Obama's big stick
He may not use it but Obama has got a big stick in his back pocket, to fight his way past the Senate.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has officially declared that carbon dioxide is a threat to the welfare of the American people.
This means that Mr Obama could, if he chooses, impose stringent new environmental standards by what amounts to presidential fiat, rather than wait for the agonisingly slow process of legislation on cap and trade making its way through a doubtful Senate.
According to the New York Times, "the agency finding also will allow Mr Obama to tell delegates at the United Nations climate change conference that began today in Copenhagen that the United States is moving aggressively to address the problem".
At the weekend, while I was making snowmen with the children and examining the National Christmas tree (in other words doing Cunardesque wintry things), we saw the flashing of police car lights as President Obama went up to the Hill.
He was there to gee up his team in the Senate and to try to move the conservative and liberal wings of the party towards a compromise.
And that is without dealing with the objections of the Republicans who could still talk out a bill - forcing such a protracted debate that the bill withers and dies.
Although the separation of powers in the USA is a key part of any course on comparative politics it is still, to my British eyes, a curious sight to see how a party in a majority, which has just won a presidential election has to kowtow to the losers.
In Britain, any prime minister, while cautious of the middle ground of public opinion, is happy to follow Disraeli's declaration "as for our majority... one is enough".
So I was interested to come across this article from Brussels' main political magazine, E! Sharp, arguing that the Senate almost exists to thwart decent legislation, from anti-slavery laws onwards, and that it is high time it is reformed. What do you think?
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~58~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
http://harpers.org/archive/2004/05/0080035 [sub. req.]
Complain about this comment
Mark, I enjoyed the E! Sharp link. I never understood why the Senate should be two members per State regardless of its population. You either believe in one person, one vote or you don't. A Californian’s vote shouldn't be worth less than a voter in Montana. The Electoral College I believe also favours smaller States. I've heard the arguments about preventing smaller States being marginalised by the bigger ones, but this is a false argument IMO. The US is a nation-state - that's one nation, one state; you are an American or a foreigner.
Complain about this comment
Good.
Complain about this comment
Obama also has a big wad in his back pocket. $300 billion of unspent bank bailout money approved by Congress last year.
Complain about this comment
Yes, democracy is slow. American democracy deliberately so. This is so that there can be no quick judgments caused by a national mood or feeling - unless it is so great as to create an immediate and unquestionable majority. As when America declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor. In the case of social ills needing to be righted, the process works even more slowly. The minority feeling the pain must eventually become the majority, who will elect representatives to specifically right the wrong or cure the ill. This takes time and the "ill" may be a passing one, specific to a locale, or one that self-corrects and therefore does not require national legislation. From what I can see, in the case of health care, not enough Americans have felt the pain. Although that may change in the next couple of years as the insurance companies raise their prices by 10 or 20 percent - again - and employers shift more of the cost of health care onto their employees, cut benefits or simply drop coverage altogether.
Right now, given the rules of the Senate - and yes, they are meant to block the House, i.e. the people, from making rash decisions - the Democrats, while having a technical majority, do not have a full and clear majority based on an overwhelming need by the people. FDR eventually had a large enough majority in both houses to get his New Deal legislation passed without much argument, but that was because the Great Depression caused so much suffering on every level that by the 1934 elections the people made sure he'd get whatever he wanted by electing Democrats.
And yes, the horror of so many who are suffering and dying needlessly due to lack of health care or access to treatment is terrible. But, like the first anti-drug laws that were finally passed in the early 20th century (1906), thanks to enough 19th century Americans becoming addicted to so-called "patent medicines" laced with opium, cocaine, morphine and heroine and subsequently dying, enough Americans must suffer and die now so that a majority will vote to secure the right to universal health coverage for all future generations of Americans. It sucks, but unless Americans are willing to act like their 19th century forebears and start lynching price-gouging insurance company executives to get the rest to behave, I see no help for it.
Complain about this comment
I don't know about calling the US Senate a "constitutional defect." Furthermore, what would they say about needing a super-majority to pass conservative measures? If we weren't talking about health care, I'd have to wonder if the author would feel the same.
As not just an American, but a Californian, I am happy with our need for a super-majority in the Senate. This because large swaths of my countrymen have very different opinions then I do, and it wasn't so long ago that the GOP had the Congress and The White House. Though filibusters were few back then, they still happened, and happened to insure I was representative.
Sure the deliberative body of the US is arcane, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't have deliberation.
Complain about this comment
In regard to the last paragraph it shows a lot of ignorance.
The idea in the Senate was not to allow big states to dominate legislation.
