Yesterday Lindsey Graham said that since congress was so pathetically lame about doing what Americans are paying them for that they all should consider taking a cut in personal pay and benefits.
Good plan but it will never happen since it's apparently all about them and not us.
-raises anarachy flag-
in all seriousness though, the GOP and the Dems are both crap. One can't run a country frugally, the other can't be objective in it's decision making.
easy solution. cut military spending to bring it back to simple cut and dry defense. not this whole preemptive strike bull. Half of the problem solved.
Edited for profanity
it's fear mongering to use chinese statistics on military spending as a reason to keep up our own.
I'll explain why.
1. Inflation. when you are spending billions/trillions on defense already, imagine if you had an inflation of 5% in one year. what's 5% of 800 billion? that's 40,000,000,000. That's a huge number that can incite fear very easily. yes these numbers are out of my ass for use as an example, but you get the idea.
2. China would not dare attack us military to military. That's a fact. one, our military, specifically our navy, is huge. out of 19 aircraft carriers in the world we own 11 of them. they're ridiculous in terms of firepower and sheer blockade power. How many does china own? 0 at the present time, with a projected goal of 5 by 2020, which probably won't happen until 2025.
3. Chine would not instigate a war with it's most profitable "ally." We fuel the Chinese economy more than you can imagine. it would be economic suicide to destroy our materialism based society when they are the largest producers of material goods in the world. It simply would make no sense.
4. World Relations. The UN would undoubtedly take our side in terms of an armed conflict when it comes to the emerging and popular ideal of democracy versus "communism" (china is not functionally communist anymore. they technically have a more laissez faire economy than we do.). These are just a few of the reasons why that will NEVER happen in the coming 5 decades. At least.
I've always thought that Congress voting itself a pay raise is a conflict of interest...Instead, they should put out one vote (at the mid-term) to the public (in their particular state/district) asking for a raise, based on the perception of the represented that they are doing a "good" job ( = raise), an "acceptable" job ( = no raise), and a "poor" job ( = a pay cut equal to the raise which was asked for).
I don't know, just a thought.
politics are lovely, aren't they?
Quote from: kkut on February 24, 2013, 07:32:23 PM
What's sick is pitting one group against another group for political reasons.
Because we all know the Republicans never engage in this type of politics. ::)
Quote from: Beth Andrea on February 24, 2013, 07:28:20 PM
I've always thought that Congress voting itself a pay raise is a conflict of interest...Instead, they should put out one vote (at the mid-term) to the public (in their particular state/district) asking for a raise, based on the perception of the represented that they are doing a "good" job ( = raise), an "acceptable" job ( = no raise), and a "poor" job ( = a pay cut equal to the raise which was asked for).
I don't know, just a thought.
A rather simpler and more effective means of paying these people would be to say they can only be paid in multipuls of the national average pay. Say, twice for legialators and three times for Executive.
The nation average pay at the moment, in the states is, I believe $40,000 per year, so legistlators will get $80,000 and the executive $120,000 per year.
Everything will be plane and up front. They all get paid the same. It will be in their personal interests to ensure that the economy actually does grow and that inflation is actually kepts in check and that unemployment is kept as low as possible, simply because they won't get paid otherwise.
A similar system could be applied to any society.
Quote from: Beth Andrea on February 24, 2013, 07:28:20 PM
I've always thought that Congress voting itself a pay raise is a conflict of interest...Instead, they should put out one vote (at the mid-term) to the public (in their particular state/district) asking for a raise, based on the perception of the represented that they are doing a "good" job ( = raise), an "acceptable" job ( = no raise), and a "poor" job ( = a pay cut equal to the raise which was asked for).
I don't know, just a thought.
Beth Andrea, please read the 27th Amendment. A Congress is not allowed to raise its own pay. They may only raise, or lower, the next Congress's pay.
Quote from: Jamie D on February 25, 2013, 04:27:46 AM
Beth Andrea, please read the 27th Amendment. A Congress is not allowed to raise its own pay. They may only raise, or lower, the next Congress's pay.
With respect Jamie, that is missing the point. :laugh:
Quote from: spacial on February 25, 2013, 05:54:55 AM
With respect Jamie, that is missing the point. :laugh:
Well, Jill, I addressed the "conflict of interest" issue. What is interesting is that the issue is not new. In fact, the 27th Amendment was proposed in 1789, by the very first Congress, as part of the the original "Bill of Rights," but not ratified until two centuries later.
Quote from: Jamie D on February 25, 2013, 06:03:33 AM
Well, Jill, I addressed the "conflict of interest" issue. What is interesting is that the issue is not new. In fact, the 27th Amendment was proposed in 1789, by the very first Congress, as part of the the original "Bill of Rights," but not ratified until two centuries later.
Again, with respect, being an ancient issue that is still in contention doesn't diminish its significance or its importance.
To counter Jamie's point, when Congress has something like a 90% (if not higher) incumbancy rate, the amendment is sort of moot. Even the 2010 elections retained something like 85% and that was spun by the media as some big "throw the bums out" year. Then again, whenever someone says "throw the bumbs out" they are generally speaking about one party.
Of course, to aid Jamie's point when most people in congress make $174,000 (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm) per year, Majority/Minority Leaders & Speaker of the House making slightly more, there really isn't rampant abuse of their pay. $174K for that kind of work does seem rather fair. If anything, one could argue it's on the low side since most of them could go work for lobbying groups at a substantial pay increase. It would seem wise to retain the smarter members of congress instead of losing them to "greener pastures."
Quote from: kkut on February 24, 2013, 07:53:11 PM
Which is why I'm an Independent. As tomthom said, both parties are full of it.
However, I don't accept the notion my life is in jeopardy if I don't have multiple massive government beauracracies with me in their crosshairs.... just the opposite actually, I prefer to be take care of myself... always have, always will. HRT didn't weaken my backbone by any means.
:eusa_clap: This is ditto for me also!
I think the GOP and Dems are pretty much one in the same. Spend, spend and then spend some more while you have control and then moan and groan about the other's spending when you don't. A strong military, I have no problem with, its a smaller government I want. I would love to see term limits for all three branches. This putting justices in the supreme court for life just stacks the favor for one party or the other. Also there isn't a member of congress that needs pay, make it a service to their country instead of a career. Sure, pay for housing when they are in DC and provide them transportation there and back but retirement and healthcare for the rest of their lives?
Now with Newtown, new laws are going to be passed that limits my ability to protect myself against possibly the same kind of psycho or psychos that murdered a buch of children. And there will be the GOP following right on the Dems coat tails just far enough to not be recognized. Both sides will claim that they won and in reality they will. It's us who will lose. If someone is in the frame of mind that wants to kill you for who you are or just for their own personal entertainment or for a number of unapperant reasons, do we really think that they will do it with only eight rounds because after all, it will be illegal for a ten round magazine.
Not to mention us girls wanting to go out and even if you can pass, someone tells someone that told someone else about you and then coming across a single psycho or group that just wants to hurt, kill or rape you. I definately feel better packing heat in the purse instead of a cellphone to call 911 and wait for the cops to show up. Plus even if the psychos think you may be armed, they will think twice.
Sorry, kinda went offtopic there. But between the two parties, I hear a lot of differeces but can't see much of one when it comes to bigger government and spending.
Initially the only responsibility of the Federal government was national security. When women were finally allowed to vote then all of the nanny state laws began to crop up. That's not a slur against women, it's just a fact. Anyone expecting to get reelected from that time on would jeopardize his political future if he slighted women's issues. Most of what is dragging the country into a financial abyss is the spinelessness of the US congress having to deal with stuff that ought to not fall under Federal but under each individual state's order of business.
Quote from: Shantel on February 25, 2013, 01:27:06 PM
Initially the only responsibility of the Federal government was national security. When women were finally allowed to vote then all of the nanny state laws began to crop up. That's not a slur against women, it's just a fact. Anyone expecting to get reelected from that time on would jeopardize his political future if he slighted women's issues. Most of what is dragging the country into a financial abyss is the spinelessness of the US congress having to deal with stuff that ought to not fall under Federal but under each individual state's order of business.
I agree with you. The tenth ammendment is just pretty much ignored by the federal government. The feds always use the threat of pulling federal highway funds if the states don't follow the rule of the Feds. Seatbelt laws being an example. I can remember when some states had them and other's didn't until the lobbyists for the insurance companies "Convinced" the socalled reps and senators. Then if a state didn't want seatbelt laws, fine with the feds, they would just withhold the funds.
Quote from: Shantel on February 24, 2013, 08:57:57 AM
It's all about the costs, everything the GOP is doing is about cost cutting even if they alienate their constituency and shoot themselves in the foot doing it.
Maybe they shouldnt have blown all our money on useless wars.
not necessarily useless wars, but they didn't do a cost benefit analysis as the war was fueled solely as a comforting mechanism to help people get over being attacked directly.
