DescentBB

Burlyman wrote:The President and Congress are committing treason with their 'super-committee.' Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees this. >_<

BlueFlames wrote:Congress has already approved the consequence that they face, should they reject the super-committee's recommendations.

Article 1, Section 5, United States Constitution wrote:...Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...

flip wrote:They all suck.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

BlueFlames wrote:Congress has already approved the consequence that they face, should they reject the super-committee's recommendations.

I don't fully understand it, but this part seems out of place to me. It seems to me that congress should only be voting and deciding on issues and consequences that take effect one way or the other directly. I could be wrong, but it strikes me that putting themselves under certain obligations by default should future votes go a certain way is something that should only be done by means of a constitutional amendment.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Setting restrictions on congressional activities, it seems to me, is beyond the scope of a congressional vote.

Burlyman wrote:Thorne is right. Slightly odd? Are you serious? The people elected the Congress so that it can create proper legislation, not so it can change the way it operates.

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8 wrote:The Congress shall have Power To ... [item 14 in a lengthy list] make Rules for the Government.

CUDA wrote:well unfortunately the "Plan B" is not a sure thing either. just because the super committee either doesn't come up with a plan OR the plan is rejected is no Guarantee that the mandated cuts will take effect. for those cuts to happen, you need to have one of the Washington Bureaucrats recommend that the cuts take place, so again we have the Fox guarding the Hen-house.

flip wrote:It's the idea and intent that matters when it comes to legislation, not the letter of it.

Burlyman wrote:Exactly. Because the Precedent sets the precedent. Now stay on topic.

flip wrote:I would disagree in this particular case, but if you don't mind funding long walks in the park and caviar lunches then why should I?

flip wrote:Plus all I heard out of this whole debate was where to get the money. The word Entitlement Programs pisses me off because it completely misrepresents where that money comes from. As posted earlier, there is a myriad of places that could be trimmed but instead the debate is whether little old crooked back ladies should have the money they paid in all their life reduced even more or to make the top earners in this country pay more from their profits. I'd be happy if that came just in the form of much higher wages. Well, OUR money got dug into again. Who won? Sure as hell wasn't me.

There is a limited amount of money in existence. Through nefarious means a great portion of that was destroyed and then more was made to replace it. The replacement money went directly into the hands of the ones who destroyed the other. Considering the system we live under, no longer a free republic under majority rule, but one controlled almost exclusively by commerce, the limited amount of money in existence should be proportionately distributed throughout the world.

flip wrote:I stand by my statement. Thuggish.

If the Founding Fathers were to come back, I doubt if they would recognize the United States today. Oh, they wouldn't be surprised by its size or its population or its technological progress. They expected that and encouraged it.

What would disturb them is how fond Americans have become of government. They would be disturbed at how we have allowed politicians and judges to turn the Constitution into an excuse instead of a restraint. They would be uneasy about the large standing army we have maintained since the end of World War II. And they would certainly disapprove of our foreign policy, which can only be described as imperialistic.

The Founding Fathers were suspicious of government and wary of it. They recognized that government is always the greatest threat to liberty. George Washington likened government to fire — "a dangerous servant and a fearful master." The whole purpose of the Constitution they devised was to keep the government divided and weak.

First, they expected the sovereign states to act as a brake against any attempt by the federal government to usurp their powers as defined by the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln nullified that concept with brute force. Under their original plan, U.S. senators were selected by the state legislatures and were clearly intended to act as ambassadors from the states. Later generations foolishly eliminated that safeguard by amending the Constitution so that senators are elected by the people.

Clearly, the Founding Fathers did not approve of the modern concept, imposed by federal courts, of one man, one vote. They designed the House to represent the people, but each state, regardless of size, was given two senators. When federal courts eliminated the states' ability to follow the example of the Constitution, they shifted political power from the rural areas to the big cities. It's been more or less downhill ever since.

The Founding Fathers rejected the parliamentary system, in which the executive and the legislative majority are one. They wanted a House and Senate that were elected independently of the president. They intended for Congress to act as a check against attempts by the executive branch to usurp power, and they intended for the president, wielding his veto, to act as a check on Congress.

The modern two-party system has nullified this safeguard. Both Democrats and Republicans act like slaves to the man in the White House if he shares their party label, thus nullifying the most important of the checks and balances the Founding Fathers built into the Constitution. By acting like lap dogs when their man wins the White House, both Democrats and Republicans have imposed a parliamentary system on us.

Americans, in defense of their own liberty, should make sure that whatever party holds the White House does NOT have a majority in Congress. It is to our advantage and was so intended by the Founding Fathers that the president and Congress be at odds on all but the most important issues.

