I hope you don’t think I’m one of Dem, though.

Tom

The (D)’s may very well bewail their Plight, but that they choose to do so in small rooms, dim alleys, and amongst themselves only adds to the conviction that they AND the (R)’s are convictable(in the main).

The ‘poor’ (D)’s have access to the Media, surely.

That they choose to keep up appearances, rather than keeping the American people’s interests, should be telling.

Tom, you’re a good dude, the (D)’s, not so much, do better, do different.

This: “It’s hard to really know about how bad the abuses of power are in Congress…” is, Only, the case because the (D)’s wish it to be.

It’s hard to really know about how bad the abuses of power are in Congress, and what the Dems could do if they really wanted to, but it is clear that there has been a concerted effort by Republicans to change and abuse rules to stifle debate and to sneak through or ram through pork barrel bills. One thing I recall hearing is that, besides the abuses of legislative practices, rules have been jiggered so that no Democrats have subpoena power with respect to the Administration.

I just ran across this 120+ page report from the leading Dem member of the House Rules Committee, dealing with the abuse of legislative rules:

democraticleader.house.gov/pdf/BrokenPromises.pdf

Regards,

Tom

With this :”means that there is no effective partisan check on irresponsible exercises of legislative and executive power.” you overlook the power the (D)’s have.

If they were, actually, a “party of opposition”, they hold a sufficient # of seats in both! Houses of Congress to effectively stop the goings-on, to which, we are entreated.

The Genius is Still in the Constitution, but, as you, correctly, point out: (It is up to the voters) to ensure that that Genius is applied.

This started with voter fraud in the 2000 elections, was evidenced in the early days of the administration with all of its closed door meetings with the energy industry friends that bankrolled it, and accelerated with 9/11.

There truly is an orgy of rent-seeking underway, and the sheer volume of legislation and regulation make it impossible for legislators literally to know what is going on. That lack of information, and the fact that Republicans are in control over both Houses, makes the abuse of legislation even more inevitable.

The situation is compounded by the fact that we have a Republican administration, so Congressmen are not serious about checking flagrant abuses of power by the President, and the President is not serious about keeping Congressional spending in check. The fact that Democrats have been hobbled by gerrymandering – on which the courts have yet to impose any meaningful restrictions – means that there is no effective partisan check on irresponsible exercises of legislative and executive power.

Rent-seekers, mainly large corporations, are having a field day at the expense of the Treasury and future taxpayers.

The genius of our Constitution was supposed to be in divided government, but we have seen little so far, with the courts largely deferring to the Administration. There is some possibility that the States will take an oppositional role, such as what we have seen from Eliot Spitzer as attorney general in NY, and there are increasing flashes of independence from various ambitious attorneys in the Justice Department.

But finally, responsibility lies with voters. If voters don’t demand more responsibility from legislators, then we deserve what we get. We certainly cannot expect that Congressmen will agree to increase their own burdens of responsibility.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaa-hahahahahahahahahaah

- Josh

It would be better if it was called “Spend More Money Act” or “Free Lunch Act” but have the entire contents of RTBA logrolled.

Why was 1937 the magic year for the Supreme Court’s commencement of its myopic reign?

And, this: “the absolute enormity of legislation that is enacted by the dozens of government regulatory agencies every year, under the authority that has been delegated to them by Congress.”, leads to the Q: Isn’t the act of Congress’ delegation, of rule(Lawmaking) promulgating, Unconstitutional on its face?

Maybe, just maybe, the answer to the first(Q) would illuminate the answer to the second(Q).

I suppose the only way to force a politician to adhere to such a system would be to penalize them of income if they don’t comply. 50% of their salary should do they trick

The only question is how to document that they have read it. Possibly a test at the end on the details of the bill. Not only would they thus be forced to read but also to COMPREHEND the bill as well!

What a concept!

Sione

There is the successful economic way of governance, the market, as Oppenheimer noted, and there is the political way: what we have seen always attempting to ‘improve’ and challenge the economic way, governMENT.

Governance does not need Government.

I don’t think joe generocon really gives a sh*t about Iraq or ever cared. I don’t think peter generocrat really gives a sh*t about global warming.

But none of this matters to them, of course, as they believe that by choosing the level of control they must submit to, they are free. Many people unfortunately believe this with iron stubbornness.

The rest of us, as I have also noted before, are too apathetic, weary, or plain nihilistic to make any change (in democratic terms, a good thing), but also wearily giving up and failing to stand against the force the “Union” demands they submit to. Or just not caring about that much, either.

They let the circus ravage on and could care less about any particular value at all except the present moment.

Obedience to an (R) or (D) has become a hysterical pagan religion of sorts. It leads from the very promise of ‘choice’ that democracy offers, and the State, championing itself as the heart of the democratic process, offers.

People think that they are entitled to ‘choosing’ the political matters which will effect everyone in the ‘homeland.’ Supporting any certain cause must come ‘democratically’, meaning it must be a political issue, meaning a government issue, whose power and jurisdiction over all interests grows as it combines itself with the idea of democracy and citizenship.

This means all issues affect the people, whether any of those decisions are agreed upon by the majority or not. And, of course, ‘the government is us’.

Not only political parties, but all ‘interest groups’ compose the power-seeking minorities enforcing their own personal wishes by force over the majority of a nation. This is all that a republic that has the coercive power over all individuals in its ‘sovereignty’ can give us. I have doubts that this could be ever curbed.

But what do you turn to? The word ‘anarchy’ is completely destroyed. Classical liberalism, perhaps. Make the government a voluntary organization that people in a nation can choose to accept or not.

If they do not, they accept, as has been defined in the Articles of Confederation, the rights of property. That is “the Union”. We are united in our love of property. All freedom follows from that and nothing more. That is as American an idea as you can get. I am not yet 20 but I think my mind is already maturing quickly enough.

The idea to hold the elected “representatives” responsible is even sillier – who, exactly, is going to police them? A vision of a stern schoolmaster waving a cane over the lazy congressmen who neglect to do their homework is quite ludicrous, isn’t it?

The whole system of law “making” by polling somebody’s opinions is idiotic. The truth does not depend on someone’s opinions, only on the facts and the logic. And we already know that the laws can be logically derived from the firmly established facts. The natural law does not depend on anyone’s opinion, so there’s no need for any
lawmaking.

And one of the corollaries of the natural law is that any State is criminal. Thus the only way to deal with it is not to “reestablish control” but to abolish it.

The simple intellectual honesty demands it.