Originally posted by whodeyOf course he was thinking about getting a vote in for health care and his view of the importance of the health care reform did motivate his view as for the urgency.
BUt the law was passed in 2004 to require a special election within 5 months to fill any vacancy by Kennedy and company. At the time, legislative Democrats were ocncerned that Gov Mitt Romney would be able to fill any vacancy created as John Kerry ran for President. But now times have changed. Even though the Democrats hold a potenitally filibuster-proof m ...[text shortened]... election."
Translated: "We need a repaclement vote in favor of health care yesterday!!"
As I said, he was human and a political person and I am really not surprised that he considered the politics of the it - he'd probably be a poor politician if he didn't.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnSo you have no qualms with laws being created and then done away with purely to please the partisanship of one party?
Of course he was thinking about getting a vote in for health care and his view of the importance of the health care reform did motivate his view as for the urgency.
As I said, he was human and a political person and I am really not surprised that he considered the politics of the it - he'd probably be a poor politician if he didn't.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI will say that I am impressed that he was so concerned about the outome of a vote that he knew was only going to come up (or at least be put into effect) after his death.
Of course he was thinking about getting a vote in for health care and his view of the importance of the health care reform did motivate his view as for the urgency.
As I said, he was human and a political person and I am really not surprised that he considered the politics of the it - he'd probably be a poor politician if he didn't.
At the least, it shows that he really believed in healthcare reform and that it was not just another path to self-aggrandizement and accumulation of power.
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76But statists go to their graves thinking that centralized government power over all aspects of our lives is the "good" thing to do. Whether this effects a path to self-aggrandizement or an accumulation of his own personal power is of little consequence to the outcome of his agenda's.
At the least, it shows that he really believed in healthcare reform and that it was not just another path to self-aggrandizement and accumulation of power.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyNo one is doing away with any law here. He was proposing a change to a law to allow there to be a representative in the senate in the interim in the case where one dies.
So you have no qualms with laws being created and then done away with purely to please the partisanship of one party?
I said I don't have a problem with him doing what he did - which is to make the suggestion of the modification.
I also wouldn't have a problem with the change to be made in this case because in some respects it makes some sense independently of Ted Kennedy's desire.
Now, I do not think the legislature should say "well, Teddy said we should do it so let's do it!" - but they should consider the pros and cons and then decide whether it's the right thing to do.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnMy whole point here is that the decision as to whether it is the right thing to do seems to hinge on the belief that passing the NHC is the right thing to do. I personally don't think that had the issue of voting for the NHC plan was not in the mix, Kennedy would never have suggested it in the first place. So I guess what I am saying is that changing the law has nothing to do with doing the right thing, but it has everything to do with having the right outcome regarding NHC.
Now, I do not think the legislature should say "well, Teddy said we should do it so let's do it!" - but they should consider the pros and cons and then decide whether it's the right thing to do.[/b]
Now I even hear that they are proposing to name the health care legislation after Kennedy. It appears they will try to milk his demise for all it is worth.
Originally posted by whodeyWell, you're possibly right that if the health reform plan wasn't in the mix then Kennedy wouldn't have suggested it. He also probably wouldn't have suggested it if he didn't have terminal brain cancer too so yes, if things were different they would be different.
My whole point here is that the decision as to whether it is the right thing to do seems to hinge on the belief that passing the NHC is the right thing to do. I personally don't think that had the issue of voting for the NHC plan was not in the mix, Kennedy would never have suggested it in the first place. So I guess what I am saying is that changing the la ...[text shortened]... ing the right thing, but it has everything to do with having the right outcome regarding NHC.
The decision as to whether it is the right thing to do shouldn't be hinging on whether passing the health plan is the right thing to do and that would be up to the legislature in Mass to decide whether to even do it.
2 edits
Originally posted by PsychoPawnSo perhaps they too will be deciding this issue based upon whether or not passing the NHC plan is the right thing to do? So what we end up having are laws altered simply for the sake of passing certain agendas. Then when the agendas change, the laws will once again be altered accordingly to pass those agendas. So when it is all said and done, laws are nothing more than obstacles hindering certain agendas. This is a good example of what has gone awry in terms of statists manipulating laws and the constitution over the years to meet their own agendas. The agendas mean more than does the spirit of the law and/or constitution that may hinder cetain agendas.
The decision as to whether it is the right thing to do shouldn't be hinging on whether passing the health plan is the right thing to do and that would be up to the legislature in Mass to decide whether to even do it.[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyYou're never going to get away from people having certain agendas until we get away from people 😛
So perhaps they too will be deciding this issue based upon whether or not passing the NHC plan is the right thing to do? So what we end up having are laws altered simply for the sake of passing certain agendas. Then when the agendas change, the laws will once again be altered accordingly to pass those agendas. So when it is all said and done, laws are noth ...[text shortened]... as mean more than does the spirit of the law and/or constitution that may hinder cetain agendas.
The key is to make sure that there are some checks and balances so one person's agenda isn't just followed blindly and I don't see that happening here.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnBut you do have people like myself who point to the Constitution and remind those in power that they are to held to its principles. We are but an annoyance to them.
You're never going to get away from people having certain agendas until we get away from people 😛
The key is to make sure that there are some checks and balances so one person's agenda isn't just followed blindly and I don't see that happening here.
Originally posted by whodeyI don't see anything here that is against the constitution...but I don't know the whole constitution by any stretch.
But you do have people like myself who point to the Constitution and remind those in power that they are to held to its principles. We are but an annoyance to them.
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnMy point is that whether they be laws that are being usurped or whether it be the Constitution, it matters little to the statist.
I don't see anything here that is against the constitution...but I don't know the whole constitution by any stretch.
Case in point regarding the Constitution is a friend of mine who works outside the city limits. The city decided to put to a vote whether or not a tax levy should be imposed to raise revenue for the city. My friend wanted to vote because it effected him directly simply because his job was located inside the city limits and, therefore, would be paying the taxes. Of course, he could not vote because he lived outside the city limits. To make a long story short, the levy passed even though he was not allowed to vote and now has to pay the taxes. Clearly this is taxation without representation and is a direct violation of the Constitution.
Of course, there is example after example of this sort of thing as agendas are placed in front of the very document that was designed to insure our freedoms.
Originally posted by whodeyThe Constitution does not guarantee no taxation without representation. Sufferage based on geography of your residency is at least as old as the United States. I don't see a problem with charging you a tax when you knowingly direct an activity towards a jurisdiction when you don't live there. I pay Pennsylvania sales tax if I go to a Pennsylvania store even though I didn't get to vote on whether that sales tax is enacted. I don't have a problem with that. I'm also not sure how you'd get around it other than either letting every person vote in all 50 states or not allowing states to charge sales tax to residents of other states.
My point is that whether they be laws that are being usurped or whether it be the Constitution, it matters little to the statist.
Case in point regarding the Constitution is a friend of mine who works outside the city limits. The city decided to put to a vote whether or not a tax levy should be imposed to raise revenue for the city. My friend wanted to ...[text shortened]... ng as agendas are placed in front of the very document that was designed to insure our freedoms.