A Congress that reasserts its power

Originally posted by whodey
I would say that a great many people wanted reform, however, after they witnessed the train wreck known as Obamacare with all its myraid of earmarks and mandate to have health insurance etc, etc, they turned in droves against it. That is why I think Scott Brown was elected. In addition, I also believe the election results were an indication of this last yea ...[text shortened]... 2012 to decide whom they wish to vote for after the votes in question on the repeal legislation.

1) Still, I would like to hear your direct response to the question posed: is a majority vote, in your opinion, legitimate enough to enact a bill, or do you think a supermajority should be necessary under all circumstances, even when the opposing minority does not represent majority opposition at large to said bill?

2) From your earlier discussions, I want to know: are you supportive of giving increased regulatory authority to the legislative branch, as a whole? It seems like, from what you've been saying, that you're just willing to trade regulatory authority of the executive bureaucracy for regulatory authority of Congress - what do you see as the benefit to this? Surely you wouldn't just be advocating this now that Congress has greater Republican representation? * Now I just read your earlier post about how executive bureaucrats are unelected (which is only true to an extent), but I would ask: how do you suggest Congress acquire technical expertise necessary to articulate every aspect of policy for something as daunting as health care reform? Do you think Congress should sit down and write a 30,000-page bill to more clearly "define" the scope of its 3000-page reform law?

3) Why do you insist on using derogatory names for the president and the Senate leader?

Originally posted by wittywonka
1) Still, I would like to hear your direct response to the question posed: is a majority vote, in your opinion, legitimate enough to enact a bill, or do you think a supermajority should be necessary under all circumstances, even when the opposing minority does not represent majority opposition at large to said bill?

2) From your earlier discussions, I ...[text shortened]...

3) Why do you insist on using derogatory names for the president and the Senate leader?

1) You won't get an answer from him. He only spouts rhetoric or cuts and pastes from conservative pundits.

2) See 1.

3) That's who is. He can't help himself (see the thousands of posts that he has made).

Originally posted by CliffLandin
1) You won't get an answer from him. He only spouts rhetoric or cuts and pastes from conservative pundits.

2) See 1.

3) That's who is. He can't help himself (see the thousands of posts that he has made).

progressive commie puke.

Originally posted by wittywonka
1) Still, I would like to hear your direct response to the question posed: is a majority vote, in your opinion, legitimate enough to enact a bill, or do you think a supermajority should be necessary under all circumstances, even when the opposing minority does not represent majority opposition at large to said bill?

2) From your earlier discussions, I

3) Why do you insist on using derogatory names for the president and the Senate leader?

1. Under the Constitution it SHOULD be a majority vote in my opinion. At the same time, however, Congress has been given leeway to create rules for themselves and is why you have such things as the filibuster and Reconciliation which I disagree with.

2. Under the Constitution in the "Nondelegation doctrine", Congress cannot delegate legislative authority to other branches of government. However, the Supremes ruled Congress does have latitude to delegate reglatory powers to executive agencies as long as it provides "intelligible principle" which governs the agencies exercise of the delegated reglatory authority. Again, I disagree with this ruling. You asked me what benefit I saw in creating reglatory agencies in the legislative rather than the executive branch, however, I would ask the reverse. What benefit is there to having these agencies in the executive branch other than to strengthen the power of the executive branch?

As far as health care goes, if a peice of legislation is as daunting as you say it is perhaps they should reconsider its passage. In fact, passing the bill just to know what is inside the bill via Reconciliation is an outrage. As Marauder correctly surmised at one time, if nothing else they should do away with the mandatory purchase of health insurance becaouse it appears to be in violation of the Constitution. However, no doubt the Supremes will chime in and say something to the effect that so long as it provides "intelligible principle" all is well with the world and allow it to stand. 😛

As far as all of these myriad of federal regulatory agencies, I would think that if the federal government did the job they were designed to do Constitutionally, their powers would be limited and allow the states to govern themselves, thus you would not need all of these agencies. Its a little known term which is Federalism.

3. I don't recall calling Obama a derogatory name. As for Dirty Harry, well, he's a slime ball punk. 😀

Originally posted by whodey
1. Under the Constitution it SHOULD be a majority vote in my opinion. At the same time, however, Congress has been given leeway to create rules for themselves and is why you have such things as the filibuster and Reconciliation which I disagree with.

2. Under the Constitution in the "Nondelegation doctrine", Congress cannot delegate legislative authority calling Obama a derogatory name. As for Dirty Harry, well, he's a slime ball punk. 😀

do consider this.

regulations that are issued at the congressional level are essentially cast in bronze - the laws will not be repealed or changed very much unless the opposition can gain control of the House, 60 votes in Senate, and the presidency.

changing regulations that are issued at the executive level require the oposition to merely gain control of the presidency.

are you sure you want Congress to have full control over every tiniest detail of regulation?

Originally posted by whodey
1. Under the Constitution it SHOULD be a majority vote in my opinion. At the same time, however, Congress has been given leeway to create rules for themselves and is why you have such things as the filibuster and Reconciliation which I disagree with.

