Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 161 To 170 Of 657 Comments
CAN THE GOP HELP GOVERN WHILE IN THE MINORITY?
We aren't ruled by 9 because as you said -- the Supreme Court has absolutely no power. They can't "do" anythning. They refereee the fight between the Legislative and Executive. Both sides agree to abide by the decisions.
You asked where in the Constitution were they given authority. It's in Article 3. I take your point to be that the Constitution does not say something like "The Supreme Court shall be the decider in Constitutional issues", and you are right that it doesn't say that. But they ARE the ultimate arbiter of legal disputes . . . and the Constitution (and what it means) are legal issues.
Did they "sieze" the authority? If not them, who IS supposed to settle disputes just like this? Nobody? Open armed combat?Congress can't write laws beyond their authority -- who's gonna stop them? The Executive can't act beyond its bounds -- same problem. The whole point of having three branches instead of two is that the referee doesn't stand to gain in any dispute. One decides, another performs and the thrid permits.
That became manifest in Marbury v. Madison because both sides (Executive and Legislative) agreed that the Court makes the call. Everything we've done since then as a society has been predicated on that reality.
re: the Air Force -- touche. A bad example on my part for what I was trying to say. Yes, the Air Force could be re-envisioned within the Army.
So what about the FAA? Not part of the Army (not "defense" at all), not part of the Constitution, and I submit absolutely something that we need to exist as a society in this day and age. Atomic Regulatory agencies. How does the "if it ain't literally in the Constitution then its out" analysis not demand that civilian services like these unConstitutional? Assuming that they literally ARE Unconstitutional . . . America falls apart.You mentioned the Army. I agree that, literally, the Constitution prohibits a standing Army (although you and I are apparently the only ones that can actually see those words). As you note, there are provisions for 2-yr creations, so you could re-create the Army as only being an eternal series of 2-yr Armies.
But it also requires that the officers be selected by the State Militias. That'll be interesting. What about career officers with pensions and benefits? Do they have to cash out every 2 years (since the Army is "over") and then roll it over into the "new" Army's benefits? Can the Army refuse to "hire" someone between the two year hitch? If I sign up for a 6-year tour, and the Army "ends" after 2, can I get out of the other 4 years? Who holds my contract -- the Federal Government, the State (with Militia control)?
Can a State force the Federal government to make somebody an officer in the Federal Army (Constitution says yes)? Just play that last one out in your imagination. To me, I can't see how that will end in anything other than an utterly worthless Army. Patronage, Cronyism, graft, favors, "All the Generals should be from Ney York!" . . . am I paranoid? Could this possibly not end in total disaster for our military? And therefore, a direct threat to our safety?
What I'm seeing is that the standing Army is "unconstitutional" in the sense you are describing. Or rather the issue is a debatable one -- there is a fair and evidence-based argument that it violates the terms of the document. My point is that kind of interpretation simply can't be applied to the United States Government in a practical manner because it would have to completely dismantle the Government, and thereby dismantle America. Right and wrong are philosophical abstracts at this point.
I keep coming back to when I talk to people about Anarchy. Sitting in a bar over beers, sure the concept has philosophical resonance. In a post-Industrial society of 330 million people? Absolutely not ever going to work. Its just not practical. The interpretation I'm hearing from you seems to be as impractical. I'm not saying that in a rude way -- I misunderstand things all the time. Maybe I'm hearing you wrong. But this is what I'm hearing, and I can't follow it all the way through.You talk about amending the Constitutiojn to give the Fed government powers. Yes -- but we're back to the question "what constitutes a new power"? If "healthcare" is a new power because the word "healthcare" isn't in the Constitution, then (again) you have to eliminate most of the Federal Government (yay!) which will destroy America (boo!). How do you distinguish between healthcare and the FAA on the basis of "not literally in the Constitution"?
I absolutely DON'T think that all of the Federal laws, Agencies, Regulations, Statutes and so forth should be Amendments to the Constitution. Absolutely not.Let me try to sum up my concern:
a) Does your understanding of "not in the Constitution" allow for the Federal Government as it exists (FAA, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Education, Social Security, etc.)?
b) If yes, what's the difference between them and healthcare?
c) if no, what do you see as the consequences?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.10.2009 @ 22:05
@JohnGault:
"The SCOTUS is not the final authority on what is Constitutional."