It was to protect the orginal 13 from domination from VA,PA and Mass who really dominated the first 25 years of the U.S.
and if you look at the house who is the speaker Pelosi, who controlls the tax debate Rangel from NY
Complain about this comment
ref #2
, spanners71 wrote:
Mark, I enjoyed the E! Sharp link. I never understood why the Senate should be two members per State regardless of its population. You either believe in one person, one vote or you don't. A Californian’s vote shouldn't be worth less than a voter in Montana. The Electoral College I believe also favours smaller States. I've heard the arguments about preventing smaller States being marginalised by the bigger ones, but this is a false argument IMO. The US is a nation-state - that's one nation, one state; you are an American or a foreigner.
_________________-
In a close election 1-3 states dertimine it and they are ususally big prizes.
2000 Florida (which Bush won despite another attempt by Dems to steal an eelction)
2004 Ohio (despite European press sticking their nose and mailing letters to Ohio residents)
Complain about this comment
re: #2--
The Senate doesn't exist to represent the people. Both the Electoral College and the House of Representatives are population based, thus representing the votes of the people, allowing even minority opinions to be expressed. The Senate represents the government of each state. It, as poster #5 noted, provides a system where both the citizens and the state government are represented in the federal process. Under neither portion does anyone's vote get marginalized. That's the reason for a population-based side (the House) and a state-based side (the Senate). It insures that every demographic is represented in some way. Under the US system, the voice of state governments is central to the way the federal government can and does run. Each state has an amount of autonomy provided by the Constitution. In areas where there must be an over-arching regulation or support, the federal government is in charge. It isn't like other nations--more like some hope the EU will develop into. It is one nation, yes; but one made up of separate and distinct states, rather like each state is made up of separate and distinct counties (or parishes in my state's case) that are represented in the state legislature.
It's meant to run this way to prevent hasty and possibly despotic decisions from occurring. Thus, while the Senate often seems to kill or belabor good ideas, they also serve to kill and belabor detrimental ideas. That way, ideas have to prove themselves before they can be implemented, hopefully forestalling drastic negative changes before they affect the entire nation.
Complain about this comment
I'n agreement with #5 and #9. As a resident of the rural part of a state with a single huge city, I can tell you that the tyranny of the majority is alive and well in the US. An institution that prevents that at the national level, such as the Senate, is certainly a good thing. Small areas shouldn't have to suffer at the hands of larger ones, nor should people's votes be disregarded, just because of where they are.
Complain about this comment
Am I the only one who thinks that the topic is somehow a little bit pornographic..I will not say anymore because the racists minds here will call me a racist..
Complain about this comment
CO2 a threat to human health? Huh! Jeez, anyone with basic schoolboy science knows that CO2 is essential for human health.No CO2 no food and don't give me 'the science is fixed' BS about CO2. It has been 'fixed' but not in that way. Obama and Gordon "don't say Brown say hopeless" have a hidden agenda to screw the developing countries. Cap and Trade is just another fraud and a tax on us all.If there is money being made on this thing it certainly can't be good! It's OK if you want to call me a conspiracy theorist and a 'denier'.
Complain about this comment
Problem is Mark ,that america's laws are all covered in the constitution.
so any change from the just accepting a round world days is not allowed.
they might as well get rid of democracy and just worship the Holy constitution.
Complain about this comment
colonel. you saucy bugger you. Sam would like that comment.
Complain about this comment
" The US's EPA has declared that carbon dioxide is a threat to the welfare of the American people."
Wow! What are they going to do - outlaw exhaling?
What next? The dangers of dihydrogen oxide?
Complain about this comment
I have read all of the bovine excreta above trying to justify the Senate and it's composition and Never Ever Again want to hear another citizen of the US give me a 'Brit' a lecture about democracy as you are so want to do. Our much mocked House of Lords is a democratic delight compared to your Senate. It stinks, it's totally un-democratic and you people know it. It does just go to show though that the one thing that you can't take away from an American citizen is that when it comes to b/s you are the world's greatest.
The World's greatest democracy indeed.
Complain about this comment
"The US is a nation-state - that's one nation, one state; you are an American or a foreigner."
united in death and federal taxation.
other than that spanner they are at war with each other.
they can be prosecuted for buying in the wrong state too often.
I'm with you but americans seem to be selective as to when they claim statehood or national Identity.
South Carolina has a tax free guns special to show the pinko states what the second ammendment is about;)
Theys a proud sstate
Complain about this comment
Everything is frozen in the US, thanks to the way their two assemblies work. It’s important to remember that the 50 states are still quite independent from one another, more so in some cases than the countries of the European Union.
While this guarantees that the country as a whole cannot be dragged on wild goose chases too easily, it prevents the type of progress for which a large population consensus is necessary, and antipollution measures are of that kind.
Since some people are bringing health care into this blog, I believe that the only way this will happen in the US is if every state starts developing its own system. Adjacent smaller states will quickly join forces, so for example instead of having a New Jersey system and a Pennsylvania system and a Delaware system, there would be a Middle Atlantic States system. The federal government should only assist financially when it proves necessary for the poorer areas of the country.