Quote from: tomthom on February 26, 2013, 02:34:09 AM
not necessarily useless wars, but they didn't do a cost benefit analysis as the war was fueled solely as a comforting mechanism to help people get over being attacked directly.
I didn't realize war was comforting ???
comforting as in "oh god they punched me in the nose. I should kick them in the shins and gag them and then pour gasoline on their body."
Unfortunately wars are a part of human nature and are regrettably a huge waste of human life and resources. They may not always be for the benefit of most of us, but they do benefit the few who control the military industrial complex and the Wall Street brokers who underwrite wars through stock trading and bond selling activities, and in the bigger picture serve to keep a failing economy afloat that is based 70% on consumerism alone. In spite of that there will always be the naysayers and decriers who would be the first to cry out "Somebody do something" when the first chemical, biological or radiological device was detonated here. So on that note I'm out of this thread rather than agonize over the drama that ensues when we have a multiplicity of differing opinions on an issue about which most have little knowledge.
as an aside, I never said that was the only reason for war, simply the most palatable one for the public to hear.
Quote from: Beth Andrea on February 24, 2013, 07:28:20 PM
I've always thought that Congress voting itself a pay raise is a conflict of interest...Instead, they should put out one vote (at the mid-term) to the public (in their particular state/district) asking for a raise, based on the perception of the represented that they are doing a "good" job ( = raise), an "acceptable" job ( = no raise), and a "poor" job ( = a pay cut equal to the raise which was asked for).
I don't know, just a thought.
China holds all the aces. All they have to do is dump the dollar. Then there would REALLY be an economic disaster. China built up its infrastructure while America did not.
Quote from: gennee on February 27, 2013, 11:13:16 AM
China holds all the aces. All they have to do is dump the dollar. Then there would REALLY be an economic disaster. China built up its infrastructure while America did not.
China really scares the crap out of me. They could defeat this country and probably the whole world without ever firing a round.
I suggest you people actually study china and how global politics work before you become afraid or start making ridiculous claims.
And China doesn't use the dollar. all foreign debt is handled in gold so one nation doesn't cheat another out of what they lent via artificial inflation.
China is holding the biggest part of this nation's debt. There are those who say that China needs us so nothing bad will ever come of it because the US is China's biggest market. Well yes and no to that thinking, because China has established itself over the entire globe and besides waging cyber warfare against the US, China is trying to influence the IMF to dump the USD as the world's standard currency and consider the Chinese yuan instead. Chinese leadership being extremely stoic and historically pragmatic and as good Asians always take the long view on the outcome of their actions, they would have no problem dumping all their US T bonds and dumping the US on it's face. Should that happen the USD wouldn't even be good enough for butt wipe and we would all be in a world of extreme hurt for sure.
I really believe that our natural resources in the way of crude oil is collateral for all of our borrowed money. Most of what is being drilled for in the states right now is natuaral gas. Crude oil in the gulf and other areas is practically nill for being produced. Of course light sweet crude is more valuable than natural gas. Not to mention gasoline and diesel can't be made from natural gas. Diesel drives economies more than gasoline. Practically anything in the transportaion of goods is done so with diesel. Trains and trucks. Most machinery for developement also runs on diesel. Natural gas pretty much don't have the umph and gasoline engines don't last as long. Anyway that's my take on China and all the trillions we borrowed from them.
Quote from: Shantel on February 27, 2013, 04:49:55 PM
China is holding the biggest part of this nation's debt. There are those who say that China needs us so nothing bad will ever come of it because the US is China's biggest market. Well yes and no to that thinking, because China has established itself over the entire globe and besides waging cyber warfare against the US, China is trying to influence the IMF to dump the USD as the world's standard currency and consider the Chinese yuan instead. Chinese leadership being extremely stoic and historically pragmatic and as good Asians always take the long view on the outcome of their actions, they would have no problem dumping all their US T bonds and dumping the US on it's face. Should that happen the USD wouldn't even be good enough for butt wipe and we would all be in a world of extreme hurt for sure.
as I said, the gold standard is used. it would be translated over to the yuan so that doesn't work. Either way, if China took over it's not like that's the end of the world, that's just you being partisan to your own country due to misplaced senses of patriotism. It's ok for the times to change.
Quote from: tomthom on February 27, 2013, 03:51:44 PM
I suggest you people actually study china and how global politics work before you become afraid or start making ridiculous claims.
And China doesn't use the dollar. all foreign debt is handled in gold so one nation doesn't cheat another out of what they lent via artificial inflation.
That is incorrect. As it stands right now, the only two international currencies are gold and the dollar, the latter being the most often used (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/pf_4.pdf). There was a push to make the SDR an international currency back in early 2010, but I haven't heard anything about it since the G20 London Summit. While these suggestions were pushed China, they got nothing but a lukewarm response at best.
Also, China has no interest in crashing an economy that they are mutually dependent on. Not to mention the largest owner of American debt are, ironically, Americans. Social Security trust funds and the Fed are the top two holders of American debt. China (http://www.cnbc.com/id/29880401/page/14), owns about 5% of our overall debt, Japan (http://www.cnbc.com/id/29880401/page/12) holds almost the same amount. That is it for countries who sit amongst the top ten owners of American debt.
Conservatives win more often than liberals or moderates because they are the most motivated. ???
war is but an extension of a failed policy....
Quote from: Shantel on February 25, 2013, 01:27:06 PM
Initially the only responsibility of the Federal government was national security. When women were finally allowed to vote then all of the nanny state laws began to crop up. That's not a slur against women, it's just a fact. Anyone expecting to get reelected from that time on would jeopardize his political future if he slighted women's issues. Most of what is dragging the country into a financial abyss is the spinelessness of the US congress having to deal with stuff that ought to not fall under Federal but under each individual state's order of business.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.This is the role of the federal government, nothing more, nothing less.
The GOP is much more than democrats aware of the general view of seeing the Constitution and the constitutitonal values superior to the '' democratic will of the people''. In case the federal goverment brakes the constitution the executive goverment may feel that is obigated to act against it. So any policy understanding the constitution differently than the military/local law endorcement is way of saying the the goverments wants a coup.
Quote from: formerMTF on May 17, 2013, 02:06:41 PM
The GOP is much more than democrats aware of the general view of seeing the Constitution and the constitutitonal values superior to the '' democratic will of the people''. In case the federal goverment brakes the constitution the executive goverment may feel that is obigated to act against it. So any policy understanding the constitution differently than the military/local law endorcement is way of saying the the goverments wants a coup.
What a lot of people don't understand is that the USA is not a Democracy per se, but is a a Democratic constitutional Republic whereby the Constitution is a guarantee of God given human rights written by the founding fathers to prevent government overreach. The opposition continuously works feverishly to delineate the concept of God and assert the idea that rights are given by the government instead, and that the Constitution itself is a "living document' meaning that it can be changed at will. This Republic is supposedly governed by the chosen representatives of the people under the strict guidelines laid out by the Constitution but some would exchange that lawful document for a Democracy which without guidelines would amount to nothing more than mob rule for the masses overseen by a chosen few who would distribute benefits to all on an equal basis. Sounds nice, but comes straight out of "Das Kapital" Karl Marx's communist manifesto.
Just as Shantel wrote in the U.S. the democracy is inferior to the constitution. And that is the reason that makes a military coup possible. If the military thinks the elected goverment breaks the constitution it may coup. From the view of the military every liberal goverment breakes the constitution officers being over 80% hard right republicans. So left-of-center ideology can never be achieved in the U.S. despite of the progressives saying otherwise. For example more gun control is a fast way to the ''legimitive'' military coup.
As a progressive, I will ignore and not address some of the slights in this thread in order to keep civility on this board.
However, there is a lot to address. The United States constitution establishes the Representative Republic we live in. Read the 3 articles found within. The system is legitimized by that very document. So, I don't know how you can say democracy is inferior to the constitution when the constitution is what supports the regime within the U.S.
Lastly, even if you hate the current administration and it's policy, no military coup will occur. If you think they are acting irresponsible or their policies are unconstitutional, there are remedies for this already within the constitution. Congress has the ability to impeach the federal officials who they believe are abusing their power. No need for a military takeover. And if you are concerned that the laws are unconstitutional, the supreme court can practice judicial review and overturn said policies. Once again, there is no need for us to live under a military junta (which would actually be breaking the constitution).
Quote from: Shantel on May 17, 2013, 03:00:08 PM
The opposition continuously works feverishly to delineate the concept of God and assert the idea that rights are given by the government instead, and that the Constitution itself is a "living document' meaning that it can be changed at will.
According to my High School civics class, the constitution is a Living Document because it can be amended, as it was for the Bill of Rights.