Actually, yes. Yes they are. You may not like it -- but I assure you they are absolutely the final decider. To quote my old Con Law Professor Sultan; "If the Supreme Court calls and apple a banana . . . then its a banana". The reality is that they ARE the ultimate judge. That's a fact that you may not like but surely you don't deny its existence?
The disagreement with the exact intended complete meaning of the language has been debated for hundreds of years. I respect that you believe you are right. I believe that I am right. We can both point to history. To the Federalist Papers. To the debates. Neither of us will "win" this argument, if "win" is defined as being unquestionably 100% correct without dispute.
Fortunately, we don't have to try and be "winners". As you pointed out, the Supreme Court is the final word because of Marbury v. Madison. Notice I said it "is" the final word. Should it be? Shouldn't it be? It IS. Disagree all you want, but you and I don't get to make the call. They do, and that is an undisputed fact.
You don't like it? Fair enough. You want to go to a government that hasn't existed for over 200 years? No problem. But it's not a feasible plan, however intellectually pure it might be.
You argue that Clause 1 isn't an enumeration of power, but rather merely window dressing. I disagree . . . and so do the Supreme Court. Do you think the Air Force should be abolished? nothing in the other Clauses of Art. 1 Sec. 8 mentions an Air Force. It doesn't fall under "Army", "Navy", or "Militia". It's only Constitutional authority is under the common defense . . . and that term is never mentioned but in the same sentence as general welfare. If they meant one, they must have meant the other.
Yes, "general welfare" theoretically could mean anything. Honestly so could "common defense". That's one of the reasons for the Bill of Rights -- you CANNOT define General Welfare to include shutting up dissenters, for example. They made to limit it precisely because it WAS something that could be broadly interpreted. Because it was INTENDED to be broadly interpreted. If something comes up that we didn't cover, is it a good idea? Debate it. If the government should do it . . . then they should. If they shouldn't, then they shouldn't.
They didn't think that the Constitution was unadaptable. They intended for it to adapt to changing times. That's why it has the "general welfare" language, as well as "common defense". The details are for the people to work out.
They KNEW their document was not going to cover all contingencies, all issues. It's supposed to have flexibility. Again, consider the Bill of Rights. They immediately went back and said "General Welfare does NOT cover muting dissenters", but they very specifically didn't say what "general welfare" DOES cover. It doesn't mean A, B, C, or D . . . but we're very delibrately NOT going to tell you what it does mean. The citizens and elected officials are supposed to wonder if healthcare is "general welfare". They are not supposed to wonder if it means anything atall.
Whether you or I disagree with what I just said is irrevelant -- we aren't the Supreme Court. They said it is. To change their final word on these issues would literally destroy the United States. The ENTIRE government and legal systems would have to be rebuilt from scratch. That's not hyperbole. I can't emphasize how destructive that would be.
Should we completely destroy the corrupted system and completely remake America from scratch? Maybe we should. But that's not going to happen. It's not an option . . . and frankly I wouldn't support it even if it was.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.10.2009 @ 19:15
@JohnGault:
Yes, the enumerated powers are in Art.1, sec.8. The amendments, at least the first 10, don't give authority but rather restrict the Art1Sec8 powers.
They restrict the powers in the body because those powers are broadly written. Congress has authority for "general welfare" (Art.1, Sec.8, Cl.1) -- making sure citizens have healthcare isn't part of a duty to maintain general welfare?
Maybe it is . . . maybe it isn't. This strain of the debate isn't "does universal healthcare for citizens fall under that eunermated power?" but rather "it is a concrete fact that universal healthcare is NOT part of 'promoting the general welfare' . . . now lets debate of Congress should do it".
I'm more than willing to listen to anybody that can explain how health care isn't a subset of "general welfare". So far, the only explanation I've heard, in this or any other thread, is either "it isn't you hippie" or some version of "it never was before". Neither are pursuasive.