Complain about this comment
Ha ha... that's put the cat among the pigeons.
Well, if CO2 emissions have to be dealt with that sure beats emission trading:
The "No Goldilocks Solution",
as we have seen in the EU where the problem with carbon prices is they
are either too low and so cheap and meaningless as in recession times,
or too high to lead to any reduction at other times, when evasive
action for example involves paying off third world emitters (who
according to a recent Economist article can simply be set up to rake
in cash ie would not be emitting otherwise), or tree planting
exercises of dubious effect, which may in any case be fast growing
non-native trees which changes local ecosystems.
An artificial market will always be an artificial market.
_______________________________________
Emission Trading (Cap and Trade)
http://ceolas.net/#cce5x
Basic Idea
Offsets -- Tree Planting -- Manufacture Shift -- Fair Trading
Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs -- Allowance Trading
Companies: Business Stability + Cost
In Conclusion
Complain about this comment
Keep in mind that in the US, we have the House of Representatives to ensure that the states with larger populations have an equal say per capita. http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/legislative-branch The number of representatives is dependant solely on the population of each state and each bill must pass through the house as well. Also, keep in mind that the United States is a collection of individual sovereign states. Each state technically has the power to create its own healthcare plans, unfortunately, none of them have the capital to do so when insurance companies from other states could simply sell to the residents and businesses within that state. When our constitution was created, this system allowed the states to learn from each other easily, increasing the chances of prosperity and success, just like the EU does today. Imagine trying to convince each state in the EU to adopt the same health care program. In short, it's definitely flawed, but it's better than requiring each state to operate individually. The lesser of the evils is still evil, if you will.
Complain about this comment
#12 jiriboy
CO2 a threat to human health? Huh! Jeez, anyone with basic schoolboy science knows that CO2 is essential for human health.
Isn't Co2 consumption poisonous to humans? And don't humans produce it in exhaling? Co2 is naturally produced by mother nature, but in much smaller quantities. I'm guessing that you have less than basic schoolboy science education. And I'm assuming that schoolgirls know more about science than you.
Complain about this comment
It is not carbon dioxide per say that is a threat. Carbon dioxide is natural and normal. It is the large amounts of carbon dioxide from pollutants that are dangerous to the enviroment.
You have to be careful about how you word your statements.
Most Americans want to help the environment, but we have to be financially stable/secure before we can put any money into it. I wish it wasn't like that, but it is. When the USA is able to have extra money, we can do more. That time is not now. Now is when we need jobs. Obama says he wants to create more lending to small businesses, but Americans need manufacturing jobs, not money being lent to banks again. That did not create any jobs, just anger. Until our unemployment rate goes down, we cannot do much for global warming. When our unemployment rate is less than 5%, then we can start working on global warming and cooperate with other countries. But other countries should not expect us to lead the global warming campaign until we have jobs again.
So if Obama wants to set some standards for our corporations, that would be great, but he needs to focus on making sure the people all have good paying jobs with health care benefits. That should be his number one priority. Lending money to banks did not create any new jobs and road repair jobs are only temporary. Obama still has not created any long term good paying jobs with benefits. None.
Mr. Mardell, in America we have no "losers." The Repubs may have lost the Presidency, but they are just as much a part of the USA as the Democrats are. I would not call anyone a loser, Repub, Dem or Independent. We are all Americans.
I think that Brussels article is pure baloney. Ironically, the truth is the opposite. The Senate is there to thwart bad legislature. If there was only one person making all the decisions, the USA would be in a much worse off place today. Instead, having the Senate gives us our balance and checks. The Senate is completely worthwhile and should never be reformed. I like the USA's separation of powers system, because it protects one person or party from getting too powerful.
Our forefathers were incredibly talented to create this separation of powers. It has pluses and minuses, but overall, it has kept the USA in check and should never change. God Bless America.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
"The United States Environmental Protection Agency has officially declared that carbon dioxide is a threat to the welfare of the American people."
This move was forced by a Supreme Court decision a couple of years ago:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040200487.html
Complain about this comment
#15 Max
" The US's EPA has declared that carbon dioxide is a threat to the welfare of the American people."
Wow! What are they going to do - outlaw exhaling?
Perhaps they could measure the Co2 emissions of Lieberman's next filibuster in a socially progressive bill and declare him a threat to the welfare of the American people!
Complain about this comment
About The function of the American Senate:
dramaturge #9 is right
Actually,
it is an interesting example of what could be done in the EU
http://ceolas.net/#eu11rx
Comparisons with the United States usually gives the response "Europe is not the United States!",
"No more power to Brussels!"