Government, and those who report on it, sew too much FUD into the conversation for me these days. Reminds of rabid OS X and Linux fans. All this partisanship is equally childish in my eyes. It's all about being right instead of trying to do the right thing.
Lastly, on God, I do like Joe Biden's approach. I saw him on Meet the Press before the 2008 election and I think he said this one of the debates too, where he brought up that he's Catholic but it wouldn't be right for him to form policy around his religious beliefs. I appreciate that because when it comes to government, politicians need follow George Carlin's second commandment "Keep thy religion to thy self!" We have freedom of religion in this country after all, which then implies the people should have freedom from how any particular one is interpreted.
Quote from: Misato on May 18, 2013, 08:31:33 AM
According to my High School civics class, the constitution is a Living Document because it can be amended, as it was for the Bill of Rights.
I doubt that those original signatories had amending in mind at the time, and definitely would have trounced the concept of an IRS. Even now there are movements to limit the 1st Amendment and do away with the second if at all possible and possibly the IRS. If that document was a human being we could rightly say that we are watching a hamstringing and blood letting operation in progress.
Quote from: Misato on May 18, 2013, 08:31:33 AM
Government, and those who report on it, sew too much FUD into the conversation for me these days. Reminds of rabid OS X and Linux fans. All this partisanship is equally childish in my eyes. It's all about being right instead of trying to do the right thing.
I couldn't agree with you more on that comment!
Quote from: Misato on May 18, 2013, 08:31:33 AM
Lastly, on God, I do like Joe Biden's approach. I saw him on Meet the Press before the 2008 election and I think he said this one of the debates too, where he brought up that he's Catholic but it wouldn't be right for him to form policy around his religious beliefs. I appreciate that because when it comes to government, politicians need follow George Carlin's second commandment "Keep thy religion to thy self!" We have freedom of religion in this country after all, which then implies the people should have freedom from how any particular one is interpreted.
Absolutely true, but just the same we can't dismiss the fact that the Constitution was written by men who revered God and acknowledged Him or Her as the author of humankind's freedoms clearly stating that those freedoms don't emanate from any government. On a final note, I'll not get into a pissing match over this because we are all individuals entitled to our own opinions and it does none of us any good to get steamed up toward one another over something we have no control over.
The procedures for amending the constitution are within the document. I doubt they would have given ways to alter the document without believing this was a possibility. Also, the first ten amendments were drafted the same year the constitution was implemented. It's hard to claim they didn't foresee amendments being part of the process. However, they probably didn't expect it to be common place as they created tough standards to get amendments passed. Nonetheless, amending the constitution isn't really done commonly and I would argue it isn't really going against their intentions.
As for religion, it is true that the founding fathers believed in a deity, but there religion beliefs were diverse and many were secular. Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were both prominent deists who believed in secular government. The separation of church and state comes from Jefferson and that's why republicans fought to remove his name from textbooks in Texas. John Adams was a strong Christian, but he was a Unitarian who believed that religion was a personal thing and should not be promoted by the state. This is reinforced by the Treaty of Tripoli which was drafted during his administration. George Washington is ambiguous but I would say he was likely a deist because of his strong ties to masonry. However, there are claims of him praying and attending church. The only major founding father that would have rejected the separation of Church and state is Samuel Adams. So, we can look at the founding father's religious beliefs in a historical sense and appreciate it. Yet, it does not effect how we view the separation of church and state because the intentions of many of them were clear. It's like France and Italy. They have a fairly religious background, but there current government and state policies have been fairly secular. Religion is fine when it remains in the private sphere. When others try to dictate policies because of their personal religious beliefs, I have to cringe. That is why the transgender community doesn't get treated equally and that is why we don't get equal rights. It frustrates me.
Quote from: learningtolive on May 18, 2013, 09:56:54 AM
The procedures for amending the constitution are within the document. I doubt they would have given ways to alter the document without believing this was a possibility. Also, the first ten amendments were drafted the same year the constitution was implemented. It's hard to claim they didn't foresee amendments being part of the process. However, they probably didn't expect it to be common place as they created tough standards to get amendments passed. Nonetheless, amending the constitution isn't really done commonly and I would argue it isn't really going against their intentions.
Well this is true, but it takes a majority in congress and the will of the people to do that as opposed to the President creating czars and doing end runs around the constitution for the sake of implementing his own agenda. We don't have a king, supposedly we have a system of checks and balances which I sometimes wonder about.
Quote from: learningtolive on May 18, 2013, 09:56:54 AM
As for religion, it is true that the founding fathers believed in a deity, but there religion beliefs were diverse and many were secular. Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were both prominent deists who believed in secular government. The separation of church and state comes from Jefferson and that's why republicans fought to remove his name from textbooks in Texas. John Adams was a strong Christian, but he was a Unitarian who believed that religion was a personal thing and should not be promoted by the state. This is reinforced by the Treaty of Tripoli which was drafted during his administration. George Washington is ambiguous but I would say he was likely a deist because of his strong ties to masonry. However, there are claims of him praying and attending church. The only major founding father that would have rejected the separation of Church and state is Samuel Adams. So, we can look at the founding father's religious beliefs in a historical sense and appreciate it. Yet, it does not effect how we view the separation of church and state because the intentions of many of them were clear. It's like France and Italy. They have a fairly religious background, but there current government and state policies have been fairly secular. Religion is fine when it remains in the private sphere. When others try to dictate policies because of their personal religious beliefs, I have to cringe. That is why the transgender community doesn't get treated equally and that is why we don't get equal rights. It frustrates me.
The whole idea of separation of church and state sprung out of what happened in England where the king had set up the Church of England as the state religion. The authors of the constitution sought safeguards against that happening here. I am frustrated about people's attitudes towards the transgender community as well, but regardless of whatever religion or belief system people espouse it's there and it's more a part of human nature than of the basic tenets of any religious beliefs. The bigots do hide behind religion often twisting scripture and verse to make their point, but it doesn't make the religion bad, it's the people themselves that are flawed and evil. I often say that the word discrimination has been given a bad rap because I am discriminating about what I eat, what I wear, where I go, and even who I like and don't like, but some use discrimination for evil purposes and unfortunately no laws will change the condition of their hearts toward us.
Quote from: Shantel on May 18, 2013, 10:43:07 AM
Well this is true, but it takes a majority in congress and the will of the people to do that as opposed to the President creating czars and doing end runs around the constitution for the sake of implementing his own agenda. We don't have a king, supposedly we have a system of checks and balances which I sometimes wonder about.
The whole idea of separation of church and state sprung out of what happened in England where the king had set up the Church of England as the state religion. The authors of the constitution sought safeguards against that happening here. I am frustrated about people's attitudes towards the transgender community as well, but regardless of whatever religion or belief system people espouse it's there and it's more a part of human nature than of the basic tenets of any religious beliefs. The bigots do hide behind religion often twisting scripture and verse to make their point, but it doesn't make the religion bad, it's the people themselves that are flawed and evil. I often say that the word discrimination has been given a bad rap because I am discriminating about what I eat, what I wear, where I go, and even who I like and don't like, but some use discrimination for evil purposes and unfortunately no laws will change the condition of their hearts toward us.
Czars are really nothing new and it's been part of the political process for a while. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars)
These people are limited in their power and any action that is illegal can be monitored and they can be reprimanded by congress. If congress fails to do there job in your eyes, that isn't because there is no checks and balances. Perhaps they aren't being the proper watchdog. And again, since the President is in charge of the executive branch he has the right to implement policy and manage his branch as he or she sees fit (as long as it does not violate any laws or abuses any regulation). The role of the executive has expanded first under Lincoln and exploded under FDR. One can disagree with it, but as long as no laws are being violated, it is legal. This doesn't make our president a king. They still have to follow the procedures outlined in the constitution and can't violate laws, regulations and codes of ethics. The constitution does not require the president to receive Senate approval for every appointment even though it does require it for some. This is something that many conservative legal scholars agree on and many republican presidents have practiced themselves.
Also, one can argue czars have been around longer than this. Presidents usually had informal cabinets with advisers who informally oversaw particular areas. I believe Andrew Jackson was the first with his Kitchen Cabinet.
As for religion, I have no hate for it, but it has no place in government. You have the freedom to believe and practice whatever you want; however, the state cannot endorse a particular religion. This is in the constitution. Therefore, it is best to keep religion in the private sphere and out of our laws. I prefer our government stay out of religion and allow people to freely practice their religion of choice in their private lives.
Lastly, bigots appear in all stripes. I know plenty who are non religious and who are religious. I also know plenty of wonderful religious people who are accepting. But there is no denying that religious doctrine has been one of the most influential factors in promoting hate towards the lgbt community. It's sad, but I don't see how one could read the bible or Koran and get a pro lgbt vibe from it. Nonetheless, everyone interprets things differently and I have respect for people of all faiths. If more deeply religious people were to see a positive biblical interpretation towards our community, I would be very happy even if I don't share their beliefs.
