I am beginning to understand...

...why NAR was originally opposed to a legislative
effort. In the courts, you can at least hope
for a reasonably impartial judgement based on the
law, although it seems to take just short of forever.
But in congress - logic, rationality, and scientific
evidence don't count for anything, which was pretty
much what former Apollo astronaut Harrison Schmidt
said after his 1 term in the senate. Now that
the senate bill is being used for partisan
politics it seems NAR's worst fears of what
could happen are coming to pass. Not to mention
the 'modification' in committee.
Reply to
Free Electron
Loading thread data ...
Step back a little from our current issue and consider that ALL Federal Laws go through this same procedure; it will explain much.
I believe the Congressional process, and the compromise involved with it, were intentionally imposed upon the Government by the Constitution and the vision of the Founding Fathers in order to prevent exactly the things we see today. But the process has become broken; the Founding Fathers did not envision that our Representatives and Senators would corrupt the system for their own gain and place the concepts and ideals of our country as secondary considerations during lawmaking. It is hard to predict the actions of unscrupulous and unprincipled people if you are not one yourself.
A very revealing aspect of Federal lawmaking can be found in the opening sections of many Federal laws. Basically, Congress has extremely limited powers to enact legislation which affects individual citizens. That was intentional. So how is it they are in every aspect of our lives? How can there be Federal Abortion Laws, for instance? Because Congress simply says that whatever it is, it adversely affects interstate trade; one of the few things the Constitution grants Congress the power of law over. The Santa Clause of the Constitution. They do not have to show or define adverse impact, just say that it exists. You would be amazed how many things (Abortion, Crime, etc) adversely affect interstate trade. Of course, the Founding Fathers were concerned about actual trade issues and economics when they added the clause, not granting Congress powers they didn't wish it to have.
Another issue in the "broken process" is Amendment XVII. Since this is an actual Amendment, I will not say outright that it is wrong. However, my opinion is that it IS wrong. Senators are not elected by the Constitution, they are appointed by State Legislatures. This gives States power in Congress by appointing qualified people to best reflect the views of that State's legislature. Amendment XVII makes Senator an elected position. The premise of the Constitution is that the House represents the People and that the Senate represents the States, thereby giving the Big Three divisions of Constitutional Power; the People, the States, and the Feds. While it may be argued that a popular election IS the Will of the People, America was not set up as a true Democracy; we are a Federal Republic. The mechanism of appointed Senators was implemented to support that Federal Republic and is integral to the other aspects and intent of the Constitution. It is far easier for demagogues to sway the People than it is to sway an (ostensibly) informed Legislature. Amendment XVII takes power away from the States.
Sorry, I can really get going on this. The question is, "Who watches the Watchers?" The answer, "We, the People." But most people I know have zero interest in politics and, therefore, very little watching is done. We hope our elected officials are honorable, interested people and will do what is best for us and the Country. Unfortunately, that is no longer the the case. There is zero hope for change until The People wish it to happen. Some personal recommendations; force Congress to show adverse impact, repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, institute a National Referendum.
Reply to
Gary
If the Texas Legislature behaved the same way when picking Senators as it is currently behaving with redrawing congressional districts... there would only be 48 Senators in Washington. If you can't get your way (after decades of getting your way) walk out. I hope New Mexico and Oklahoma likes our political heros, because they aren't doing Texas any good.
Gary wrote: > Another issue in the "broken process" is Amendment XVII. Since this is > an actual Amendment, I will not say outright that it is wrong. However, > my opinion is that it IS wrong. Senators are not elected by the > Constitution, they are appointed by State Legislatures. This gives > States power in Congress by appointing qualified people to best reflect > the views of that State's legislature. Amendment XVII makes Senator an > elected position. The premise of the Constitution is that the House > represents the People and that the Senate represents the States, thereby > giving the Big Three divisions of Constitutional Power; the People, the > States, and the Feds. While it may be argued that a popular election IS > the Will of the People, America was not set up as a true Democracy; we > are a Federal Republic. The mechanism of appointed Senators was > implemented to support that Federal Republic and is integral to the > other aspects and intent of the Constitution. It is far easier for > demagogues to sway the People than it is to sway an (ostensibly) > informed Legislature. Amendment XVII takes power away from the States.