But national sovereignity guarantees can be maintained precisely because the European Union already is like the United States.
Democracy by Population = The House of Representatives = The European Parliament
Democracy by State = The Senate = The Council of Ministers
What if the need is felt to more easily represent national governments in day to day involvement?
No problem.
A European Senate then substitutes for the Council of Ministers, the latter still meeting regularly.
National governments each appoint 2 Senators, to act as their proxies.
Having two Senators gives attendance flexibility and other advantages, as in the US Senate.
If national governments change, so do the Senators.
The reason this is different from the USA is because of European national sovereign tradition.
Notice the difference of appointing Senators and Commissioners:
No arguments about "number of Commissioners per country",
No charades about "representing Europe but not your country", with countries nevertheless wanting to have their own Commissioners.
The new simple clarity:
European Senators act in their countries' interests.
That's what they are there for.
Just adding to Brussels complexity?
Not at all
The European Commission would be scrapped, as described on the above linked website,
the Commission is an undemocratic hangover from the days when it was called the High Authority to a few member states.
Complain about this comment
This is truly one of the most ignorant posts I've read in quite some time. The Senate is the cautious deliberative side of Congress, whereas, the House is the reactionary side. It was set up purposely this way.Try reading the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and Tocqueville before making a comment on the US again.
BTW, I'm sure you were a big supporter of Bush flexing his muscle when he enjoyed majorities in the House and Senate. Were you opining on how silly it was for the Democrats to use any legislative maneuver they could muster to block him?
Complain about this comment
16. At 10:02pm on 07 Dec 2009, U4466131 wrote:
Our much mocked House of Lords is a democratic delight compared to your Senate. It stinks, it's totally un-democratic and you people know it. It does just go to show though that the one thing that you can't take away from an American citizen is that when it comes to b/s you are the world's greatest.
The World's greatest democracy indeed.
For examples of what happens in a "pure" representative democracy you only need to study the city-states of Ancient Greece - specifically Athens. America is not a "pure" democracy in the classical sense - nor has it ever claimed to be such. The United States is a republic in the form of a representative democracy with a bicameral Congress. For the earliest form of bicameralism (two legislative houses) do some research on Sumer - Iraq, circa 5000-2000 BC. They too were made up of many small nation-states (just like America) and the Sumerian civilization lasted for some three thousand years. Unlike the Ancient Greeks, who only managed a few hundred.
Complain about this comment
Barack Obama did not become President because he is impetuous or totalitarian. Some of the most important attributes he has shown throughout his professional career include a tendency to be methodical, deliberate, and pragmatic to the point of allowing the opposition to accuse him of "dithering".
Desperately needed legislation to protect the environment, including the need to mitigate the effects of carbon dioxide, will follow the normal process. It may take a few months, or a year or two, to materialize but it will eventually pass and, hopefully, it will not suffer the same fate as the environmental protection legislation passed by the Clinton Administration.
Complain about this comment
As a Canadian, I would like to express my gratitude to the Mother Country for having bestowed upon us an eminently workable form of representative democracy.
Much like the House of Lords, our Senate serves an ornamental function: a place where political hacks go to their earthly reward, spending the twilight of their careers engaging in serious but largely meaningless self importance. Hmm, reminds me of internet blogs. But I digress.
However delicious it might be to consider in the abstract, abolishing the Senate, or making it a place where the political elephants go to die, is not going to happen. But as Bill Frist taught the Democrats, there is always the possibility of the 'nuclear option.'
Complain about this comment
Whatever the merits of the Senate may have been in the past, the way the filibuster has evolved in recent years has altered its nature - now pretty nearly everything needs 60 votes.
The impression one gets now is not so much deliberative as sclerotic, as each 'centrist' extracts their pound of flesh, not for the benefit of their electorates but merely to show off how important they are. They like to wave their, um, big sticks too.
Ezra Klein (the go-to source on health-care - I assume it's part of your job, Mark, to keep up with all the main bloggers) has been banging on about this for a few months now.
Complain about this comment
9. At 9:42pm on 07 Dec 2009, dramaturge wrote:
re: #2--
I agree with dramaturge's statement, with one small exception,:
"Each state has an amount of autonomy provided by the Constitution."
As clarified by the 10th amendment, it is the Federal government that is provided with an amount of autonomy. All powers not specifically granted to the Federal government are reserved to the states and the people thereof.
Mark's topic goes right to the heart of what makes the US different. The US is a real federation, the states having original and primary power. The state governments were thought to be more subservient to the wishes of the people [by virtue of being among them]. This is very much like the nation states that formed the EU.