To the first, I pithily respond with a devistating "Yes it is". Blanket declaratory statements don't really establish anything except what the parties believe.
To the second, we're back to my questions to Eric above. The evolving nature of human society requires constant refinement to how our government works . . . and yes, sometimes it requires adding to it. As I said before, the FAA isn't enumerated in the constitution -- surely you aren't for getting rid of it?
"Promote the general welfare" doesn't mean the Government micromanages every aspect of your life -- that's too broad, and the Framers didn't mean that. In the same vein though, it also doesn't mean government runs elections, the postal service, the navy, and the Militias . . . but not one damned thing more. That's too restrictive, and again the Framers didn't mean that either. Somewhere in between is the "sweet spot". That's what we as a people are constantly striving for. And that means that when we are faced with "expanding" the role of government, we should first debate whether the issue is an enumerated power or not. I haven't seen any debate on this . . . and that's the problem.
Like I said before, if you or anybody can explain to me how healthcare shouldn't be considered "promoting the general welfare", I'm all ears (well, eyes). It seems like an obvious definition, but words are slippery critters, so I could be wrong. But I need some kind of explanation as to why what appears (to me, at least) to be an obvious idea in reality isn't.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.10.2009 @ 14:38
You're losing me again.
What are the conditions that make voting for healthcare reform a betrayal of minimalist government? The bill itself?
You said the conditions were a lack of cooperation from the Democrats -- I read that as the Democrats not doing what the Republicans wanted. Now we're adding in RINOS (or the "not-Red-enuff" label) to the problem. Again, it sounds like the problem is that the Reds don't get to do what they want.
As I said before, I don't know what this has to minimalist government, since that IS NOT what the Reds want. I'm naot saying it as a moral condemnation -- they just have demonstrated they aren't too driven on shrinking the government or making it minimalist.
Should they? Fine. But they don't, so I don't see how the failure to achieve minimalist government rests anywhere other than with the Reds. Its got nothing to do with the current debate about healthcare -- they fail in this matter about all topics related to government. They're not minimalist. If you judge them by the yardstick of "is vote 'X' pro-minimalist government or not?", thenMaybe I'm using a different definition of "minimalist government" than you are. My "straw man" example before was an inelegant fear of what using this as the only justification for action is. If you voted against something because it expanded government and wasn't absolutely necessary (that's my definition of "minimalist government"), then you'd vote against pretty much everything. The healthcare debate -just- on the issue of "minimalist governent" is certainly no different than voting for the PATRIOT Act, Defense budgets, Internet Porn legislation . . . honestly, anything. If "minimalist government" is your only standard, what DO you vote for?
Like I said, that's my definition of "minimalist government", and because of that I'm just confused now. If I'm reading that phrase incorrectly, put me back on track. You're making a point, one that sound like it has validity . . . but I'm just not understanding exactly what it is.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.10.2009 @ 20:32
absolutely that example was a straw man -- I was pretty sure you wern't saying that, that's why I asked.
But I have toadmit I'm even more confused now. What do "minimalist government" and "Republicans can't get co-operation for Democrats" have to do with each other?
You tell me you see Democrats refusing to budge an inch, and apparently its something you've seen for the last 4 decades. I don't, but fine. I think this particular issue is a "Red Sox vs. Yankees" debate -- you'll give examples of Dems fighting Repubs, I'll give examples of Repubs fighting Dems, and we'll both blame the other side for any problems percieved in "our" side.
So lets set "who's at fault" to the side, and for the moment assume that 100% of all obstructonism is entirely the Democrats fault, and the Republicans are blameless. What you are implying is that if the Dems just went along with Repubs we'd get "minimalist government . . . and that's demonstrably not true.
Don't have to go too far back to prove this. Reds had all the power 00-06. Did the government expand or contract? SCHIP, the PATRIOT Act, a Border fence . . . those wern't Dem initiatives. That's not "minimalist government" in action.