Oh well, suffice it for me to say that I see that there is too much overreach and little accountability by the Executive branch and that needs to be changed lest we wind up with a dictatorship. This isn't about Obama either, it's a generalization concerning the office itself.
Finally, people will no doubt always speak and even vote within the dictates of their ethnic, cultural or religious belief system, it's what happens in a free society and we have no choice but to get over it unless of course some higher power suddenly gives everyone a lobotomy or a sudden heart change.
Alexander Hamilton, federalist Paper No. 85: But every amendment to the Constitution, if once established, would be a single proposition, and might be brought forward singly. There would then be no necessity for management or compromise, in relation to any other point no giving nor taking. The will of the requisite number would at once bring the matter to a decisive issue. And consequently, whenever nine, or rather ten States, were united in the desire of a particular amendment, that amendment must infallibly take place. There can, therefore, be no comparison between the facility of affecting an amendment, and that of establishing in the first instance a complete Constitution.
***
The constitution was made to be changed every ten years in order to create a more perfect union. And to provide answer to those, the Democrats, that didn't want the adoption of a strong central government. The Federalist Papers are the single source of knowledge for understanding what Madison and Hamilton and Jay were thinking.
Of course, some don't like Hamilton. More Jeffersonian. I have answer:
"We must be contented to travel on towards perfection, step by step. We must be contented with the ground which [the new] Constitution will gain for us, and hope that a favorable moment will come for correcting what is amiss in it." --Thomas Jefferson to the Count de Moustier, 1788. ME 7:13
It is therefore clear that Constitution was meant to be changed and amended. The IRS is legal because the states will it and nothing more. And here is the kicker quote:
"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41
"Forty years [after a] Constitution... was formed,... two-thirds of the adults then living are... dead. Have, then, the remaining third, even if they had the wish, the right to hold in obedience to their will and to laws heretofore made by them, the other two-thirds who with themselves compose the present mass of adults? If they have not, who has? The dead? But the dead have no rights. They are nothing, and nothing can not own something. Where there is no substance, there can be no accident [i.e., attribute]." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. (*) ME 15:42
Quote from: Shantel on February 24, 2013, 05:22:13 PM
Yesterday Lindsey Graham said that since congress was so pathetically lame about doing what Americans are paying them for that they all should consider taking a cut in personal pay and benefits.
Good plan but it will never happen since it's apparently all about them and not us.
I think its a great plan and you're right it will never happen.
I don't see how people can blame a man (President Obama) for things that takes branches to enforce. I'm sure Pres. Obama did not go BLAM new law! and screw this whole country, we have a system in place It takes more than A man.
Its not the Democrats or Independence or Republicans. Its a sense of entitlement, forgetting there job to serve the people, pride, and pointing fingers. I think the President has a genuine heart for the people, I also think the conservatives stuck in 1700 are afraid of change hints the term conservative. I also feel like the separation of church in state should be enforced way more, because our country seems to be creating all things in one religion and in a religion period (Christianity). Its political religion. Take out the religion and we would function way better, this is coming from a Christian.
Dark Knight, I agree with you for the most part. It always seemed to me that congress people go to Washington with the best of intentions and then get sucked into the corrupt vortex of self-aggrandizement and untold perks from lobbyists until any and all decisions that they make are hinged on how badly they want to be re-elected and they are driven by special interest groups with a lot of financial clout to do their bidding. We (the little) people get kicked to the curb.
Ironically, one can point out how tied Senator Graham is to certain special interests http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/24/12531/grahams-campaign-collects-bundle-lobbyists. (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/24/12531/grahams-campaign-collects-bundle-lobbyists.) Even though we differ in our politics Shantel, I would love for there to be real campaign and lobbyist reform. I wish conservatives and liberals could join together on this issue.
I got a pretty good buzz one night and designed the yard sign for my "Senate campaign".
For my slogan I went with Green Day: "Everything Isn't Meant to Be Ok"
I sometimes fantasize performing American Idiot at my rallies cause I also think if Politicians didn't promise to save the world, we'd be better off. I'm also willing to bet it would generate a lot of buzz.
Quote from: learningtolive on May 18, 2013, 02:44:01 PM
Ironically, one can point out how tied Senator Graham is to certain special interests http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/24/12531/grahams-campaign-collects-bundle-lobbyists. (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/24/12531/grahams-campaign-collects-bundle-lobbyists.) Even though we differ in our politics Shantel, I would love for there to be real campaign and lobbyist reform. I wish conservatives and liberals could join together on this issue.
Absolutely, I'm totally on board with that! You may remember when President Clinton put the Nafta agreements together? Congress on both sides of the aisle joined hands and signed it with lightening speed, not that it was going to really benefit we the little people, but because they could clearly see how it would benefit them personally. Meanwhile, they argue and bicker endlessly about most mundane points of daily government business. BTW - I'm not a Republican or a member of any political persuasion. I am an independent, conservative on fiscal matters and liberal on others and vote my conscience applying common sense as opposed to voting on emotional whims.
Quote from: Misato on May 18, 2013, 08:31:33 AM
According to my High School civics class, the constitution is a Living Document because it can be amended, as it was for the Bill of Rights.
Government, and those who report on it, sew too much FUD into the conversation for me these days. Reminds of rabid OS X and Linux fans. All this partisanship is equally childish in my eyes. It's all about being right instead of trying to do the right thing.
Lastly, on God, I do like Joe Biden's approach. I saw him on Meet the Press before the 2008 election and I think he said this one of the debates too, where he brought up that he's Catholic but it wouldn't be right for him to form policy around his religious beliefs. I appreciate that because when it comes to government, politicians need follow George Carlin's second commandment "Keep thy religion to thy self!" We have freedom of religion in this country after all, which then implies the people should have freedom from how any particular one is interpreted.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S35/52/39O50/index.xml (http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S35/52/39O50/index.xml)
"Scalia favors 'enduring,' not living, Constitution"In a lighthearted, plainspoken talk at Princeton University, Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia discussed his judicial philosophy of reading the U.S. Constitution on its textual basis and original meaning.
"The fairest reading of the text is what the law means," he said Monday, Dec. 10, to an audience of more than 700 at Richardson Auditorium in Alexander Hall. "When we read Shakespeare we use a glossary because we want to know what it meant when it was written. We don't give those words their current meaning. So also with a statute — our statutes don't morph, they don't change meaning from age to age to comport with the whatever the zeitgeist thinks appropriate...."
In the talk, Scalia primarily contrasted his philosophy of originalism with the common conception of a "living Constitution" that changes with society over time. One example, he said, was the issue of whether the death penalty ought to be considered "cruel and unusual punishment" as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment, and as some of his colleagues on the Supreme Court believe.
"There is absolutely no doubt that when the Eighth Amendment was adopted — nobody, nobody, not a single person, thought" it applied to the death penalty, Scalia said. "Nonetheless, my four colleagues thought that somehow it was within their power to say that's what the cruel and unusual punishment clause means today, even though it never meant that. ... That is what the living Constitution produces."
"I have classes of little kids who come to the court, and they recite very proudly what they've been taught, 'The Constitution is a living document.' It isn't a living document! It's dead. Dead, dead, dead!" Scalia said, drawing laughs from the crowd. "No, I don't say that. ... I call it the enduring Constitution. That's what I tell them."
In his view, that issues such as abortion and homosexuality do not appear in the Constitution makes them matters for which citizens and states can enact laws, Scalia said. The tendency to see the Constitution as a living document extends to a tendency to see what one wishes in it, Scalia said.See link above for full article
I know a lot of people who aren't particularly good at their job or who think they know what they are talking about but don't. Just because Scalia is on the Supreme Court doesn't imply he knows what he's doing in regards to the law. Still, I do beleive he's trying his best.
I hate Anthony Scalia. The man is a partisan hack who pretends that he loves to follow the original intent of the founders. In reality, he always votes the conservative line even if it goes against his philosophy. Not saying that the other justices aren't partisan, but I'm sick of his bs.
Read his concurrences, dissents and the majority opinions that he authors. The man is a bigot who justifies not giving equal rights to gays. He fears the "homosexual agenda" and even justified imprisoning a man because of his sexual preferences. The fact that he dissented on Lawrence v Texas is really disgusting. There are countless of other cases where the man shows what a clown he really is, but I'll focus on something I think most of us can agree on.
Quote from: learningtolive on May 20, 2013, 11:08:06 AM
I'll focus on something I think most of us can agree on.
A good plan for all of us. Even though I started this link for some now obscure reason, I don't usually care to become embroiled in religious or political discourse because we all have our own very diverse opinions, some set in concrete it would seem which only leads to vitriolic comments and behavior, personally I enjoy the serenity of being in a safe zone to discuss those things that we all share in common and would much rather not develop negative opinions about my sisters and brothers here at Susan's simply because they hold to different beliefs than I do. I will strive to avoid this thread and others like it for my own peace of mind, I'm sorry I initiated it as all it does is create angst in everyone and that's not what we are here for. Wishing you all my very best each day! ~Shan~
Most all of the judges are "partisan" how do you think they get elected. By promising to vote party line.