It seems really strange that a Massachusetts Yankee is talking up "states rights" to a Louisianan. But this is part of the reason that the Senate is what it is. The "blue states" became an embattled minority during the consulate of Georgius Secundus, Imperator, and have rediscovered the need to protect their liberties from the mob, just as intended by the political geniuses who founded the country.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and on the main topic, nice to see Obama at last showing some teeth, unlike his softly-softly approach to health-care reform and cheerleading for the stimulus. Senatorial groin, meet the knee for which Rahm Emanuel was recruited.
Complain about this comment
oh...great...another use of unelected govt hacks to FORCE a purely political issue for the benefit of more govt power......
so predictable and sad all at same time...
Whats next...making it illegal to vote for anyone other than a liberal democrat?.....
Complain about this comment
I would like to point out that the Senate members do not represent the state governments in the US. In the past, the states were allowed to decide how their Senate seats would be filled; some Senators were elected by state legislatures, some were appointed by state governors.
Reform for direct election of Senators was first proposed in 1826, but reform efforts actually began in the mid 1850s (note the date)and first succeded in 1907 in Oregon. The 17th Amendment, which required the direct election of Senators (with exceptions of course), passed in 1912 and was ratified in 1913.
Today 2 Senators are directly elected from each state in statewide elections. Thus, Senators no longer represent state governments in the Senate, they represent the entire population of each state; this has a moderating affect on their politics. This is also in contrast to Congressmen in the House of Representatives who represent only the people of their district in their state, whose seat exists becuase of politics and population distrobution, and who are more succeptable to ideological swings and fads.
The Senate is Democratic and works nearly the way the 17th Amendment intended; if E! Sharp out of Brussels really understood that, then they might realize how wrong that article is.
Below is a link to the U.S. Senate History Page on this topic:
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm
~BeL
Complain about this comment
I was just googling around in an attempt to refresh my recollection of the debate during the Constitutional Convention on the makeup of the legislature. It's an interesting read if you're at all interested. It strikes me that the points made by the delegates in 1787 are still every bit as valid today. I don't know what purpose taking it back up would serve. The Senate is today what the framers intended it to be, and it works well.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
31. At 11:09pm on 07 Dec 2009, JMM wrote:
and have rediscovered the need to protect their liberties from the mob, just as intended by the political geniuses who founded the country.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't confuse them with reality or history...its just not that important to them....
Just as when Nancy Pelosi was asked where in the constitution it granted the congress the right to impose this new govt power against the states and the people...she responded by..."are you serious"....
Her response is both amazingly scary and very telling of your typical liberal democrat..."rules...we don' need no stink'n rules"....Just shut up and do what we say because we know better than you...
Complain about this comment
The EPA is a government agency under the white house, so any measures or statements made by the current EPA may be repealed by the next administration. The only legal way for lasting climate change policies to be passed into law is through the Congress.
Complain about this comment
THE SENATE
[The Question]
So I was interested to come across this article from Brussels' main political magazine, E! Sharp, arguing that the Senate almost exists to thwart decent legislation, from anti-slavery laws onwards, and that it is high time it is reformed. What do you think?
[Will Rogers on the Senate]
Now, Will Rogers wrote, quote [I wish you could see Rome. They got a lot of things call forums. They are where the Senators used to meet. I didn’t know before I got there that Ancient Rome had Senators. Now I know why it declined.] End quote and as a side note for all those educated in the Empire Rome is a city in Italy, not Rome New York State, now there are some great books on Will Rogers and the man had a lot to say about the Senate and it has stood the test of time.
[What works on paper, don’t work in the real world]
Now, in answering this question, the whole idea of the Senate was in fact to prevent the majority from just rolling over the minority, without the minority at least not being able to put up a bit of a fight. You have to reverse the process, and ask the question what if the majority wanted slavery and the minority didn’t what slavery, well the majority would just get its way. But, don’t get the idea that the system always works the way one thinks its should, prohibition is one of those OUPS! We got it wrong moments in History, along with many others. Why doesn’t the system work, pretty much it’s the fact that the founding fathers were human, and they just didn’t have the time in the middle of a revolution to think of everything, and of course there is that little pesky thing that what looks good on paper, don’t work in the real world. It’s like saying All Men Are Created Equal, well brother some are more equal than others, some of us didn’t get the Silver Spoon, and Trust Fund.
So, what is the problem smart guy?
1. Lack of term limits across the board
2. Lack of a recall system by the States of its Federal Elected Officials.
3. Lack of a referendum system of the people.
4. Lack of an oversight system upon LOBBYIST, they should be registered, licensed, and kept on a lease like a dog.
5. The two party system itself just Democratic and Republicans is not working
6. Gerrymandered Districts, there has got to be a better way.
7. Election spending limits and full disclosure of who lining who’s pocket and why.
8. Nancy Pelosi should not be allowed to channel any Federal money or projects to her Hubby, and no other Federal elected official should either.