You are rooting for the mythical "small government and fiscal restraint" Republicans. Those don't actually exist in reality. The Democrats are irrevelant to that point.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.10.2009 @ 14:42
@EricFlorak:
"The fact of the matter is, that under these conditions any bill that becomes law is going to be a direct betrayal of the ideals of minimalist government."
What are the conditions? Given the way I was reading the thread that sounds like "as long as Republicans are a minority", and that doesn't make any sense.
Is the condition that a "new" government agency will be established and/or an existing agency gets expanded? If that's the case it at least makes literal sense (a government getting bigger is pretty much the definition of "not minimalist government") but you can't simply refuse to ever add another government employee regardless of the issue. "Minimalist government" is a height to which we aspire, not a floor beneath we cannot fall. You can't fairly say "The government of NASA, the NSA, Nuclear Regulatory agencies, the FAA, all these good things that were expansions of government . . . they're all cool. ANYTHING ELSE from this moment forward, however, is an abomination upon your soul." That's a bit arbitrary, isn't it?
@dmirishman:
As I said above . . . Democrats are a disgrace to the name. Maybe I was just young and stupid and actually believed that the government were our sharpest and best, and despite the different philosophoical outlooks everybody put the welfare of the Nation first and foremost, just like it said in my textbooks.
Those Democrats may be gone (if theyt ever existed in the first place), but a the same time their counterpoints, the GOP, are now as extinct as the Dodo. There are still Republicans . . . but the old-school Reds would beat the current GOP to within an inch of its life if they could. As far as I'm concerned, these names are now meaningless except in History class. I call them Clueless and Crazy (guess which is which), but "Democratic" and "Republican" just mean something different to me than to a 20-year old, I guess.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 10.10.2009 @ 20:50
We've argued about hte Patient's Choice Bill before -- its not the Dems and the MSM that are disrespecting it, but the Republicans as well.
CAN the Minority impact the steering of the ship? Somewhat, yes. SHOULD they try? Of Course! WILL they? Well, clearly not so far.
How effective could Repubs be? I see it like this: The Democratic Party has a Filibuster-proof, Damn-Near-Massive-Enough-To-Amend-The-Constitution, popular Majority in the House, the Senate, and runs the White House. They STILL can't get legislation passed or job nominees approved.
Repubs could pretty much just backseat drive, and probably whatever you wanted would for the most part happen. The Republican Party may currently be acting like bullies, but the Democrats are currently acting like wimps. Should the bully take the wimp's lunch money? No, that's not fair. Is it going to happen? Probably, yes. Bullies usually beat up wimps. That's almost a physical law.
I think you hit on why when you talked about Reagan. O'Neill may have been a constructive voice at the time, but when people (the public) look back they don't think of Tip -- they think of The Gipper. Carrying that analogy to today, you can't allow future publics to look back at good things during Obama's Administration. You can't let him be The Gipper. Pointing out "well, actually the Republican Minority assisted in fruitful ways . . ." isn't going to be worth a plugged nickel. It may be cold, but its coldly practical.
SHOULD Republicans be thinking about this from such a Machiavellian perspective? Well, that depends on what the goal is. Playing the game? It may be morally inhibited but it does work. Being morally "good", what ever that means -- Mom and Pop, Apple Pie, Family Dinner, etc. Well, no. Being manipulative sons-a-bitches is usually not considered "nice" or "good". Effective, yes . . . but not "nice".
As you said, anybody that reads your post will have to concede at least implicity that there is no "good" for America in just being "Teh PartI Of No". That's Civics 101 mixed with Common Sense For Dummies. That ain't rocket science (no disrespect to your abilities to be that shining becon of unique thought that you are). But it seems to be embraced, even reveled in.
Maybe the base would rather have an Alamo moment rather than negotiate for the safe passege of women and children.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 10.10.2009 @ 07:42
SHOULD THE PRESIDENT DECLINE THE PEACE PRIZE?
You can't ignore that Obama has brought racists into public view . . . but the Loyal Opposition does seem to have as the basis of criticism more practical matters. That the jagoffs agree with them can't fairly be blamed on the Republicans.
