Constitutional Convention

#26
#26
lawgator1 said:
No, that's not fair.

The GOP wants you to die if you aren't a contributing member of the Heritage Foundation or its equivalent. Because, if you are a member, it means you can pay your own way until the day you keel over in your upper west end condo or your estate in Palm Beach.

But if you were a working Joe all your life who is now retired and depend on SS or Medicare to live, they figure its a matter of simple economics. They have pretty much milked you for everything they can as a worker bee and your retirement benefits now are just a drain on their own estates for which they will get no return so they just as soon you keel over on the Greyhound bus tomorrow, before you cost too much.
Click to expand...

has Alan Grayson hacked your VN account?

it's left-wing boilerplate crap like the above that makes me and many others here doubt that you walked into the polls in 2008 unsure of who you were going to vote for.
 
#28
#28
therealUT said:
Corect. I'd rather have 3,000 reps with about 100,000 constituents each than have 435 with over 700,000 each. As it currently stands, not all Reps get a turn to speak on the House Floor, anyway. The vote is what matters.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I agree with adding members to lower the number of constituents per rep, but I'm not sure having 3,000 is the answer. I am intrigued by if/how adding reps would affect the two-party system.
 
#29
#29
TennesseeOrange said:
I agree with adding members to lower the number of constituents per rep, but I'm not sure having 3,000 is the answer. I am intrigued by if/how adding reps would affect the two-party system.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling it would annihilate the two party system, as we in America know it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#32
#32
therealUT said:
Fyp (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Don't forget The Philippines, The Horn of Africa, Somalia Pirates, Global War on Terrorism and the soft/cold war with China.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#33
#33
lawgator1 said:
No, that's not fair.

The GOP wants you to die if you aren't a contributing member of the Heritage Foundation or its equivalent. Because, if you are a member, it means you can pay your own way until the day you keel over in your upper west end condo or your estate in Palm Beach.

But if you were a working Joe all your life who is now retired and depend on SS or Medicare to live, they figure its a matter of simple economics. They have pretty much milked you for everything they can as a worker bee and your retirement benefits now are just a drain on their own estates for which they will get no return so they just as soon you keel over on the Greyhound bus tomorrow, before you cost too much.
Click to expand...
You are making yourself more of a joke by the day. You've gone bat**** crazy, really.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#36
#36
therealUT said:
So, less pork and more votes on principles would be terrible?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

No it makes it infinitely easier to pass partisan agendas as long as your guy is in the oval office. It would be terrible for everyone. IIRC, you don't like the expanse of executive power on war matters. A Line Item Veto would dwarf that expanse.
 
#37
#37
BigPapaVol said:
Alter ego of Beck, who he bemoans at every opportunity.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


God, I miss him.

Current future options for GB:

[ ] Takes over as campaign chief for Palin.
[ ] Becomes preacher at Evangelical Church.
[ x ] Announces date for End of World, calculated based on complex formula of number of words in Gospel of Mark, multiplied by gold coins he hawked while on Fox, divided by number of times he cried last week, multiplied by number of members in Politburo on his birthday. Thousands join his campaign to warn nonbelievers. When date comes and goes without incident, he blames Obama.
 
#38
#38
lumberjack4 said:
No it makes it infinitely easier to pass partisan agendas as long as your guy is in the oval office. It would be terrible for everyone. IIRC, you don't like the expanse of executive power on war matters. A Line Item Veto would dwarf that expanse.
Click to expand...

Line-item vetoes have been completely necessary ever since Congress began moving from simple legislation to omnibus legislation. The move was a huge power grab from Congress. Allowing a line-item veto would either resettle that balance, leaving the POTUS the option to veto without interfering with government efficiency (an oxymoron, I know), or it would eliminate the practice of drafting omnibus legislation (a practice that hamstrings government effectiveness).
 
#39
#39
therealUT said:
  • Representation in the House needs to be modified. A cap of 1 Rep per 100,000 constituents should be mandated (included in this amendment would be a vast reduction of Congressional pay).
  • Senate appointments should come from the State Legislatures.
Click to expand...
  • You were paying attention... j/k. I also advocate these ideas. However I think they should be paid better but have smaller and limited staffs. I would also like to see a maximum of 130 days in session. They should spend at least half the year in their state or district.
    [*]Line-Item Vetoes should be available to the POTUS
    [*]The Executive Branch should have the ability to spend less than Congress authorizes (the Executive had this power until 1974).
    Click to expand...
    Agree with some limitations.
    [*]The Federal Minimum Wage should be eliminated.
    [*]The 16th Amendment should be repealed.
    [*]Eliminate the popular vote for POTUS.
    Click to expand...