9. All Bill’s should be clean, NO ATTACHMENT, building a bridge to no where.
10. No Government should have a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP with this government, no government should have any more pull on the Empire than any other, its akin to saying Mother Likes Me Best!
[Secession]
Now, given a few more hours or day, more of what is wrong with the system will come to mind, but that also having been said, we are a Secessionist, we no longer feel that in fact the government is even worth trying to correct. The empire has lost its moral, authority. It’s unsustainable, ungovernable and unfixable. Now, being from The Republic of California, which Europe has been calling the France of the North American Continent when we speak more Spanish than French, is a pretty good thing to be know as were as the East Coast calls The Republic of California the Left Coast, the Dope Coast and other derogatory names, so to think there is a love loss, and distance in this case does not make the heart grow fonder. The Republic of California have some pretty smart individuals and being separated from the Union would be more of a step up in the international community of nations. The [17th] Century American-Israeli Empire is not a government of the [21st] Century, it is simply a [MIC] Military Industrial Complex War of Economic Stimulus, Blood for Oil, Resources and Markets driven War Machine, that has been allowed to run amok far too long.
[New North American Continent Republics]
But there are others that would do just as well. The Republic of Alaska, America [The Confederate States/The United States],The Republic of California, "Republic of Cascadia" [Northwestern separatists envision a "Republic of Cascadia" carved out of Oregon, Washington and the Canadian province of British Columbia.], The Republic of Hawaii, The Republic of Texas.
HERUCLE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN
Complain about this comment
Mark,
Don't let Majik know you're reading the CS Monitor!
Complain about this comment
Thank you for the reference to E! Sharp, Mr Mardell: what a cool name for a magazine!
Yes, I am proud, grateful, pleased and relieved that President Obama has finally produced the big stick on this key issue: his executive powers that can be exercised via the EPA.
It is so obvious, it is almost extraordinary it has not been done before: the acknowledgement that as a health hazard, greenhouse has pollution can and must have oversight. Obviously, in the US this has long been the case for tobacco products, for example.
Just a few years ago, former California Governor, now Attorney General (and likely candidate for Governor again in 2010) Jerry Brown had to sue the White House because Bush's Clean Air Act actually made the air worse than it was under existing California laws. It was a long, drawn out fight but California and Brown won the ridiculous court case that arose out of the weird world wherein Bush-Cheney held sway over US policy.
(As your Iraq Inquiry in the UK now daily reveals, they seemed to have held sway, or at least enjoyed unwarranted influence, outside the USA, as well.)
What is being almost (but not quite) lost in the din from all the anti-Copenhagen crew is that many, many Americans of all political stripes really do worry about the decline in the environment, which is in plain sight of anyone who spends time outdoors, from the erosion of beaches in Hawai'i, to the retreating glaciers and compromised habitats of Alaska, to the razed mountaintops removed for the last traces of coal in Appalachia, to widening desertification & persistent droughts in the Southwest, to intensifying flooding and extreme weather events in the Midwest. All across the USA, the signs of harm done by human activities is vividly in evidence.
The last couple of big elections in America did polarise camps along strict party fundamentalism.
At the same time, a core pro-environment group exists in the Republican Party, and it shares many of the views held by all hues of Democrats, as well as Independents and of course Greens, that humanity must act in concert to mitigate whatever it may yet be possible to mitigate, even as we search for effective long-term solutions for problem areas that have grown worse due to decades of neglect.
The mailing lists of many pro-Earth groups in America are long, fruitful and full of fascinating names.
So yes, there is hope.
As for reforming the Senate or Constitution or variants thereof: I have heard such thoughts spoken by some very profound American thinkers, as far back as when I was in high school, doing a very thorough study of American history. It is not an unreasonable matter to discuss. When gridlock consumes Congress & essential legislation languishes while "cloture," "filibustering," "reconciliation" and any number of other intriguing concepts are brandished like threats rather than tools of procedure -- when everyone is in knots over ethics while never quite completely getting a handle on the problem -- when one Senator can assert that his sole vote is the one that ultimately decides whether three hundred plus a score millions of Americans get health care or not -- then, perhaps, someone will at some point desire to seek a sounder basis for legislative process.
But I wouldn't bet on it. This is the US of A, Mr Mardell, and it is in many ways a most unusual kind of place.
Personally, there is much I find more efficient about the British system, although I could not presume to claim to understand it as thoroughly as I do, in fact, understand the American democratic system in all its minutiae.
At the moment, though, my own thoughts are focused firmly on Results: on a decent outcome in Copenhagen. I think President Obama's latest salvo is extremely significant, and signals true concord is in the offing.
And I think the Obama Family for this, because surely this is a matter in which the entire First Family had some input. It was the right move; it was the right moment; it may be, in American terms, a touchdown.
Certainly, it is a vast improvement on the last 24 years of both Republican & Democratic Administrations.