Would he be getting this much love assuming he was white? Maybe not, but hew might. An Eastern European born, Islamic raised, Plant-By-The-Commies sleeper agent? During Cold War heights so there's a motivation for the conspiracy? Manchurian Candidate for the win! That actually sounds more credible than picking a black child to be your sleeper agent in the 60s:
"Nobody will notice the black man becoming President. He'll be completely undected . . . the ultimate sleeper cell."
"Allah be praised . . . you're a genius! He'll blend at the White House perfectly!"
Maybe a white president looks more threatening, so they go after him more. Who knows.
To the actual Conservatives: Blackface and monkey jokes are racist. Sorry. It just is. That's really the way in works in the 21st century in terms of social interraction. You shouldn't slap your secretary on the ass either. That's considered sexist. "No Jews" Country Clubs? Also racist, even if they DO have the best golf courses.
I actually thought this was common knowledge, but apparently many of you don't.
If you aren't endorsing $h!t like that tacitly AS A PUBLIC ENTITY (The Republican Party), then you have to divorce yourself from that publicly. Republicans, as a Party, cannot say "what's the big deal?"Rick -- no comment on that link? No "you're the problem quit polluting the party I love"? If I posted a link to porn would it still be there? Why would you delete one and not the other?
The whole "the racists don't represent the true face of Conservatives" argument? From a purely PR standpoint, this doesn't help.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.10.2009 @ 15:31
@Todd:
"What has this man done to you all that is so terrible? Why do so many on the right hate him so intensely?"
You won't get a dialogue (at least nobody else has). The crazies will rant something then ignore any response, and the conservative thinkers know they can't articulate any "case" against him beyond mistrust (a perfectly reasonable reaction -- a President I don't like may eventually win me over, but I'll start out watching him with "you suck" tinted glasses). They won't go down that road because they're worried you are going to call them a racist.
And there certainly is some (small) faction that has a race-based axe to grind, but otherwise you've got opposition based on him being a complete unknown. He a friggin' rookie politician on the Federal stage. He's got no nationwide history to judge him. He gives great speeches, but is he salted enough to get elected captain of the team?
Did I mention he's a Democrat?
Given the (IMO righteously deserved) vitriol of the last several years, Obama took over pretty much in the middle of open Inter-Party combat. As I said, before, I don't regret that we got here. I was someone that screamed bloody murder about Bush, and I thought the level of his errors deserved every rant. Obama may not have done anything that objectively merits that kind of emotional broadside . . . but Liberals did start it. I wish the country wasn't at this level of rhetoric, but this is the way things played out.
Another reason for the hate possibly is that everybody actually hoped/feared that he might really be all that and a bag of chips. With no record to judge, maybe he really COULD do all the things voters hope/dread over. Now that a factually legitimate grounds for hating Obama are developing (that he is so far a bit of a milquetoast) the crazy "Obama is Teh Debil" voices are slowly drifting to the ignored corner (where they belong). At the start though . . . maybe he could have ridden 70+ approval numbers to name himself king (hell, look what Bush did with far less). If he WAS that kind of meglomaniac, it made sense to try and stop his charge before he developed any momentum. Hit him first day with everything you have and don't let up. If he catches his breath and counter-attacks we're all doomed!! Its the friggin' Terminator, for chrissakes!
Those are my best guesses. I've tried to figure it out myself, but getting answers from "Teh Other Side" on this question is tough. If I were them, I don't know if I'd answer it myself. Why do they hate him? He's the wrong party. Its silly to take it to the extremes that it is, but there you go. Would I be willing to admit that?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.10.2009 @ 01:02
@jackson1234:
"... although if this president had any class–and God knows, he doesn’t–he would return it only on the condition it were awarded post-humously to Reagan for his efforts to destroy communism."
Yes...really, that's the only reasonable thing to do, isn't it? Anything else is just more proof of how much Obama sucks.
I think everybody can agree that this is really the only standard we as a society need in terms of establishing "class" and "classless" behavior. Personally, I would add that he also has to sing "Let The Eagle Soar" while he does it, but that's more of a personal style thing with me.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.10.2009 @ 00:35
