Well let's see. The Romans used and exploited the people and resources of their neighbors to the north (among others). Will modern Visigoths then be Canadian? I doubt it, but they very well may be us.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Democracy at work in House of Representatives?
- Thread starter Godspeed
- Start date
Because in one, the Chair is not concerned with whether he has the numeber of votes or not to support the outcome he desires. I'll be honest, I don't know what they were voting on and really don't care if it was just a vote on the number of Girl Scout cookies to order this year. He was showing a complete disregard for a very basic democratic process. Furthermore, "The Chair's decision is not subject to question" is one of the last lines Murtha spews in the video and shows that he considers himself to be unaccountable to the other members. This is what makes the conduct in this video much more aggregious than that referenced by the article in the Washington Post. I assure you I'd be here saying the exact same thing if it was a member of the Republicans in that video.
"Reprehensible"...seriously?
Hinting at assassination, yeah. Joking about it, very poor taste.
Also can flag you for further attention.
That's a diplomatic way of putting it.
The Secret Service doesn't mess around with that kind of stuff (jokes or otherwise) when it's directed toward POTUS.Brett
Concur. Not cool.
OK. Not just yes, but hell yes. The Constitution is not very specific in some of the powers that are granted to Congress. “Congress shall have Power To… provide for the… general Welfare of the United States,” and “Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce... among the several States…” WTF does that mean? You and I can debate the meaning of those words ad nauseam (although I would prefer to do it in a more convenient forum), but fortunately there are people much smarter than either you or I who have already made our arguments, and a deliberative body that has already ruled on the issues.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
Since 1942, the United States Supreme Court has allowed the Congress to exercise broad powers under the Commerce Clause. Basically any activity that had even a small impact on interstate commerce was found to be within the purview of Congress. The 1942 case involved an Ohio farmer who, in violation of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, grew more wheat on his farm than was allowed under the Act, even though the wheat was for use on his farm only and therefore would not be introduced into the stream of commerce. The Court ruled that if the farmer had limited his wheat planting to that allowed under the Act, he may have purchased additional wheat on the open market, and thus his excess planting could have had an impact on the sale of wheat, which was a commodity traded across state lines. This is still “good law” today, although the Court in a more recent decision (United States v. Lopez,514 U.S. 549 (1995)) has applied some limits to the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.
You are understandably peeved that Congress provides funding for “bullshit” programs that you don’t like (or that you feel are more properly left to the States), but the constitutionality of that spending is an issue that has been brought before, and answered by, the United States Supreme Court.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
One should note that the Supreme Court decisions in the 1940s are highly suspect. FDR took more than a few executive liberties to ensure that the court voted his way WRT the New Deal.
Whether or not you look at refusing to count votes as violating the law or 'just violating the rules of Congress' (one in the same IMO... and even though those rules are subject to change, they are not subject to change at the whims of the speaker), the fact of the matter is that Congress is not policing itself with these kind of things. I find it hard to believe that when a member decides to blatantly miscount a vote and then states that he is not accountable to anyone else in the House, he isn't immediately expelled with a 2/3 vote.
Even if they chose not to expel this member, he is up for election once every two years. It's the district's responsibility to know what their representative is doing and to vote him out if they think he isn't representing their interests.
I agree with Steve Wilkins, the system is broken if this is business as usual.
We don't need term limits. Congress has the power, per the Constitution, to expel any member for any reason with a 2/3 vote.Hozer said:
Whether or not you look at refusing to count votes as violating the law or 'just violating the rules of Congress' (one in the same IMO... and even though those rules are subject to change, they are not subject to change at the whims of the speaker), the fact of the matter is that Congress is not policing itself with these kind of things. I find it hard to believe that when a member decides to blatantly miscount a vote and then states that he is not accountable to anyone else in the House, he isn't immediately expelled with a 2/3 vote.
Even if they chose not to expel this member, he is up for election once every two years. It's the district's responsibility to know what their representative is doing and to vote him out if they think he isn't representing their interests.
I agree with Steve Wilkins, the system is broken if this is business as usual.
But he isn't, because a crooked guy on my side is much better than a straight guy on their side. It is politics, after all.
I bet that he's representing their interests exactly. We have plenty of far-far-left/right districts in this country that would allow anyone to represent them if he could further their agenda, no matter what the tactics.
Yes, so it should be fixed. One possible step in that direction: term limits.
Given the "old boy's/fat cat's club" state of our political system, I hardly think that's reliable. Six terms in the House, or two in the Senate. 12 years. Then you're gone.
Boy, can you imagine the earthquake that would pass through the halls of Congress if THAT was to become the law? Lifelong politicians would absolutely lose their minds! That, and we might actually see some real stuff get done by members that are in sync with the people they are actually representing... (can anyone remember a member of Congress who listened to what his constituents wanted the vote to be, then voted that...even if it was against his/her personal position?)
I think that's one of the many 'real issues' in Congress; that the members therein are voting what THEY think and not what their CONSTITUENTS think. While I'm usually not a fan of comparing our system to other nations, look at how members of the British Parliament address the Prime Minister during PMQs. They usually refer to issues in regards to what the opinion is 'in their constituency' and not their own personal opinion...just something to think about.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
The votes in question on the video were blatantly not in favor of the Murtha's viewpoint. It's quite obvious that there were enough democrats that disagreed with the bill to expel him if they really wanted to.
In other words, he wasn't towing the party line. He was doing his own thing, and the rest of the House just took it in the ass.
Term limits fix nothing. Term limits still allow politicians to blatantly disregard the rules of the House; they just limit how long they can do it until his replacement does the exact same thing.
Term limits are inherently undemocratic. Why can't I re-elect someone who I think is representing me appropriately?