We do need to move into a new way of acting, as a Civilised human organisation -- as Humankind. Maybe this is the start of something better for us all.
And thank you for writing about it!
Complain about this comment
The article from E!Sharp ends with the question: "How long are Americans going to ignore this constitutional defect?" The answer is indefinitely. There is no significant support for changing the rule which gives two Senators to each state regardless of size, because it would be pointless to advocate such a change. The requirements for constitutional amendments make such an amendment a practical impossibility.
Complain about this comment
In answer to The Brussels E! Sharp article and Marc Mardell's question: YES, many of us Americans feel the Senate is an obstructionist body. It became that way to an even greater extent during the first two years, 2000 to 2002, of the Bush administration. See book by Senator Tom Daschle regarding how the Republicans met secretly (illegal under our laws), then just presented finished legislation for the Democrats to sign. Then, it only got worse during the rest of the eight disastrous Bush years. This trend together with presidential election results of those years, which many studies have shown were inaccurate, make many of us feel that we actually had a coup -- and that we are still in this kind of danger. We have an electronic voting system whose aparatus is manufactured by Republican-favoring companies and whose results programmers can still scew fairly easily.
The Senators' roles seem to be to cow-tow to their big-business donors. To end this WE NEED PUBLIC FUNDING OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. With public financing of elections and free t.v. advertising (The people own the airwaves!) we could get out from under "Big Oil" which is obstructing climate legislation as well as big pharma and the insurance industries which are obstructing our health-care legislation.
Since the U.S. government's well-being is so vital to that of the world, why doesn't the U.N. take up monitoring of our elections the way they do in countries where more obvious coups happen?
Thanks, Dorothy
Complain about this comment
Well said, Maria!
But list me with the Founding Fathers on this one. I do hope we will someday see a better class of politician in general, and even (I pray for the day) when we see the end of two-party politics.
David Cunard must be feeling well puffed-up with his namecheck! ;-)
Complain about this comment
Dorothy,
Free TV yes, and a serious enforceable limitation on ALL political advertising, yes, but God(s) help us if we start publicly funding campaigns!
Or are you proposing a bail-out for the advertising industry?
Complain about this comment
Obama and the Democrats in Congress are doing their best to become the minority party. As long as the Republicans play their cards right they will rule Congress after a couple of elections and win the presidency at the next presidential election. The Democrats are deliberately forcing this with a bunch of crazy, terrible bills designed to finish off us off. They did build in a delayed effect of their bill's economic effects so that some of their crazy stunts will not have a full affect for a few years. I guess this was done so that the present members of Congress and the President will be retired and they really don't care about the future of their party. The next generation of americans will learn that there were two parties from their history books. I don't understand the egos of elected Democrats when a majority of the voters are against their actions.
Complain about this comment
I find it interesting that, for as many people who think we ought to either drastically rewrite or scrap the US constitution entirely, none actually know what would really happen if such a thing were to occur - and it very nearly did.
Back in the 1970s and early 80s there was a movement by the state governments to have a second Constitutional Convention (or Article V convention) in order to amend the document so that the federal government would be forced to balance the budget. Leading the charge was Ronald Reagan, former governor of California and so-called "deficit hawk".
Now, for those who don't know, when you have a Constitutional Convention, rather than just amending the constitution and tweaking it as the US has done numerous times, not just one item is subject to change, but the whole darn thing. And Reagan was just two state referendums short of being able to rewrite the entire document.
So, why didn't we have a second convention? Because the military very quietly explained to President Reagan exactly what would happen the instant this second convention convened.
You see, it is a little known fact that the United States government does not control the military per se, but has a treaty in perpetuity with the Armed Forces which obligates both parties to perform certain actions. In the case of the federal government they must support the military financially and not interfere with military courts, discipline, etc. In the case of the military, they must "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic", obey the President, etc.
Which means, if you hold a second constitutional convention, at the instant the delegates convene, the original constitution ceases to be in effect, the military takes control of the government, establishes martial law, arrests the President and the Congress as well as anyone else associated with drafting a new constitution (as domestic enemies of the United States) and places the Secretary of Defense in charge of the government as our new President. They then reinstate the original constitution in its entirety, while the governors - those not under arrest for treason for being delegates to the convention - appoint new senators and congressional representatives until elections can be held.
So for anyone imagining that the US Constitution is just another piece of paper that's subject to drastic change outside of being amended, think again. Its authors made sure this particular document had the ultimate protection: An entire army to defend and protect it in perpetuity.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 43, Dorothy:
"To end this WE NEED PUBLIC FUNDING OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS."
Sorry, that violates the first amendment (assuming that you mean that you would disallow private funding).
