"If congress doesn't act I will"

[YoungConserv]

In a compromise every side thinks they are screwed. There is no compromise where everyone walks away happy with everything they wanted.

Really what did regan get when he was promised stricter border enforcement if he did amnesty he never got it.

 

[iliveonramen]

Louisiana purchase was done through treaty so it could have happened and the national bank should never have happened.

Well that's a pretty broad view of what the power to ratify treates entails not specifically listed in the Constitution.

As for the Federal Bank...kind of hard to fight a war without the funding or ability to raise money. So I guess as President you would of stuck with principle at the detriment of the country.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Well that's a pretty broad view of what the power to ratify treates entails not specifically listed in the Constitution.

As for the Federal Bank...kind of hard to fight a war without the funding or ability to raise money. So I guess as President you would of stuck with principle at the detriment of the country.

There are no limits in the Constitution on what a treay can be made on. If it is ratified then it is legal.

As far as the Federal Bank goes, maybe if we didn't start the damn war we wouldn't have needed it. Guess they had to do something to justify that massive defense budget even back then!

 

[iliveonramen]

Really what did regan get when he was promised stricter border enforcement if he did amnesty he never got it.

Reagan served with a majority Democratic House and Senate (for 6 years). They could of prevented him from doing virtually anything. There was constant compromise.

 

[Master PO]

My point of mentioning the compromise was to point out the Constitution was a document created in part on principle and in part on pragmatism. Just like the changes over time in how our government looks is based in part on principle and in part on pragmatism. 200+ years is a long time. Views have changed. Universal sufferage is the complete opposite of restricting votes based upon race and land ownership and represents a change in principle where the idea of representation has changed.

Just like the idea of states as complete separate entities has changed based on the Civil War and the needs of a modern economy/world.

I just don't disagree with this idea of a static document that has to adhere to 18th century philosophy. The world has changed which was recognized by the very people that wrote the document! When events cause them to deviate from the origional view of the constitution they did it. Thomas Jefferson of course going as far as to recommend a new convention every 20 years. It's entertaining to argue over the foudners intent and the constitution but I don't see the point. Times change as do interpretations as to who can vote, the extent of federal power, and how that power is applied.

i would accept your point of view as long as the changes made are according to the constitution, but they are not, the federal government has taken control of things, without constitutional authority.

and as the federal government takes upon itself more and more things, it WILL seek to rule our very life's in every aspect.

government is here to protect rights, that is WHY it was created, if man never violated the rights of other men, government would not be necessary.

"if men were angels not government would be necessary"-- james madison


--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,....DOI

as a libertarian, i just want the government to follow the law to the letter, and amend the constitution if they need more power.

 

[Master PO]

Reagan served with a majority Democratic House and Senate (for 6 years). They could of prevented him from doing virtually anything. There was constant compromise.

i don't believe that is correct, the democratics ruled the house from 1954 to 1994

the senate was out of there hands i believe 6 of Reagan's 8 years , and under republican control 81 to 87

 

[ARealConservative]

We know. We watched you do it in Libya already.

 

[iliveonramen]

i don't believe that is correct, the democratics ruled the house from 1954 to 1994

the senate was out of there hands i believe 6 of Reagan's 8 years , and under republican control 81 to 87

You are right...I typed it backwards. Dems controlled the house all 8 and Republicans controlled it 6 of the years not 8.

 

[Master PO]

Thank god were not a democracy then.

democracy is-------> collectivism

this is what OUR GOVERNMENT put forth as a example of a collectivism government.

Collectivistic government. — "Equality of condition". — In this system of government stress is laid upon the proposition that "all men are created equal," meaning that no man has a right to that which is denied to another; that any system of government failing to recognize and conform to this "ideal" is wrong, and therefore an enemy of society and a foe of mankind.

The ignorant, illiterate, physically and mentally deficient, the lazy, improvident, and reckless have equal right with the alert, aggressive, busy, educated, high-minded, orderly citizen who aspires to the best and is willing to pay the price of attainment through self-discipline, hard work, and careful management.

It is not in human nature to recognize "equality of condition" except to acquire a personal advantage. One may be willing to divide another's property with the third and fourth individual providing the share remaining to him is something more than he formerly possessed.