Quote from: Shantel on May 20, 2013, 11:25:28 AM
A good plan for all of us. Even though I started this link for some now obscure reason, I don't usually care to become embroiled in religious or political discourse because we all have our own very diverse opinions, some set in concrete it would seem which only leads to vitriolic comments and behavior, personally I enjoy the serenity of being in a safe zone to discuss those things that we all share in common and would much rather not develop negative opinions about my sisters and brothers here at Susan's simply because they hold to different beliefs than I do. I will strive to avoid this thread and others like it for my own peace of mind, I'm sorry I initiated it as all it does is create angst in everyone and that's not what we are here for. Wishing you all my very best each day! ~Shan~
I can agree with that sentiment. I just have difficulty censoring myself when Scalia is brought up because of his open hostility to the LGBT community. Nonetheless, I know that we all have our opinions and they differ. All in all, I can respect that. Besides, it would be odd if we all thought and believed the same things at all times.
I can't even get all heated up about this stuff anymore. I hope that holds. Though I should have qualified my last with "...trying his best as he sees it."
I just still wish there was a discourse about things in this country. Instead we have Fox News, MSNBC the and The Daily Show just talking at each other. People covering the news shouldn't be news. Makes me think, as Bowling for Soup sang, high school never ends!
For the record I cared about the debt before it was cool. In Bush V. Gore I was upset at those rebate checks Bush promised and gave us. At that time I'm thinking, "We have a debt problem!" But then I also think if government has a role in protecting us from Al Queda, it also has a role in protecting us from cancer. Both are out to kill us after all.
Quote from: learningtolive on May 20, 2013, 11:08:06 AM
I hate Anthony Scalia. The man is a partisan hack who pretends that he loves to follow the original intent of the founders. In reality, he always votes the conservative line even if it goes against his philosophy. Not saying that the other justices aren't partisan, but I'm sick of his bs.
Read his concurrences, dissents and the majority opinions that he authors. The man is a bigot who justifies not giving equal rights to gays. He fears the "homosexual agenda" and even justified imprisoning a man because of his sexual preferences. The fact that he dissented on Lawrence v Texas is really disgusting. There are countless of other cases where the man shows what a clown he really is, but I'll focus on something I think most of us can agree on.
I have read his dissents and concurrences. I find no bigotry, but rather a dedication to a limited and originalist interpretation of the Court's role, and a hesitancy to see the Court "make law."
Scalia's dissent in
Lawrence is crystal clear.
"I begin with the Court's surprising readiness to reconsider a decision rendered a mere 17 years ago in Bowers v. Hardwick. I do not myself believe in rigid adherence to stare decisis in constitutional cases; but I do believe that we should be consistent rather than manipulative in invoking the doctrine. Today's opinions in support of reversal do not bother to distinguish--or indeed, even bother to mention--the paean to stare decisis coauthored by three Members of today's majority in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. There, when stare decisis meant preservation of judicially invented abortion rights, the widespread criticism of Roe was strong reason to reaffirm it....
"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts--or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them--than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new "constitutional right" by a Court that is impatient of democratic change."The actual words of dissent suggest you misunderstood what it was about.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1)
Quote from: Jamie D on May 20, 2013, 09:40:28 PM
I have read his dissents and concurrences. I find no bigotry, but rather a dedication to a limited and originalist interpretation of the Court's role, and a hesitancy to see the Court "make law."
Scalia's dissent in Lawrence is crystal clear.
"I begin with the Court's surprising readiness to reconsider a decision rendered a mere 17 years ago in Bowers v. Hardwick. I do not myself believe in rigid adherence to stare decisis in constitutional cases; but I do believe that we should be consistent rather than manipulative in invoking the doctrine. Today's opinions in support of reversal do not bother to distinguish--or indeed, even bother to mention--the paean to stare decisis coauthored by three Members of today's majority in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. There, when stare decisis meant preservation of judicially invented abortion rights, the widespread criticism of Roe was strong reason to reaffirm it....
"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts--or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them--than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new "constitutional right" by a Court that is impatient of democratic change."
The actual words of dissent suggest you misunderstood what it was about.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1)
I won't go into a major argument about this. The fact that he believes it was constitutional for Texas to imprison a man because they had gay sex is really disgusting. I understand what it was about, but I see him time and time again use his strict interpretation to uphold conservative policies. He may attempt to use a legal argument, but it's clear that he is using a strict texualist arguments to promote his political beliefs. In the rest of the dissent he compares gay sex to bestiality and obscenity. Then he follows it by saying that he believes that all the rest of the justices have " largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct." Yes, it is clear he can make an argument on a legal basis, but let's not hide what he really feels. It's pretty obvious. I'm sure you have read up on Romer V Evans. Do you agree with his decision there?
Lastly, Scalia is not the only justice to do this. Many of them vote based on their ideology. It's just how it goes. I happen to like Ginsburg, but I think she is just as partisan as Scalia. Their votes on major cases are often politically charged and there's been research in political journals to confirm this is the case. Their constitutional interpretation does come into play in smaller cases, but on major headline cases you can guarantee they vote based on their individual ideology. While it's possible that their ideology stems from their constitutional interpretation, I think it is quite the opposite. People have an ideology and create a method of interpretation that can back up their beliefs.
On another note here is a non-partisan and very articulate letter to the two U.S. Senators from Washington state, it doesn't call out any particular party and hits the nail right on the head!
April 3, 2013
Senator Patty Murray
Senator Maria Cantwell
Washington, DC , 20510
Dear Senator:
I have tried to live by the rules my entire life. My father was a Sergeant Major, U.S. Army, who died of combat related stresses shortly after his retirement. It was he who instilled in me those virtues he felt important - honesty, duty, patriotism and obeying the laws of God and of our various governments. I have served my country, paid my taxes, worked hard, volunteered and donated my fair share of money, time and artifacts.
Today, as I approach my 79th birthday, I am heart-broken when I look at my country and my government. I shall only point out a very few things abysmally wrong which you can multiply by a thousand fold. I have calculated that all the money I have paid in income taxes my entire life cannot even keep the Senate barbershop open for one year! Only Heaven and a few tight-lipped actuarial types know what the Senate dining room costs the taxpayers. So please, enjoy your haircuts and meals on us.
Last year, the president spent an estimated 1.4 $billion on himself and his family. The vice president spends $millions on hotels. They have had 8 vacations so far this year! And our House of Representatives and Senate have become America 's answer to the Saudi royal family. You have become the "perfumed princes and princesses" of our country.
In the middle of the night, you voted in the Affordable Health Care Act, a.k.a. "Obama Care," a bill which no more than a handful of senators or representatives read more than several paragraphs, crammed it down our throats, and then promptly exempted yourselves from it substituting your own taxpayer-subsidized golden health care insurance.
You live exceedingly well, eat and drink as well as the "one percenters," consistently vote yourselves perks and pay raises while making 3.5 times the average U.S. individual income, and give up nothing while you (as well as the president and veep) ask us to sacrifice due to sequestration (for which, of course, you plan to blame the Republicans, anyway).
You understand very well the only two rules you need to know - (1) How to get elected, and (2) How to get re-elected. And you do this with the aid of an eagerly willing and partisan press, speeches permeated with a certain economy of truth, and by buying the votes of the greedy, the ill-informed and under-educated citizens (and non-citizens, too, many of whom do vote ) who are looking for a handout rather than a job. Your so-called "safety net" has become a hammock for the lazy. And, what is it now, about 49 or 50 million on food stamps - pretty much all Democrat voters - and the program is absolutely rife with fraud with absolutely no congressional oversight?
I would offer that you are not entirely to blame. What changed you is the seductive environment of power in which you have immersed yourselves. It is the nature of both houses of Congress which requires you to subordinate your virtue in order to get anything done until you have achieved a leadership role. To paraphrase President Reagan, it appears that the second oldest profession (politics), bears a remarkably strong resemblance to the oldest.
As the hirsute first Baron John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton (1834 - 1902), English historian and moralist, so aptly and accurately stated, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." I'm only guessing that this applies to the female sex as well. Tell me, is there a more corrupt entity in this country than Congress?
While we middle class people continue to struggle, our government becomes less and less transparent, more and more bureaucratic, and ever so much more dictatorial, using Czars and Secretaries to tell us (just to mention a very few) what kind of light bulbs we must purchase, how much soda or hamburgers we can eat, what cars we can drive, gasoline to use, and what health care we must buy. Countless thousands of pages of regulations strangle our businesses costing the consumer more and more every day.
