your criticism should be directed toward individual Congressmen, not the system.

2) I will entertain your objection for the time being, but what I want to know is how you believe Congress should go about replacing the role of the bureaucracy that you feel is excessive. Should Congress appoint policy advisors to hash out details of technical legislation?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I think there were some high up judges who said that the judiciary is in trouble because there were so few nominations that had been confirmed - in fact most of those had not even come up for debate.

The republicans never supported the DREAM act during the Obama administration. There are good parts of the dream act that were originally sponsored by republicans - but those republicans wouldn't come close to voting for it now.

Right. My wording was unclear - Republicans filibustered the Dream Act, and as a result it died. They did finally cave under pressure and support the 9/11 FRHC Bill unanimously. It's amazing how quickly and radically they changed their position on that one...

Originally posted by whodey
To make things short and sweet, I would say that stretching the commerce clause to allow the government to mandate purchases is unconstitutional. It would be akin to the government mandating that everyone buy GM's. Of course, I'm not saying that this would come next, rather, I am simply saying it opens a rather preturbing window of oppurtunity.

Congress is enacting a tax on anyone who doesn't own health care insurance, and taxing is well within its powers.