Denial of personal rights. — "Collectivism" is the denial of personal rights. The State (community) becomes the chief concern of all. It claims that the "law of equality," once applied, would destroy every human desire for individual dominance, making society safe, content, comfortable, and happy.

This "ideal" is to be accomplished by the application of force under the direction of leaders, in the selection of whom the people will have little or no choice. It is necessary, at first, to enforce the will of community interests until the people become educated and submissive to the new order.

Denied all personal rights "collectivism" gives its "instructions'' where to live, where to work, what to do, what to think, and what to say. for the State is the law.

Confiscation of private property. — "Collectivism" declares that the possession of property has developed protection of property through governments, courts, police power, and public opinion, making it difficult for one to acquire private property except by work. Private property must be abolished so that all will live on a plane of "equal condition." As a matter of fact, however, "human nature" will see to it that the "equal condition" will very quickly become an equal condition of misery, want, and discontent.

Religion outlawed. — The collectivistic government proceeds against "imperialism" by outlawing the church. The church at the behest of capital "fed the people the opium of religion," making them willing slaves to do the will of their capitalistic masters. In the interest of the new order there must be left no place for religion, lest the people gain courage to throw off the yoke of their new-found freedom.

Abolition of the family. — With personal rights, private property, and tho church abolished, to make subjection complete "the state" declares that in pure "collectivism" there can be no family ties, for children, like all other property, are an asset of the community and must be robbed of family love and obligation as a necessary step to loyalty to the state. Marriage may be practiced if conscience insists, but is not demanded in the interest of the new society, for with the abolishment of personal rights, private property, church, and home, society no longer possesses a moral, ethical, or spiritual code.

"Socialism" kills. — The doctrine of "socialism" is "collectivism." It tears down the social structure, weakens individual responsibility by subjection to or reliance upon the state in all material, social, and political matters. It compels the thought that at his best man is no better than the worst; he loses his self-respect and his keener sense of moral and ethical values. Ambition is nullified by restriction of choice in occupation and reward of attainment. Initiative, the very backbone of all progress, is smothered in the morass of impersonal service, mass servility, and mob inertia.

"Socialism" aims to save individuals from the difficulties or hardships of the struggle for existence and the competition of life through calling upon the state to carry the burden for them.

"Equality of condition," the ruling law of "collectivism," is the death knell alike to individual liberty, justice, and progress through the destruction of individual and national character.

When the citizens of a nation, seeking comforts and pleasures, find no joy or satisfaction in hard work, the years of that nation are numbered. Free bread and the circus marked the declining days of Rome. A surfeit of food, clothes, comfortable homes, and much time

for idleness can easily become the first step to the overthrow of civilization.

 

[notquiteright]

having the people vote for their political leaders, by (direct) votes is democracy, and the founders ..did not want that because, it leads to tyranny.

to para-phase Jefferson..........when the people realize they can (vote) themselves things from the public trough, they will send to Washington those who will promise them a--------> bigger slice of the pie.

we have reached a stage were people are voting only for what serves their own personal interest, and that is dangerous.

all three political positions of power... president, senate , congressmen, are voted for in a personal interest vote TODAY, and that is not what the founders intended,............. and that will doom america.

only the congressmen vote was suppose to be a personal interest vote, not the other two.

It wouldn't be the first time Jefferson was naive or misquoted. What stops the Senator from being heavily lobbied by special interests? for that matter it puts the part time state legislatures in the path of full time lobbyists, I guess that spreads the graft around a bit more.

politicians will still bring home the pie to their state, be it for the voters or the state special interests. it only changes who's pocket gets lined.

I don't fear democracy, i do worry about all the lobbying being done, and for that matter the continued ramping up of how much money a citizen needs to be a contender on a congressional ballot.

 

[YoungConserv]

It wouldn't be the first time Jefferson was naive or misquoted. What stops the Senator from being heavily lobbied by special interests? for that matter it puts the part time state legislatures in the path of full time lobbyists, I guess that spreads the graft around a bit more.

politicians will still bring home the pie to their state, be it for the voters or the state special interests. it only changes who's pocket gets lined.

I don't fear democracy, i do worry about all the lobbying being done, and for that matter the continued ramping up of how much money a citizen needs to be a contender on a congressional ballot.

So you don't worry about the Titler cycle?