Absolutely, positively agree. The 10th should also be reasserted. Slavery and the subsequent history of racial abuse needed resolution but the cure's side effects have lingered beyond the value of the cure. If we reinstate federalism so states can try different paths and learn from each other... much good can be done... and no state will go back to slavery, separate bathrooms, or Jim Crowe.


One questions though... who hacked your VN account?
 
#40
#40
TennesseeOrange said:
You're talking about having over 3,000 members of the house?
Click to expand...

Closer to 2000. It would be based on either eligible or registered voters.

Anything under 200k would be fine with me.

Currently each rep has a about 900k. I believe the population has more than tripled since the last time Congress was expanded.

That creates two problems that had not existed and were not intended. One, they need large donations so they have effectively become reps of whoever gives them money rather than their neighbors. Two, it prevents people from having a realistic opportunity to actually know and influence their rep through direct interaction.

If each district had 200k people then you are looking at around 160K eligible to vote. It might increase participation because individual votes will matter much more. About 50K votes would win a seat usually... someone dedicated to serving could win a seat with a relatively small group of volunteers, little money, and lots of shoe leather.

Maybe the best effect would be to further split the influence of big money Washington insiders. The reps would not have to be beholden to them.
 
#41
#41
therealUT said:
Corect. I'd rather have 3,000 reps with about 100,000 constituents each than have 435 with over 700,000 each. As it currently stands, not all Reps get a turn to speak on the House Floor, anyway. The vote is what matters.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

It is more important that the people speak through the Rep than the Rep speaking to an empty House chamber.
 
#42
#42
therealUT said:
I have a feeling it would annihilate the two party system, as we in America know it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Special interests and political parties would both still exist but would have much less power.
 
#43
#43
lumberjack4 said:
No it makes it infinitely easier to pass partisan agendas as long as your guy is in the oval office. It would be terrible for everyone. IIRC, you don't like the expanse of executive power on war matters. A Line Item Veto would dwarf that expanse.
Click to expand...

Funny how the compromises you favor always seem to grow gov't's power and scope. The "compromise" only slows it.... a little.
 
#44
#44
sjt18 said:
Funny how the compromises you favor always seem to grow gov't's power and scope. The "compromise" only slows it.... a little.
Click to expand...

Yes, I favor compromise over an unchecked legislative process. You complain about Obama's first 2 years and all the crap he passed through, think of how much worse it would be if he line itemed every one of the Republican's amendments. Is that something you really want? I sure don't.

I'm simply saying that Line Item Vetos open Pandora's box and nobody will be happy with the result. Left, Right, Center it wont matter where you ideologically stand. We're better off without it.
 
#45
#45
lumberjack4 said:
Yes, I favor compromise over an unchecked legislative process. You complain about Obama's first 2 years and all the crap he passed through, think of how much worse it would be if he line itemed every one of the Republican's amendments. Is that something you really want? I sure don't.
Click to expand...
Yes. I disagree with his policies and ideals but the people chose him. I personally think the gov't operates well outside its constitutional mandate due to liberal judicial opinions concerning interpretation that have made it through the process. That said, he won.

IIRC, the line item veto would never just end an issue. The strike itself would be subject to legislative review and override.

I'm simply saying that Line Item Vetos open Pandora's box and nobody will be happy with the result. Left, Right, Center it wont matter where you ideologically stand. We're better off without it.
Click to expand...

If compromise generally meant that bills became smaller and things were taken out then I would agree. It doesn't. Few legislators ask for things to be cut in exchange for their votes. They ask for earmarks and pork or other spending that will help them get elected.

Another way to handle this would be a law that said bills had to be limited in scope... that a principle change had to be stated and everything within the bill had to be directly related to that change.
 
#46
#46
lumberjack4 said:
Yes, I favor compromise over an unchecked legislative process. You complain about Obama's first 2 years and all the crap he passed through, think of how much worse it would be if he line itemed every one of the Republican's amendments. Is that something you really want? I sure don't.

I'm simply saying that Line Item Vetos open Pandora's box and nobody will be happy with the result. Left, Right, Center it wont matter where you ideologically stand. We're better off without it.
Click to expand...

what republican amendments were there for him to line item veto? IIRC, the GOP was pretty effectively shut out of the process, particularly with the stimulus and healthcare bills.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top