Originally posted by whodeyYou obviously don't.
Desolve the union? Counselor, I thought you understood the concept of federalism? In fact, did the people of MA disolve the union when they took care of their own health care needs?
That one state has addressed a problem does not mean that the federal government is thus barred from making a nationwide solution to the same problem.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat were the original responsibilities given to the Federal government set up by the Framers?
You obviously don't.
That one state has addressed a problem does not mean that the federal government is thus barred from making a nationwide solution to the same problem.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyYou tell me.
What were the original responsibilities given to the Federal government set up by the Framers?
Then tell me how a national solution to the escalating costs of health care plus the problem of millions of people not receiving adequate care isn't within the scope of said responsibilities of the Federal government.
EDIT: If this is back to the absurd argument that the election result in Mass means that most people there think NHC is unconstitutional, I already addressed that claim in another thread.
Originally posted by whodeyIt's the failure of the system in general. Really, a majority ought to be enough to pass legislation like this.
After the failure of the recent NHC plan, what was the primary reasons for its failure, considering that Obama had planned to have things rapped up last August. Here he presumingly has the full support of the American people and the full support of those within his party, but somehow it failed.
So which is it? Is it the failure of the evil corporations i ...[text shortened]... blic to convince them of his plan, he might first try doing this for those within his own party.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is the role of the federal government set up by the Framers to have the following authority: defense, immigration (LOL), foreign relations, resolving conflicts between states, and certain other specific, enumerated circumstances--could the federal government have primary if not exclusive power. In all other respects, the states retained their authority.
You tell me.
Then tell me how a national solution to the escalating costs of health care plus the problem of millions of people not receiving adequate care isn't within the scope of said responsibilities of the Federal government.
EDIT: If this is back to the absurd argument that the election result in Mass means that most people there think NHC is unconstitutional, I already addressed that claim in another thread.
3 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo you think it the laws should be changed just to accomplish an agenda? In fact, Senator Kennedy before he died tried to change the laws in MA so that what recently happened could not happen in electing Scott Brown. Lets just say he fell short of his goal. These are prime examples of progressivism.
It's the failure of the system in general. Really, a majority ought to be enough to pass legislation like this.
Originally posted by whodeyThe 60% to break a filibuster law was passed to stop abusive obstructions in Congress. I have no problem if the requirement is lowered further, or if the filibuster is eliminated all together.
So you think it the laws should be changed just to accomplish an agenda? In fact, Senator Kennedy before he died tried to change the laws in MA so that what recently happened could not happen in electing Scott Brown. Lets just say he fell short of his goal. These are prime examples of progressivism.
Originally posted by whodeyDid the Constitution expand, contract or leave at the same level Federal power?
It is the role of the federal government set up by the Framers to have the following authority: defense, immigration (LOL), foreign relations, resolving conflicts between states, and certain other specific, enumerated circumstances--could the federal government have primary if not exclusive power. In all other respects, the states retained their authority.
There is a whole section of the Constitution banning the States from doing things that they had done before.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperDid you say the same when the Dems were filibustering federal judges appointed by GW Bush?
The 60% to break a filibuster law was passed to stop abusive obstructions in Congress. I have no problem if the requirement is lowered further, or if the filibuster is eliminated all together.
Originally posted by sh76I did. I've always thought it bordered on unconstitutional as it effectively requires super majorities when the Constitution requires only majorities (and gave the VP a tie breaking vote; a power that is presently meaningless).
Did you say the same when the Dems were filibustering federal judges appointed by GW Bush?
You have to admit no minority party has ever done what the Republicans are doing now which is to use the filibuster against virtually every single piece of legislation proposed by the President.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderThen you're consistent about it. If USAP was also, then he can say so. I take your word for it and I'll take his.
I did. I've always thought it bordered on unconstitutional as it effectively requires super majorities when the Constitution requires only majorities (and gave the VP a tie breaking vote; a power that is presently meaningless).
You have to admit no minority party has ever done what the Republicans are doing now which is to use the filibuster against virtually every single piece of legislation proposed by the President.
Yes, the GOP has been even more obstructionist than the Dems of the mid-2000s (no mean feat). That's probably because they had exactly 40 seats, making it easier to rally around being the minority. Also, other than Snowe and Collins, most of the moderate Republicans were thrown out in the 2006 and 2008 elections (plus Specter's defection) and so there were fewer people who would ideologically tend to cross over party lines in any case.
Also, it could just be the natural progression. Every Congressional minority party has been more obstructionist than the last for the past few decades. Until the cycle is broken, this may just be the new reality.
Also, of course, because the US is a center-right country, the Democrats have to include more conservative elements in their party or be the perpetual minority. The GOP doesn't need liberal Republicans to survive.
Apparently #1maurder doesn't actually know many people in Mass or access polling data to support his position.
http://blog.hcfama.org/?p=1043
It's a mess in Mass, unless of course you're one of the people looking for handouts.😉
You may now continue with the unsupported, blanket generalizations.
Carry on smartly.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThis has copulate all to do with "progressivism". Filibustering should be abolished because, well... why the heck not? (or just give the House Speaker the authority to end commentary/speeches by representatives)
So you think it the laws should be changed just to accomplish an agenda? In fact, Senator Kennedy before he died tried to change the laws in MA so that what recently happened could not happen in electing Scott Brown. Lets just say he fell short of his goal. These are prime examples of progressivism.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhy? For the same reason that the entire US did not have a say in the MA election. The election in MA effected the entire nation yet they had no say.....except for perhaps their own representative filibustering the NHC plan.
This has copulate all to do with "progressivism". Filibustering should be abolished because, well... why the heck not? (or just give the House Speaker the authority to end commentary/speeches by representatives)
Again, matters like health care should be left to the states and not taken on by the federal government.
Originally posted by whodey[...] matters like health care should be left to the states and not taken on by the federal government.
Why? For the same reason that the entire US did not have a say in the MA election. The election in MA effected the entire nation yet they had no say.....except for perhaps their own representative filibustering the NHC plan.
Again, matters like health care should be left to the states and not taken on by the federal government.
Maybe, but what does that have to do with filibustering?