 

[Master PO]

It wouldn't be the first time Jefferson was naive or misquoted.

i see you trying to have it both ways, your saying this is probably a misquote, however if its not, then Jefferson is native.

the founders read the works of Aristotle, and here is what ...........Democracy, for Aristotle,------------> is rule by “the needy”, with all the problems that entails. ... (or in our case, vote) based on their own “neediness” (or self-interest), then polity breaks down.

if you give people the power to vote for every position of power in our government directly meaning president and senator, they will vote ONLY in their own personal self-interest ,instead of what is good the welfare of the nation as a whole.

this is why democracies fail, ----------->because it is full of special interest / self- interest, and works to serve in the end, the most with money and power.

federalist 10...."The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican (than) of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders --------->(factious combinations less) to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

Madison is saying we as a nation will have (less faction/ special interest) if we have republican government than democratic government.....this is why the founders did not create a democracy.

FROM the 1928 army training manual.....which FDR recalled and destroyed from circulation

WAR DEPARTMENT TM_2000-25, issued November 30, 1928

117. The American philosophy of government. — The American philosophy of government emphasizes that —

(1) Individual rights are sacred and it is necessary to establish a government in the protection of these rights.

(2) All the powers of government are derived from the people, who retain the supreme authority over all delegated powers of government.

(3) Individual rights are not permitted to be exercised in the contravention of the rights of society. Individual liberty is always bounded by social obligations.

(4) Government is exercised for the purpose of protecting the individual in his rights.

(5) Governmental powers are delegated to the National, State, or local authority, and are limited in their exercise by provisions of the Constitution as interpreted and defined by the Supreme Court.

(6) All rights not thus delegated are recognized as the inviolable right of the individual citizen and can not be usurped by any governmental power.

(7) The Government of the United States is not a democracy but a Republic.<--------------------------

What stops the Senator from being heavily lobbied by special interests? for that matter it puts the part time state legislatures in the path of full time lobbyists, I guess that spreads the graft around a bit more.

today lobbyist can go directly to (1) place to lobby every senator they wish to lobby, if their were no 17th, the lobbyist would have to visit at least 26 states, and lobby the state legislatures of each of them, this means they would have to lobby over 1000 people do get the vote they need for their special interest.

this of coarse would take a lot of time and money, to travel and lobby from 26 states. who works in you state interest more?.......your state legislator, or your senator?.......the answer is simple you legislator, because they see the problems the states face, because are closer to the people.

as an example: let was say there is a comapny, which is not located in my part of the nation where my state is, which is looking for special legislation from congress to benefit them, in Washington today they can lobby my senator for this vote, because he is not bound to my state. without the 17th, my state legislators, the lobbyist would be trying to lobby (do not care) if company gets special legislation, because the company does not operate in their state, or cause any direct benefit to there state, and to try for a company to bride a whole state legislative body, would cost more time and money..... than too lobby 1 federal senator, and they would have to do it over 26 states.

founders constructed a government to have as little (faction/ special interest) as possible. that is why they chose republican government (than) democratic government, and did not give the people a ---->direct vote for senator or president, but and indirect vote.....because it you give the people a direct vote for president, senator, with the direct vote already for congressmen, that is tyranny.

federalist 47...."The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or (elective)<----------, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

politicians will still bring home the pie to their state, be it for the voters or the state special interests. it only changes who's pocket gets lined.

NOT TRUE.....because the power is (divided), the house is in the hands of the people, and senate power is in the hands of the state....both are separate entities.......a separation of power, this is one reason why the senate cannot create tax revenue laws, because state legislators cannot create bill of revenue and impose them on the people., only the people can impose taxes on themselves, because they have to pay them. the government was setup to work, that each branch has it own power, and watches the other branches for abuses of power, and that keeps each one in check.

I don't fear democracy, i do worry about all the lobbying being done, and for that matter the continued ramping up of how much money a citizen needs to be a contender on a congressional ballot.

you don't care about lobbying,----> so your happy a companies/ individuals, other countries get your money?

“Democracy is indispensable to socialism.”- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

"Democracy is the road to Socialism.”- Karl Marx

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

 

[Diving Mullah]

This phrase of obamas scares the crap out of me it Is setting up a dangerous precisedent that could elIminatw our system of checks and balances.