2. Under the Constitution in the "Nondelegation doctrine", Congress cannot delegate legislative authority ...[text shortened]... calling Obama a derogatory name. As for Dirty Harry, well, he's a slime ball punk. 😀

As far as all of these myriad of federal regulatory agencies, I would think that if the federal government did the job they were designed to do Constitutionally, their powers would be limited and allow the states to govern themselves, thus you would not need all of these agencies. Its a little known term which is Federalism.

In today's hi-tech world, almost all commerce today crosses state lines -- so, in accord with the constitution, you're going to need federal agencies to regulate this. Since this commerce is extremely large and complex, you're going to need extremely large and complex agencies to carry out the regulation.

Perhaps there are certain things that should be shifted from federal to state oversight -- but there is still going to be a need for federal agencies. For example, how would you go about carrying out the FCC's responsibilities at only the state level? Or the FAA, or the FDA, or the EPA?

In many of these cases, businesses actually prefer to have a uniform set of federal regulations rather than having to worry about dealing with a crazy quilt of 50 different sets of rules.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
do consider this.

regulations that are issued at the congressional level are essentially cast in bronze - the laws will not be repealed or changed very much unless the opposition can gain control of the House, 60 votes in Senate, and the presidency.

changing regulations that are issued at the executive level require the oposition to merely gain cont ...[text shortened]...

are you sure you want Congress to have full control over every tiniest detail of regulation?

Better a group of people than one man.

Originally posted by whodey
1. Under the Constitution it SHOULD be a majority vote in my opinion. At the same time, however, Congress has been given leeway to create rules for themselves and is why you have such things as the filibuster and Reconciliation which I disagree with.

So you disagree with the filibuster?

So since the only reason reconciliation was necessary to pass the health care bill, you must think the health care bill should have just been able to pass since it had the 51 votes necessary.

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27066.html

"Overriding that law so soon afterwards with another one, again with an overt political design--to provide a possibly critical vote in favor of Obama's agenda this fall--is proving too much for some legislators to swallow.

"Should our loyalty be to being protective of the democratic process rather tha ...[text shortened]... democratic process by everyone, including members of his own party, EXCEPT for one Marauder.

How, you complete idiot, did it "usurp the democratic process"? The "democratic process" continued exactly the same as it would have before the proposed change; an election was held in the 145 to 160 day period.

EDIT: Did the 17th Amendment "usurp the democratic process"?

Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

All but 4 States allow temporary appointments by their governors in cases of Senate vacanies. http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=18423

That's a whole lot of "usurping"!!

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
So you disagree with the filibuster?

So since the only reason reconciliation was necessary to pass the health care bill, you must think the health care bill should have just been able to pass since it had the 51 votes necessary.

Let's get the facts straight; the health care reform bill was not passed by reconciliation. The House passed the Senate bill in its entirety. Then reconciliation was used to make a few improvements. But absent reconciliation, the health reform act was still passed.

Originally posted by no1marauder
How, you complete idiot, did it "usurp the democratic process"? The "democratic process" continued exactly the same as it would have before the proposed change; an election was held in the 145 to 160 day period.

EDIT: Did the 17th Amendment "usurp the democratic process"?

Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the execut ...[text shortened]... csl.org/default.aspx?tabid=18423

That's a whole lot of "usurping"!!

Had Kennedy not been able to cast a vote, due to health problems, he would have had someone in his stead who could have cast a vote he would have liked.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
So you disagree with the filibuster?

So since the only reason reconciliation was necessary to pass the health care bill, you must think the health care bill should have just been able to pass since it had the 51 votes necessary.

You have to understand that one of the reasons I think Scott Brown was elected was voters understood that electing him would have caused a filibuster and stopped Obamacare. Now had the filibuster not been enacted, then the voters I think would have been less apt to vote for him.

Originally posted by whodey
Had Kennedy not been able to cast a vote, due to health problems, he would have had someone in his stead who could have cast a vote he would have liked.

Where is this "usurping of the democratic process" you were screeching about? If anything would have "usurped the democratic process" and the Constitution itself it would have been Massachusetts having only 1 vote in the Senate for 5 months.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
[b]As far as all of these myriad of federal regulatory agencies, I would think that if the federal government did the job they were designed to do Constitutionally, their powers would be limited and allow the states to govern themselves, thus you would not need all of these agencies. Its a little known term which is Federalism.

In today's hi-tech rather than having to worry about dealing with a crazy quilt of 50 different sets of rules.[/b]

The US has existed far longer without these agencies than they have existed with them. I suppose you could argue that in today's world you need them, but I would disagree. Simply put, the feds should only be there to make sure that state disputes are settled, and not to regulate the poo out of them. Then states can colaborate together to make the most business freindly environment possible.

Originally posted by whodey
You have to understand that one of the reasons I think Scott Brown was elected was voters understood that electing him would have caused a filibuster and stopped Obamacare. Now had the filibuster not been enacted, then the voters I think would have been less apt to vote for him.

However, you just said that you are against the filibuster so you would be in favor of the filibuster in this case?

Also, let's assume for argument's sake that he was elected to stop the health care bill. Should the voters of Mass. be able to have the power to stop a bill even though there is a majority supporting it?