As I face my final year, or so, with cancer, my president and my government tell me "You'll just have to take a pill," while you, Senator, your colleagues, the president, and other exulted government officials and their families will get the best possible health care on our tax dollars until you are called home by your Creator while also enjoying a retirement beyond my wildest dreams, which of course, you voted for yourselves and we pay for.
The chances of you reading this letter are practically zero as your staff will not pass it on, but with a little luck, a form letter response might be generated by them with an auto signature applied, hoping we will believe that you, our senator or representative, has heard us and actually cares. This letter will, however, go on line where many others will have the chance to read one person's opinion, rightly or wrongly, about this government, its administration and its senators and representatives.
I only hope that occasionally you might quietly thank the taxpayer for all the generous entitlements which you have voted yourselves, for which, by law, we must pay, unless, of course, it just goes on the $17 trillion national debt for which your children and ours, and your grandchildren and ours,ad infinitum, must eventually try to pick up the tab.
My final thoughts are that it must take a person who has either lost his or her soul, or conscience, or both, to seek re-election and continue to destroy this country I deeply love and put it so far in debt that we will never pay it off while your lot improves by the minute, because of your power. For you, Senator, will never stand up to the rascals in your House who constantly deceive the American people. And that, my dear Senator, is how power has corrupted you and the entire Congress. The only answer to clean up this cesspool is term limits. This, of course, will kill the goose that lays your golden eggs. And woe be to him (or her) who would dare to bring it up.
Sincerely,
XXXXX
Oak Harbor, WA 98277
Quote from: kkut on May 26, 2013, 05:33:58 PM
Great letter Shantel, thanks for sharing :)
Been missing you so much girlfriend, hope you stick around for awhile!
Obama care is currently my famlies only concrete hope to get decent medical insurance because of my employer's a discriminatory policies and my partner's employer doesn't even offer anything. We can't buy on the market because pre-existing conditions.
Maybe in the days when you stayed at an employer for 30+ years the old system worked. Healthcare needed to change with the times. Just like the GOP will hopefully. I know Republicans I like, but they are in the minority voices in their own party. What I don't know is if they are the minority in numbers.
Many people don't realize that this country's original constitution - The Articles of Confederation - contained term limits for members of Congress.
In Article V of that document, it stated:
No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.
(Emphasis mine)
John Adams, in the Continental Congress, argued in favor of the term limits. As recorded by George Will in Restoration: Congress, Term Limits, and the Recovery of Deliberative Democracy:
In the era of America's founding, the most frequent argument for term limits were that limits would be prophylactic measures against tyranny. Thus the Massachusetts delegation to the Constitutional Convention [of 1787] was specifically instructed "not to depart from the rotation established in the Articles of Confederation. Delegate John Adams believed rotation would "teach" representatives "the great political virtues of humility, patience. and moderation without which every man in power becomes a ravenous beast of prey." Adam's colleague, Elbridge Gerry said, "Rotation keeps the mind of man in equilibria (sic) and teaches him the feelings of the governed" and counters the "overbearing insolence of office." Adams and Gerry were echoing the thinking that produced Article VIII of the Declaration of Rights in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which declared that citizens have a right to expect "public officers to return to private life" "in order to prevent those, who are vested with authority, from becoming oppressors."
Indeed, one Congress of the Confederation sent home a delegate who had showed up for a fourth one-year term, inside of the six-year framework. Noted in the rolls, the delegate was sent home for "tarrying too long."
Shantel our politics differ greatly, so I will respect your position on the issues without attempting to change your mind. Though, I do have to say that I think the letter more partisan than you let on in your intro.
However, I will ask you what the purpose of this letter was. I can tell you that the tone of the note was a little too confrontational for any staffer to consider passing it forward. You acknowledge this in the letter itself. If you want to express your opinion, that's fine. It's completely your right to do so. But if you hope to get their attention and make a change, that strategy will likely not work. The person reading this letter will probably be an intern who has to make a decision about whether to pass it along. If the letter is too confrontational, they may not bother passing it their superiors. Government officials get an enormous amount of mail and it's near impossible to write a personalized response to everyone who writes. Most of the letters that are addressed are those that express concerns, but that also do so in a friendly manner. Most staffers would like to talk with people who they believe are open to a conversation. Also, focusing on a single issue that they can respond to is helpful. Believe it or not, these sort of letters can have an influence. I have seen politicians count and the amount of negative calls and mail they receive on a particular issues. They do care if their constituency is heavily against a policy. However, people will not even bother listening to something that may come across as hostile. It may not seem just that your voice isn't being heard, but that's the reality. Think about it? What if you were a staffer that received a call and had to fill out a constituent comment form. The caller explains that they dislike Obama care and they give their reasons while remaining friendly in their tone. The staffer can easily fill out the form with the information and pass it along. If the caller starts to through in personal jabs against the official it's possible that the staffer could get annoyed and not pass your message along. What situation is more likely to get your voice heard?
In any event, it's your right to decide how you wish to compose your letter. I just want you to know that these letters can have an impact, but sometimes the phrasing can be detrimental to whether your letter is read or addressed.
Quote from: Jamie D on May 26, 2013, 09:59:15 PM
Many people don't realize that this country's original constitution - The Articles of Confederation - contained term limits for members of Congress.
In Article V of that document, it stated:
No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.
(Emphasis mine)
John Adams, in the Continental Congress, argued in favor of the term limits. As recorded by George Will in Restoration: Congress, Term Limits, and the Recovery of Deliberative Democracy:
In the era of America's founding, the most frequent argument for term limits were that limits would be prophylactic measures against tyranny. Thus the Massachusetts delegation to the Constitutional Convention [of 1787] was specifically instructed "not to depart from the rotation established in the Articles of Confederation. Delegate John Adams believed rotation would "teach" representatives "the great political virtues of humility, patience. and moderation without which every man in power becomes a ravenous beast of prey." Adam's colleague, Elbridge Gerry said, "Rotation keeps the mind of man in equilibria (sic) and teaches him the feelings of the governed" and counters the "overbearing insolence of office." Adams and Gerry were echoing the thinking that produced Article VIII of the Declaration of Rights in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which declared that citizens have a right to expect "public officers to return to private life" "in order to prevent those, who are vested with authority, from becoming oppressors."
Indeed, one Congress of the Confederation sent home a delegate who had showed up for a fourth one-year term, inside of the six-year framework. Noted in the rolls, the delegate was sent home for "tarrying too long."
.
It should also be noted that the Articles of Confederation have been considered a massive failure. That's why the constitution was formed. Also, the Continental congress was a very different entity than our current bicameral system. The powers and roles of the institutions are different. The Congress was more of a formal entity without much power in the days when we were a confederacy. So, I don't think any of the former rules should necessarily be considered applicable. The entire regime and system changed when we adopted the constitution. Because of this the articles of confederation really don't hold any importance in terms of legal precedence.
I'm not against term limits -I'd be fine with it- but people think it will do more than it will. If you want to fix corruption, you have to address campaign finance and lobbying reform. Otherwise, more term limits will only equal a a faster revolving door of corruption. Personally, I care less about the speed of the revolving door and more about the overall corruption of power.
Quote from: learningtolive on May 21, 2013, 11:09:59 AM
I won't go into a major argument about this. The fact that he believes it was constitutional for Texas to imprison a man because they had gay sex is really disgusting. I understand what it was about, but I see him time and time again use his strict interpretation to uphold conservative policies. He may attempt to use a legal argument, but it's clear that he is using a strict texualist arguments to promote his political beliefs. In the rest of the dissent he compares gay sex to bestiality and obscenity. Then he follows it by saying that he believes that all the rest of the justices have " largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct." Yes, it is clear he can make an argument on a legal basis, but let's not hide what he really feels. It's pretty obvious. I'm sure you have read up on Romer V Evans. Do you agree with his decision there?
Lastly, Scalia is not the only justice to do this. Many of them vote based on their ideology. It's just how it goes. I happen to like Ginsburg, but I think she is just as partisan as Scalia. Their votes on major cases are often politically charged and there's been research in political journals to confirm this is the case. Their constitutional interpretation does come into play in smaller cases, but on major headline cases you can guarantee they vote based on their individual ideology. While it's possible that their ideology stems from their constitutional interpretation, I think it is quite the opposite. People have an ideology and create a method of interpretation that can back up their beliefs.
Comparison to bestiality: You are mistaken in your assertion. He does not compare the practices, but rather, the basis for similar state laws. Here is the section of the dissent:
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting "an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex" (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional "morals" offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. "The law," it said, "is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed."And Justice Scalia's insight here is demonstrably correct, as we see constitutional challenges being made on similar issues, such as plural marriage and adult incest.