Yes! I agree...Things could have been lot worst if he had said things like...I'm the decider....I have full political capital...I do what I believe is right and let the history be my judge and of course the cream of the crop....Running Dictatorship is lot easier as long as I'm the dictator!

Asking the congress to actually vote up or down on an issue and not filibusterer every bloody legislation...Who does he think he is? to actually ask from the most dysfunctional body of government in 100 years to actually do what they were elected to do....

That is indeed terrifying!

Diving Mullah

 

[YoungConserv]

Yes! I agree...Things could have been lot worst if he had said things like...I'm the decider....I have full political capital...I do what I believe is right and let the history be my judge and of course the cream of the crop....Running Dictatorship is lot easier as long as I'm the dictator!

Asking the congress to actually vote up or down on an issue and not filibusterer every bloody legislation...Who does he think he is? to actually ask from the most dysfunctional body of government in 100 years to actually do what they were elected to do....

That is indeed terrifying!

Diving Mullah

He doesn't get to force congress to agree with him or else that's not how it works.

 

[Diving Mullah]

He doesn't get to force congress to agree with him or else that's not how it works.

Well...He has been the second president since FDR who has won both terms gotten over 51% of popular and over 300 electoral votes and his popularity is over 51%, while the congress is what.... in the 13 and 14%! The lowest since Polling Began.

Clearly "HOW IT SUPPOSE TO WORK" hasn't really worked for congress and American People clearly have seen this. Maybe instead of like a mad men doing the same thing over and over and expecting different result, maybe it is time to take a different tack...

Work with the president rather than block him...Rather than changing rhetoric in the hope that people will accept them maybe they should change policies.

Diving Mullah.

 

[YoungConserv]

Well...He has been the second president since FDR who has won both terms gotten over 51% of popular and over 300 electoral votes and his popularity is over 51%, while the congress is what.... in the 13 and 14%! The lowest since Polling Began.

Clearly "HOW IT SUPPOSE TO WORK" hasn't really worked for congress and American People clearly have seen this. Maybe instead of like a mad men doing the same thing over and over and expecting different result, maybe it is time to take a different tack...

Work with the president rather than block him...Rather than changing rhetoric in the hope that people will accept them maybe they should change policies.

Diving Mullah.

So your advocating for mob rule? Just because he got a majority doesn't change the constitution and the Separation of powers.

 

[notquiteright]

So you don't worry about the Titler cycle?

If you mean by that, do I think we will copy how the classic democracies went from democracy to tyrants- not so much. Time has marched on. Sometimes spending so much time with books just means you use arcane phrases without any serious attempt to study what has changed since before the birth of Christ.

More to fear from monopolistic corporations than a mere political figure becoming a king or dictator.

For every Willard wanting to sit in the Oval Office there are a dozen billionaire CEOs quite happy to weld 3x's the soft power the President ever could.

 

[YoungConserv]

If you mean by that, do I think we will copy how the classic democracies went from democracy to tyrants- not so much. Time has marched on. Sometimes spending so much time with books just means you use arcane phrases without any serious attempt to study what has changed since before the birth of Christ.

More to fear from monopolistic corporations than a mere political figure becoming a king or dictator.

For every Willard wanting to sit in the Oval Office there are a dozen billionaire CEOs quite happy to weld 3x's the soft power the President ever could.

No I mean do you not fear that our will go down hill as politicians realize they can promise largesse from the public treasury for votes.

 

[notquiteright]

No I mean do you not fear that our will go down hill as politicians realize they can promise largesse from the public treasury for votes.

I had thought that Ben Franklin's idea.

Now for the most part the people, to include the states as they are people too my friend, have had this ability to elect panderers- when did the people suddenly wake up and discover they could do this? When did we go downhill? War Between the States, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the moon walks....

When did we go downhill?

 

[YoungConserv]

I had thought that Ben Franklin's idea.

Now for the most part the people, to include the states as they are people too my friend, have had this ability to elect panderers- when did the people suddenly wake up and discover they could do this? When did we go downhill? War Between the States, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the moon walks....

When did we go downhill?

I would say after ishenhower.

 

[hfd]

Most presidents have tried to make their administration into a Imperial Presidency. It is up to congress to curb this and they do have the power if they want to use. Nixon in my life time became the first president that tried, but congress reined him back in big time. Could congress have done this without Watergate is another question. But during his presidency, congress actually acted like a congress and a co-equal branch of government.

