Why not have more state referendums and minimize the feds down to a more constitutionalist design? We could have direct democracy at the state level for most social issues and continue onward with the feds focused mostly on economic issues and foreign policy.Kmarion wrote:
It's a good idea in theory. I just believe that if every single issue was left up to a direct vote by the people nothing would ever be accomplished. At least not at the national level.Turquoise wrote:
True... but I'd rather actually do the voting myself.Kmarion wrote:
No there is still quite a bit of difference between saying I like what this guy is doing and everyone voting on every single thing. I can appreciate a good boss without having to do every part of his job.
I agree there. The states handle it much more effectively.Turquoise wrote:
Why not have more state referendums and minimize the feds down to a more constitutionalist design? We could have direct democracy at the state level for most social issues and continue onward with the feds focused mostly on economic issues and foreign policy.Kmarion wrote:
It's a good idea in theory. I just believe that if every single issue was left up to a direct vote by the people nothing would ever be accomplished. At least not at the national level.Turquoise wrote:
True... but I'd rather actually do the voting myself.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 10th Ammendment to the Constitution.Kmarion wrote:
I agree there. The states handle it much more effectively.Turquoise wrote:
Why not have more state referendums and minimize the feds down to a more constitutionalist design? We could have direct democracy at the state level for most social issues and continue onward with the feds focused mostly on economic issues and foreign policy.Kmarion wrote:
It's a good idea in theory. I just believe that if every single issue was left up to a direct vote by the people nothing would ever be accomplished. At least not at the national level.
Last edited by imortal (2008-08-05 20:04:16)
Ambiguity is good.. ambiguity bad. This is why we have a Supreme court.imortal wrote:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 10th Ammendment to the Constitution.Kmarion wrote:
I agree there. The states handle it much more effectively.Turquoise wrote:
Why not have more state referendums and minimize the feds down to a more constitutionalist design? We could have direct democracy at the state level for most social issues and continue onward with the feds focused mostly on economic issues and foreign policy.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
There is something ambiguous about that? If the Constitution does not say the Federal goverment can do it, then it is reserved for the states (as long as the Constitution does not say the states can't do it).Kmarion wrote:
Ambiguity is good.. ambiguity bad. This is why we have a Supreme court.imortal wrote:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 10th Ammendment to the Constitution.Kmarion wrote:
I agree there. The states handle it much more effectively.
I mean, it is literally possible to read the Constitution (it really isn't THAT long) and list the powers that the Federal Government really have. Anything not on that list that is being done is unconstitutional. Yes, there may be some ambiguity in some of the wording, but not really that much.
...That being said, you are right. That is why we have a Supreme Court. But nowadays, they can not be apolitical, since they have to be approved (by an up/down vote) in the Senate.
Last edited by imortal (2008-08-05 20:26:42)
The ambiguity lies with the elected Representative. The constitution is a living document, constantly changing with bills, laws, and referendums. If there were no room for ambiguity then it would have died a long time ago. The truth is that there really is a lot open for for interpretation.. again the role of the Supreme Court.imortal wrote:
There is something ambiguous about that? If the Constitution does not say the Federal goverment can do it, then it is reserved for the states (as long as the Constitution does not say the states can't do it).Kmarion wrote:
Ambiguity is good.. ambiguity bad. This is why we have a Supreme court.imortal wrote:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 10th Ammendment to the Constitution.
I mean, it is literally possible to read the Constitution (it really isn't THAT long) and list the powers that the Federal Government really have. Anything not on that list that is being done is unconstitutional. Yes, there may be some ambiguity in some of the wording, but not really that much.
...That being said, you are right. That is why we have a Supreme Court. But nowadays, they can not be apolitical, since they have to be approved (by an up/down vote) in the Senate.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Great clip... and yes... ambiguity is good.
This lady is really screwing up the Democratic party. They need to boot her ineptness out.
Nancy Pelosi got elected to Congress in 1987. She’s been in Washington for over 20 years. She maneuvered her way into the Speaker’s chair despite others having seniority over her, such as Jack Murtha, Steny Hoyer, and several others. If Pelosi isn’t the “ultimate insider”, as King put it, then the term “insider” has no meaning at all.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ … kl.01.htmlPELOSI: I’m never certain of anything. Today, I would be certain. I just think that it is the opportunity for our country to move away from Washington. You know, I’m the Speaker of the House. I’m an outsider in Washington, D.C. . Business as usual in Washington is not in the people’s interests. It there’s for the special interests.
KING: You would be the ultimate insider, wouldn’t you?
PELOSI: Well, I — you would think. But I…
KING: The speaker of the House isn’t an insider?
PELOSI: Well, they didn’t want me to be Speaker of the House.
KING: But you are.
PELOSI: I had to fight these special interests. And now to make the change, we have to have a Democratic president. And Barack Obama has done more than anyone in terms of passing the toughest ethical bill — ethics bill in Congress, to shed the bright light on transparency on the link between special interests and legislation in Washington.
Nancy Pelosi got elected to Congress in 1987. She’s been in Washington for over 20 years. She maneuvered her way into the Speaker’s chair despite others having seniority over her, such as Jack Murtha, Steny Hoyer, and several others. If Pelosi isn’t the “ultimate insider”, as King put it, then the term “insider” has no meaning at all.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Heard today that Pelosi invested ~$100k in T. Boone Pickens' alternative fuels initiative.
Wouldn't keeping oil prices high help that initiative along?
Hmmm....
Wouldn't keeping oil prices high help that initiative along?
Hmmm....
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Yep... she just pulled a Romney with that shit. They should replace her with Steny Hoyer.Kmarion wrote:
This lady is really screwing up the Democratic party. They need to boot her ineptness out.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ … kl.01.htmlPELOSI: I’m never certain of anything. Today, I would be certain. I just think that it is the opportunity for our country to move away from Washington. You know, I’m the Speaker of the House. I’m an outsider in Washington, D.C. . Business as usual in Washington is not in the people’s interests. It there’s for the special interests.
KING: You would be the ultimate insider, wouldn’t you?
PELOSI: Well, I — you would think. But I…
KING: The speaker of the House isn’t an insider?
PELOSI: Well, they didn’t want me to be Speaker of the House.
KING: But you are.
PELOSI: I had to fight these special interests. And now to make the change, we have to have a Democratic president. And Barack Obama has done more than anyone in terms of passing the toughest ethical bill — ethics bill in Congress, to shed the bright light on transparency on the link between special interests and legislation in Washington.
Nancy Pelosi got elected to Congress in 1987. She’s been in Washington for over 20 years. She maneuvered her way into the Speaker’s chair despite others having seniority over her, such as Jack Murtha, Steny Hoyer, and several others. If Pelosi isn’t the “ultimate insider”, as King put it, then the term “insider” has no meaning at all.