Reply to
Alex Mericas
OUR NAR/TRA reps need to get in gear and combat every lie and distortion these pinheads make......Somebody call O'reiley and see if they can get these 2 dunderheads on his show with somebody that can counter their argumrnts?
shockie B)
Reply to
shockwaveriderz
Forgot an important recommendation; kick them all out and start over.
Reply to
Gary
You forgot one point. Government has already divided the people as to put them against each other. Oh they know what would happen if "We the People" unite.
Think about it..............
KMJK
"These are the Roman of times, and let us hope it doesn't crumble like Rome did."
Reply to
Karl Martin Joseph Kowert
pinheads make......Somebody call O'reiley and see if
their argumrnts?
Ain't gonna happen. In the eyes of most of America, this issue is way piddly compared to, say, Kobe Bryant...
tah
Reply to
hiltyt
Ray, Having every legislator elected with universal sufferage and the income tax is how we got into our current mess. There is nothing to prevent national politics from devolving into its current state... stealing from the productive elements of society to buy votes from the drones. Without some part of the law-making process being exempt from a universal popular vote, there is no brake on the pressure to pander and steal. Braz NAR 12442
Reply to
elbraz
That certainly doesn't happen now. ;)
I believe it would be an improvement. The Senators would actually have someone to answer to, their responsibilities would be more specific (to the legislature, not their entire constituency), and election campaign funding issues would evaporate. Taking campaign money out of the equation can only help, IMHO.
Reply to
Gary
Waaaallll... I married her first.
In a world supposedly divided between "Conservative Republicans" and "Liberal Democrats," I, a liberal Republican, married a conservative Democrat. The division the political animals would like to make leaves out these two large pluralities, one of which gave us environmental safeguards and the other labor unions. I suspect both are threatening to Congress.
For a good literary analogy to what is going on in the Senate, read Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and pay special attention to the characters Cornelius Fudge and Dolores Umbridge. The author is English but I'm sure she must have been paying attention... or maybe they have the same kind of thing over there?
--P. use things love people
Reply to
Pelysma
No matter how you constitute it, the country will be run by a bunch of people with shapeless blobs of protoplasm for brains who are so full of themselves that they think they can run the country better than anybody else. They might be elected, they might be appointed, they might be self-appointed, they may take over by virtue of accumulated wealth, buying control. Even if you could work out a pure democracy with no leaders, the country will be run by people with shapeless blobs of protoplasm for brains.
Face it, we're doomed! Doomed! Doomed!
This is making my head hurt. I'm going to bind some 2003 RotW supplements. I'd have done that weeks ago if I didn't have a shapeless blob of protoplasm for brains.
Peter Alway
Reply to
PeteAlway
So like, you'd be in favor of letting computers run the country?
Dr. Forbin
Reply to
Alan Jones
Holding political office shoudl be a capital crime.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
Oh, yeah, heartless, buggy cyborgs *designed* by people with shapeless blobs of protoplasm for brains.
You can't win.
Peter Alway
Reply to
PeteAlway
Ok, so there's at least one other couple out there in the rocketry world trying to maintain sanity while bridging the political divide. I thought Barb and I might be the only one. . . .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mark B. Bundick mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net NAR President www - dot - nar - dot - org
Reply to
Mark B. Bundick
My wife's a Conservative, but her parents are bleeding-heart, anti-gun old school Liberals. My wife warned me very early not to talk politics with my Father-in-Law, but I often smile when his three boys are visiting. All of them are gun toting Conservative Republicans and they get into it with their father, so I enjoy it vicariously. >;-)
Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers
Reply to
Mark Simpson
Mark, my po' Daddy, although career Army (retired with 13 years in-grade as an E8) is a McGovern liberal on everything but gun control. Mom is consertive in opinion, but votes Dem, cause Republican's are sooo mean, everyone knows that. My two younger brothers and I think that Goldwater was a little soft on communism. Don't have many political discussions around our house, either. Braz NAR 12442
Reply to
elbraz
Ah yes, "Nuke 'em til they Glow" Goldwater. Now there's a man who has his foreign policy right. ;-)
Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers
Reply to
Mark Simpson
Late in his life, Goldwater reviewed his old political commercials from the '64 presidential campaign. His reaction, referring to himself, was this:
"If all I'd had to go on was those commercials, I wouldn't have voted for that son-of-a-bitch either!"
mj
Reply to
Mark Johnson

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.