I am not sure which issues you have with
Rome v Evans, but Scalia is true to form in his dissent:
"Today's opinion has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to. The people of Colorado have adopted an entirely reasonable provision which does not even disfavor homosexuals in any substantive sense, but merely denies them preferential treatment. Amendment 2 is designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality favored by a majority of Coloradans, and is not only an appropriate means to that legitimate end, but a means that Americans have employed before. Striking it down is an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will."Scalia supports the democratic process over activist courts.
Quote from: learningtolive on May 26, 2013, 10:25:35 PM
.
It should also be noted that the Articles of Confederation have been considered a massive failure. That's why the constitution was formed. Also, the Continental congress was a very different entity than our current bicameral system. The powers and roles of the institutions are different. The Congress was more of a formal entity without much power in the days when we were a confederacy. So, I don't think any of the former rules should necessarily be considered applicable. The entire regime and system changed when we adopted the constitution. Because of this the articles of confederation really don't hold any importance in terms of legal precedence.
I'm not against term limits -I'd be fine with it- but people think it will do more than it will. If you want to fix corruption, you have to address campaign finance and lobbying reform. Otherwise, more term limits will only equal a a faster revolving door of corruption. Personally, I care less about the speed of the revolving door and more about the overall corruption of power.
I agree with you completely. Power corrupts. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
We must remember, however, that much of the Articles are subsumed within the Constitution of 1787
Term limits could have a shot at working, if there were no political parties or PACs.
Today it seems, except for the occasional vote, individual people are cogs.
Quote from: learningtolive on May 26, 2013, 10:13:11 PM
Shantel our politics differ greatly, so I will respect your position on the issues without attempting to change your mind. Though, I do have to say that I think the letter more partisan than you let on in your intro.
However, I will ask you what the purpose of this letter was. Whaaat, hello? I can tell you that the tone of the note was a little too confrontational for any staffer to consider passing it forward. You acknowledge this in the letter itself. If you want to express your opinion, that's fine. It's completely your right to do so.
In any event, it's your right to decide how you wish to compose your letter. I just want you to know that these letters can have an impact, but sometimes the phrasing can be detrimental to whether your letter is read or addressed.
FYI - I didn't write that letter, it was written by an old man who lives in Washington state who has lived a lot longer than you and me. I posted it because he has an interesting idea about how term limits would get all of the self aggrandizing hogs from both sides of the aisle out of the trough. It's obvious to me that you either didn't read it entirely or missed the point altogether about what is becoming a common lament which is that none of these people work for you and me or represent us in any way at all.
Quote from: kkut on May 27, 2013, 09:29:31 AM
I believe term limits would improve things tremendously.
How? When pols first have to survive a democratic or republican primary? How?
Gerrymandering and creating "safe" districts. Term limits wouldn't solve the safe district problem. What does it really matter who comes from these places?
There is no silver bullet, but I think there are bigger problems at hand than needing term limits.
Quote from: Shantel on May 27, 2013, 08:13:25 AM
FYI - I didn't write that letter, it was written by an old man who lives in Washington state who has lived a lot longer than you and me. I posted it because he has an interesting idea about how term limits would get all of the self aggrandizing hogs from both sides of the aisle out of the trough. It's obvious to me that you either didn't read it entirely or missed the point altogether about what is becoming a common lament which is that none of these people work for you and me or represent us in any way at all.
I did read it and understood the point of the letter; however, I mistakenly thought you wrote it.
I wasn't talking or arguing about the merits of term limits. I was talking about whether or not that letter would get addressed. Even if one dislikes the politician they are contacting, it is always more effective to address criticism without direct insults. I know for a fact that citizens who directly lobby their politicians can have an impact. Yet, if they want to have some influence they have to first ensure their letter is read and their points are considered. I don't see how I missed the point. I know how the process goes and offered some feedback about how to better increase your chance of making a difference in the way you want.
Quote from: Jamie D on May 26, 2013, 11:10:49 PM
Comparison to bestiality: You are mistaken in your assertion. He does not compare the practices, but rather, the basis for similar state laws. Here is the section of the dissent:
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting "an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex" (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional "morals" offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. "The law," it said, "is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed."
And Justice Scalia's insight here is demonstrably correct, as we see constitutional challenges being made on similar issues, such as plural marriage and adult incest.
I am not sure which issues you have with Rome v Evans, but Scalia is true to form in his dissent:
"Today's opinion has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to. The people of Colorado have adopted an entirely reasonable provision which does not even disfavor homosexuals in any substantive sense, but merely denies them preferential treatment. Amendment 2 is designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality favored by a majority of Coloradans, and is not only an appropriate means to that legitimate end, but a means that Americans have employed before. Striking it down is an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will."
Scalia supports the democratic process over activist courts.
I don't believe I'm the one mistaken. He lumps them together as though they are similar. He is saying it is impossible to distinguish sodomy from other moral based sexual restrictions and that it puts all the other laws "into question". Essentially his argument is "if we make sodomy legal than all the people who want have sex with animals and their family members can do so". Now that this is decision is overturned, has that happened?
My problem in Romer V Evans is that he struck down anti discrimination laws for gays because he thought he it was preferential treatment. So, it should be okay for employers to fire gays because we don't want to give them preferential treatment. Does anyone really by that having anti discrimination laws that include homosexuality really think it favours gays? What about transgender anti discrimination laws? Is that really favouring us or realizing that we should be a protected class because of the likeliness that we have to face bigots in our everyday lives. Secondly, I don't believe everything should be done by ballot initiative or be allowed to be done so. I don't believe the rights of people who are minorities should be decided by the mob. It's like Proposition 8 where the state of California gave the people the ability to discriminate against people in their own state. And I don't care what anyone says, there is no reason not to extend marriage to same sex couples other than forcing ones religious beliefs onto others.
Quote from: kkut on May 27, 2013, 10:34:11 AM
How? By returning to the concept of government by the people instead of having lifetime rulers. I think this is a positive thing.
Absolutely, outside of that we will be experiencing what the nation's founders had fought bloody battles over. No doubt it would thrill the Progressive Marxist thinking folks until they discovered that they are on the bottom of the social agenda as well.
I recall as a kid watching Fidel Castro and his band of rebels many of whom were young North American fellows looking for adventure as they took on the despotic Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista from their hideouts in the Sierra Maestra mountains. It was exciting and Castro was my hero, he was still concealing his Marxist proclivities at the time. Once Castro and Che Guevara had taken control they lined up all of the American kids that had been with him throughout the battles and gave them all a bullet in the back of the head dropping them into a long trench for mass burial. Our government could do nothing at the time because they had acted as mercenaries for a foreign nation. Still it's a harsh look at the realities surrounding Marxist ideology. All of history points out that socialism in full bloom when it has permeated the entire fabric of any society is a foundation for full on Marxism.
Quote from: kkut on May 27, 2013, 10:34:11 AM
We need new people with new ideas and often. Just my opinion.
Mine as well!
I'm all for term limits for congress and the senate, but how would this really solve the main issue. Politicians would still have great connections with lobbyists, corporations, special interest groups and campaign funders. They will still vote the way the want until they leave office. Then they can get a comfy job as a lobbyist for the organization or industry that they did favours for. The problem is still there, but happens at a quicker pace. Campaign and Lobbyist reform is really what would help solve the corruption problem. Not term limits.
By the way, Ted Cruz is very much an establishment figure. He was the solicitor general of Texas and was an associate deputy attorney general for the Bush Whitehouse. He had good connections from the start and most people in the know didn't think Dewhurst had a great shot because of Ted Cruz's conservative reputation. I don't think he is the new blood most people think he is.
Quote from: learningtolive on May 27, 2013, 11:21:04 AM
I'm all for term limits for congress and the senate, but how would this really solve the main issue. Politicians would still have great connections with lobbyists, corporations, special interest groups and campaign funders. They will still vote the way the want until they leave office. Then they can get a comfy job as a lobbyist for the organization or industry that they did favours for. The problem is still there, but happens at a quicker pace. Campaign and Lobbyist reform is really what would help solve the corruption problem. Not term limits.
We can probably agree that all of the above could use a thorough overhauling. The President was going to so he said, that isn't going to happen because he got sucked into that same vortex. It would really be interesting to know how many offshore accounts have been opened up by lobbyists in the name of all of the congresspeople on both sides of the aisle. I would think that a large roll of one inch Manila would suffice as a future deterrent. :icon_ballbounce:
Obama never had intentions of cleaning up the system. He wanted to be in charge of the system. While I believe he had goals that he wanted to get done, he is the same as any other president. They have no problem addressing their chosen issues of choice, but they never want to tackle corruption within the system. It is too beneficial for both parties, and the special interests are needed to win campaigns. I don't know why anyone would have thought Obama would have been different than other Presidents. His voting record in the senate was very much safe and non controversial. And he made early ties to the banking industry. I didn't see any change coming on it's way. By the way, this is coming from someone who identifies as a progressive and supports some of the presidents policies.