To ensure an independent judiciary, they made those appointments for life, which has turned out to be a mistake, given how reluctant Congress is to impeach a federal judge. My Confederate ancestors recognized this problem, and in their constitution a federal judge could be impeached by the legislature of the state in which he sat. That would cure a lot of abuses committed by the federal judiciary.

A reading of the Constitution makes it clear that the federal government was designed to be an agent of the states and authorized to act only on behalf of all the states in a few, clearly specified areas. None of those includes education, welfare, medical care, foreign aid and domestic pork-barrel projects.

Future historians, when they come to write the obituary of the United States, will note that we started out with the best system ever devised by man and willingly dismantled it for a bowl of federal porridge.

flip wrote:It's thuggish legislation. Who's to know what this "super-12" group will even recommend. It's worded to sound as if this "Super-12" should have final say and if the majority of Congress disagrees with them, there will be reprisals. Neo is right. The creation of these committees is the first step needed to eventually circumvent majority rule even in the Congress. It's tantamount to the same methods the Oligarchs used to usurp political power in this country. Sign this or else

flip wrote:Ok, I'll bite TC. Why did the Founding Fathers draft our constitution in the manner it was written? I'm curious as to what you think the motives were.

tunnelcat wrote:Bah! Spoken like a true tea party pooper supporter. Destroy our government rather than reform it to bring it back as the peoples government. And President Dunsel (Star Trek reference) rolls over to give the right wing 98% of what they want in the debt talks, EXCEPT the tea party, who still want more blood.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-a ... share_copy

John Wayne wrote:
this new Liberal group, they never listen to your point of View. they make a decision to what your gonna think

flip wrote:Ok, I'll bite TC. Why did the Founding Fathers draft our constitution in the manner it was written? I'm curious as to what you think the motives were

BlueFlames wrote:It's not a conspiracy to transfer legislative authority to the President or an oligarchy or a corporation...

tunnelcat wrote:The first party that comes forth and states as it's platform that they want to streamline and repair our government and return it to the people and for the people and kick out the money interests, I'll vote for them.

1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes
2. Eliminate the National Debt
3. Eliminate Deficit Spending
4. Protect Free Markets
5. Abide by the Constitution of the United States
6. Promote Civic Responsibility
7. Reduce the Overall Size of Government
8. Believe in the People
9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics
10. Maintain Local Independence

not TC here, but the manner in which it was written emphasizes that it grow, change and evolve with the nation.
I would disagree with CUDA's loony quote piece in another regard: The Founding fathers wouldn't have been able to grasp industrialization, let alone a modern, global society. They did, however, realize that they had no crystal ball so created a Constitution that was quite malleable to the needs as the people saw fit.
They made it slow to change, especially in radical fashion, by design. They created a system that demands compromises be reached frequently. Most importantly, they designed a system that requires an informed, engaged and civilly responsible electorate. We do not, at present have such an electorate.

so created a Constitution that was quite malleable to the needs as the people saw fit

There is a reason we don't have such an electorate

tunnelcat wrote:CUDA, Palin's a greedy idiot and Bachmann is just downright crazy, even if she is smart. Those 2 candidates alone are enough for me to steer the hell away from the tea party. Also, the fact they want to wield an axe instead of a scalpel to "fix" government is another hit against them. They don't even want to touch defense spending. They'd rather spend boatloads of our tax dollars on weapons and intrusive government spying to keep some boogey man in check, then after saying thank you for our tax money, throw those least fortunate, too old or too sick to work anymore out into the streets, just because they didn't work hard enough or weren't lucky or fortunate in life, to end up homeless, starving, sick or eventually as criminals. Hypocrites. They are obstinate, self-serving, self-absorbed, conceited and inhumane in their ideals of what a government should be. They and the Republicans are traitors that are feeding the growing Plutocracy, destroying our nation in the process and wrapping themselves in the flag while doing it. Crap.

Even though I'm somewhat fiscally conservative and not a dyed-in-the-wool liberal commie as you seem to think I am, I don't wish to take things to the extremes the tea party, or the Republicans want to. I still want a government around to protect us from the free market, keep it honest and make them follow some rules, not be just an arm of self-absorbed, greedy, wealthy Plutocrats and global corporations. Besides, I'm far more socially liberal than anyone from either the tea party or the Republican party, and even though they seem to want smaller government, they still want big government meddling in our moral lives. No thanks.[/size=12]

tunnelcat wrote:They and the Republicans are traitors

tunnelcat wrote:The first party that comes forth and states as it's platform that they want to streamline and repair our government and return it to the people and for the people and kick out the money interests, I'll vote for them.