I think presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan did not try to make the presidency an Imperial one although there are times in each, depending on a certain issue where they tried to by pass congress. Bush I, G.H.W. Bush became the first president to actually scare me, not while in office, but once he was out when he told an interviewer that even if congress had voted down his request to go to war he would have done it anyway. Bush I said he had the UN authorization and that was enough regardless of what congress thought or did. He was basically saying the UN overrode the constitution.

His son, G.W. Bush really empowered the presidency, but with a Republican Congress for his first six years, congress went along with him. Our current president has set a few precedence, like Bush I, he took us to war in Libya on a UN resolution and didn’t even ask the congress for permission. Thus IMO bypassing the constitution. But the Democrats in congress back him up and I think this made the Democrats in congress more part of the administration than part of congress. Obama has also chose which laws to enforce, which laws to ignore and which laws to change. All dangerous precedence when referring to an imperial presidency. All precedence that can be used by future presidents if not curbed by congress.

Is congress wrong in protecting a president of their own party? For the most part, I would say no, it should be expected. But when a president usurps power that belongs to congress, it is time for congress to act regardless of what party the president is from. Failure to act on a bipartisan basis when the presidents attempts and in most cases succeeds in taking power from congress, congress has ceased to be a congress and is no longer a co-equal branch of government. Checks and balances are thrown out the window in order to make the president a more powerful person and institution than originally designed.

Congress over the years has ceded quite a lot of their constitutional powers to either the president/administration and to different agencies and bureaus. I am afraid congress has become a very weak sister in our co-equal branches of government and is on its way to becoming irrelevant.

FDR had our MM carrying war materials to England long before Germany declared war on us. Truman entered the Korean conflict with no action by the Congress. BTW: Congress never officially declared war against the Barbary Pirates. The little war added 'to the shores of Tripoli' in the Marine Corps Hymn.

 

[Perotista]

FDR had our MM carrying war materials to England long before Germany declared war on us. Truman entered the Korean conflict with no action by the Congress. BTW: Congress never officially declared war against the Barbary Pirates. The little war added 'to the shores of Tripoli' in the Marine Corps Hymn.

I know. To curb an Imperial Presidency, Congress must act like a congress. Not one party protecting and letting the president of their party do anything he wants. For Congress to be a co-equal but seperate branch, it must act as a congress and take pride in being the congress, have a vested interest in congress and not be just an arm of the presidency just because the president is of the same party. Congress has the authority, the constitutional authority to put a stop what you referred to. It just doesn't have the balls or the integrity to act as a congress instead as an extention of the party.

 

[Bonzai]

I know. To curb an Imperial Presidency, Congress must act like a congress. Not one party protecting and letting the president of their party do anything he wants. For Congress to be a co-equal but seperate branch, it must act as a congress and take pride in being the congress, have a vested interest in congress and not be just an arm of the presidency just because the president is of the same party. Congress has the authority, the constitutional authority to put a stop what you referred to. It just doesn't have the balls or the integrity to act as a congress instead as an extention of the party.

Maybe it's human nature for people to become partisan hacks.............

 

[Perotista]

Maybe it's human nature for people to become partisan hacks.............

You might have something there Bonz. I think this is why the founders and framers hated political parties and wanted each individual to run for office on his own and not as part of a political party which they called factions. The fear of the founders was those who ran as party members would soon put the needs of the party over the needs of the country. Loyalty to party over loyalty to country. This has come to pass.

A congress who guards and protect the powers given to it in the constitution is also a thing of the past. Perhaps we can't really operate as a Republic with three co-equal branches as long as political parties take precedence over each branch. Even the SCOTUS has been politicized by parties. Republican nominees vote one way and Democratic nominees the oppisites.

I don't have the authors name, but there is a book named "PRESIDENTS ABOVE PARTY". It is a very good read and as the title represents, it is about the first six presidents who put country above party. Washington through J.Q. Adams. It's been 15 years or more since I read it, I may have to dig it out again and read it once more. But it is in this line that I think we should go back to.

 

[Fenton]

Well of course he will. He'll push the envelope as much as possible.


The difference between Bush and Obama are the Libs and Democrats remain as silent as a church mouse.

They went from counting dead soldiers on the Nightly News to a perpetual act of mitigation.