Quote from: learningtolive on May 27, 2013, 11:44:08 AM
Obama never had intentions of cleaning up the system. He wanted to be in charge of the system. While I believe he had goals that he wanted to get done, he is the same as any other president. They have no problem addressing their chosen issues of choice, but they never want to tackle corruption within the system. He said he wanted to do away with it, it's on the record. Of course we all know candidates tell people things they want to hear with no intentions of following through It is too beneficial for both parties, and the special interests are needed to win campaigns. I don't know why anyone would have thought Obama would have been different than other Presidents. His voting record in the senate was very much safe and non controversial.Oh really? How many times did he vote present, wtf is that? It sure was very controversial. And he made early ties to the banking industry. I didn't see any change coming on it's way. By the way, this is coming from someone who identifies as a progressive and supports some of the presidents policies. Uh-huh I can tell and you are far from alone here on these pages. I don't dislike you for your beliefs though, it is what we are all about here in this country and diverse opinions make for lively conversations. :-*
I think you misunderstood me because I wasn't defending Obama in this case. In fact, I am criticizing him quite heavily. I agree that he made promises of change and that it all was on the record. My point is that like all politicians he had different motives than what others perceived. Change is a nice slogan, but you have to give me a reason to believe you mean it. His safe voting record is an example of how he wouldn't take on anything too controversial. Voting present was a way for him to avoid taking a stance on important issues and making enemies in different camps. While it is controversial for people like you and me, it is very much the safe position for those trying to market themselves to special interests. It is actually non controversial because it keeps more people on your side and by showing that you aren't taking on the system. Plus, his disdain for public financing during the campaign really showed what he felt about finance reform and special interests. Yes, he said change, but it was evident to those paying attention that he didn't mean it.
Quote from: kkut on May 27, 2013, 12:02:34 PM
I certainly didn't mean to imply he had straw in his teeth. He's new to the Senate and is bringing a new approach. He has excellent experience and is very qualified. That's my point, we have tons of people like this sitting on the sidelines.
It's nonsense to say people in the know didn't think Dewhurst was the huge favorite. I watched this play out from start to finish. Cruz didn't sit back and take Dewhurst's despicable false TV and radio ads. He went on the offensive and clearly demonstrated who Dewhurst is. It was quite impressive.
Perhaps it's because I live outside of Texas, but almost everyone I spoke with and everything I read predicted a Cruz victory. Dewhurst had money to run ads and had a powerful political position to exploit, but that doesn't mean he was likely to win. Most saw Cruz as the outsider underdog who was likely to win. However, it could have been viewed differently within Texas.
But we have lifetime rulers: those who come up with the talking points. And I'm not talking about the media. More the ceaseless churn of history and the next step taken from what's come before.
New blood sounds wonderful. But, the problems are that blood is tainted as soon as any pol enters a race by having to pander to the Unions or Tea Party or whom ever. And then there gets to be the sticky question of what is new blood? By clinging to the second amendment, for example, Ted Cruz looks like very old Republican blood to my eyes.
We have to work with the system. Keep the churn for our side going by voting even campaigning or maybe running ourselves. But, in the end, we are pretty much just going along for the ride!
Quote from: kkut on May 27, 2013, 07:44:25 PM
He's also very clingy to the first amendment, which hasn't been very well respected lately in Washington. But hey, the fifth amendment is in high gear at the moment... woo hoo!
Unfortunately, I don't think any side or politician has been clingy to the first amendment. But you are right about the fifth amendment being in high gear recently which is really distasteful. Once again, the change we can believe in certainly wasn't referring to transparency. As a lefty, I wish more of us would speak up about that. It seems like each side of the spectrum only like to criticize when the other side does something they dislike. I, for one, don't like to play those politics and wish others would start being the same.
Quote from: learningtolive on May 27, 2013, 08:04:02 PM
Unfortunately, I don't think any side or politician has been clingy to the first amendment. But you are right about the fifth amendment being in high gear recently which is really distasteful. Once again, the change we can believe in certainly wasn't referring to transparency. As a lefty, I wish more of us would speak up about that. It seems like each side of the spectrum only like to criticize when the other side does something they dislike. I, for one, don't like to play those politics and wish others would start being the same.
Well as I recall, it was going to be a more transparent administration which was kind of welcome and refreshing after watching our former vice president the Darth Vader wannabe Mr. Cheney. He had an extremely prickly personality and his motives were always highly suspect due to his investment holdings. So I had thought that Mr. Obama's promise of a more transparent administration was a breath of fresh air, however that has become more like Cheney 2.5. You're a pretty smart girl Learningtolive and I won't hold it against you for being a lefty because we all need to be able to agree on those things that are so disconcerting. I'm reminded of the film "Network" where Howard Beale (Peter Finch) is driven over the edge by uncontrollable events and throws open his window and yells into the night, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not taking it anymore!" We can join hands on that which we agree on with that same kind of fervor. I know it's possible!
Quote from: learningtolive on May 27, 2013, 10:52:55 AM
I don't believe I'm the one mistaken. He lumps them together as though they are similar. He is saying it is impossible to distinguish sodomy from other moral based sexual restrictions and that it puts all the other laws "into question". Essentially his argument is "if we make sodomy legal than all the people who want have sex with animals and their family members can do so". Now that this is decision is overturned, has that happened?
My problem in Romer V Evans is that he struck down anti discrimination laws for gays because he thought he it was preferential treatment. So, it should be okay for employers to fire gays because we don't want to give them preferential treatment. Does anyone really by that having anti discrimination laws that include homosexuality really think it favours gays? What about transgender anti discrimination laws? Is that really favouring us or realizing that we should be a protected class because of the likeliness that we have to face bigots in our everyday lives. Secondly, I don't believe everything should be done by ballot initiative or be allowed to be done so. I don't believe the rights of people who are minorities should be decided by the mob. It's like Proposition 8 where the state of California gave the people the ability to discriminate against people in their own state. And I don't care what anyone says, there is no reason not to extend marriage to same sex couples other than forcing ones religious beliefs onto others.
As I said before, Scalia was not comparing practices, but rather the rational basis for law-making in a democracy. In a republican democracy, who is to determine what is, or is not, a lawful practice? Who is, or is not, a member of a "protected class"? Those are societal decisions made by a political majority. Scalia was pointing out that the Court was intruding into political issues.
In the long history of the US Supreme Court, it has been loathe to take up political issues, as those are in the purview of the Congress. When it has wandered into such issues, there have been notable disasters (i.e.
Sandford (sic) v Dred Scott). The interpretive role of the court is to determine whether a law violates Constitutional principles.
That is what Scalia's originalism is all about. We are hard pressed to claim discrimination, against same-sex marriage for instance, on a "equal protection" basis, because when that amendment was enacted, marriage was a state issue (rather than federal) and nowhere was same-sex marriage, or gay or lesbian conduct condoned. In fact, the amendment was written to for the sole purpose of protecting newly freed slave. One can only do that by warping the meaning and original intent of the law for partisan purposes. If courts do that, it equates to anarchy, because nothing then is settled law.
As Scalia wrote in the dissent in
Romer, "Whether [sexual orientation] is or not [protectable] is precisely the cultural debate that gave rise to the Colorado constitutional amendment (and to the preferential laws against which this amendment was directed.) Since the Constitution of the United States says nothing about this subject, it is left to be resolved by normal democratic means, including the democratic adoption of provisions in state constitutions."
It is gratifying that individual states are finding the political will to embrace that change. It would be nicer if that will was found on a federal level. But we are not quite there yet. It is not bigotry to support popular democracy.
If the laws are bad, we need to work to change them, or unseat the people who make them.
Quote from: learningtoliveI don't believe the rights of people who are minorities should be decided by the mob.
That was a key issue discussed during the founding era of out country. It took of much discussion in the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. What was the solution? In this country it is a political majority (or as you term it, a "mob") rules, while minority right are protected within a Constitutional framework.
Jamie, I respect your views, but I still disagree. Nonetheless, we will never change each others minds on this, so I will leave it at that.
One thing I will say, I don't mind a political majority, but I do fear the tyranny of the majority when they fight to keep the minority down. If you don't think the majority has historically done this to others in the country (including the lgbt community) we clearly see things very differently. As for whether there is a constitutional framework to extend protections, I believe it's there and can easily be argued, but originalist who believe everything should be seen as though it's 1789 are going to obviously have an issue with that interpretation. There are many different ways to interpret the constitution and justices have differed about this throughout the history of our country. But I have my beliefs and you're welcome to yours.
Quote from: kkut on May 29, 2013, 11:00:19 PM
Interesting article, maybe this is the change Obama brings about in the end...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/28/nullifying-obama/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/28/nullifying-obama/)
Kinda goes along with Newton's theory: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Look like it holds true in politics as well.