I don't particularly want to pick up the bill, either.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 43, Dorothy:
"Since the U.S. government's well-being is so vital to that of the world, why doesn't the U.N. take up monitoring of our elections the way they do in countries where more obvious coups happen?"
...and that violates our sovereignty. The U.S. Ambassador would be compelled to veto any such measure.
Complain about this comment
Mark- your questions about congressional constipation are important, and I don't want to diminish that or stop that badly needed (although at this point seemingly impotent) conversation.
HOWEVER.... cue desperate transmission from lunar left coast outpost in 3,2,1.....
You really really REALLY need to pull back from the beltway. Maybe it will have to wait until the kids are out of school in June, but PLEASE promise me before a year is out you'll get out and start mixing with The Greater American Proletariat. My guess is that it will trigger at least as many questions as it resolves, but at least you'll have a better feel for the what/how all this DC hubbub gets filtered through.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 47, Gavrielle:
"You see, it is a little known fact that the United States government does not control the military per se, but has a treaty in perpetuity with the Armed Forces which obligates both parties to perform certain actions."
You have a reference?
I searched the (Cornell's Annotated) Constitution, and I didn't see anything about this. In fact, the constitution clearly states that Congress has the specific right and responsibility to raise the Army and Navy, which infers that Congress is the entity that created the military. Why would they need a treaty with it?
No, the military is completely controlled by the People. It does our bidding all of the time, Constitutional conventions included.
Do you really believe that the military threatened President Reagan?
Complain about this comment
12. At 9:59pm on 07 Dec 2009, jiriboy wrote:
"CO2 a threat to human health? Huh! Jeez, anyone with basic schoolboy science knows that CO2 is essential for human health."
I propose that anyone who wishes to pursue this particular argument should try this simple experiment: take a plastic bag, insert the head, and breathe normally. The result should prove fairly conclusively that certain concentrations of carbon dioxide are notconducive to human health.
People may, if they wish, also insert a plant along with their head. (I would suggest something spiny like a cactus. It will make little difference to the chances of survival, but a few sharp stabs in the cheek as unconsciousness sets in may present just enough of a stimulus in to retrieve the situation.)
Anyone wishing to attempt this experiment should of course only do it in the presence of a friend in possession of a pen knife and experience in resuscitation, who is not (obviously) a climate change sceptic, so that the head and plant (if required) can be removed before it inevitably becomes fatal.
(Since an insufficient supply of oxygen for four minutes will result in brain damage, I can only assume that the people who perpetrate this nonsensical argument have actually tried this experiment, but in their desperation to prove their thesis have left their escape rather late.)
Complain about this comment
51. At 02:10am on 08 Dec 2009, Andy Post wrote:
You have a reference?
I searched the (Cornell's Annotated) Constitution, and I didn't see anything about this. In fact, the constitution clearly states that Congress has the specific right and responsibility to raise the Army and Navy, which infers that Congress is the entity that created the military. Why would they need a treaty with it?
Perhaps I should have pointed out that the Constitution is a treaty between the states - which is also the military point of view. The military oath, which I quoted above, is merely a verbalization of that which binds the military to the Constitution - just like the Oath of Allegiance. Because when one joins the military, even though one still has all the obligations of a citizen, those are left behind and superseded by one's military obligations.
The understanding is that the military accepts an elected civilian official as their Commander in Chief. Which serves two purposes, but with one caveat:
1) That the military accepts the lawful rule and passage of power via an elected government and will not ever mutiny or attempt to subvert the civilian authority.
2) The Commander in Chief, in accepting his role and his power agrees that he will never order the military to attack the nation or its people. And since the Constitution is considered the embodiment of the nation, attacking it is, in effect, attacking the people.
The caveat: As long the President keeps faith with the military and honors all his obligations under the "treaty" of the Constitution, the military will keep faith with him and support his decisions.
No, the military is completely controlled by the People. It does our bidding all of the time, Constitutional conventions included.
Yes, it is. But the founders were a lot more clever than you imagine. They didn't want another convention to ever take place, though they provided for its possibility to assuage the fears of states that were reluctant to ratify the treaty. So they provided for the possibility, knowing that the military would never allow it to happen. Because, if there is no Constitution - and at some point it must be suspended for a new constitution to take effect - then there is no nation and no government, and the duty of the military is to keep that nation/constitution/government safe.
Right or wrong, this is how the military views its obligations.
Do you really believe that the military threatened President Reagan?
As I heard it from someone who was in the room at the time, they didn't exactly threaten. More like explained their duties and his obligations in no uncertain terms. Do you really imagine they would willingly allow the Constitution to be undone after swearing allegiance to protect and defend it? As far as they are concerned there is only one Constitution. And that's all there ever will be.
Complain about this comment
At the weekend, while I was making snowmen with the children and examining the National Christmas tree (in other words doing Cunardesque wintry things)
But you didn't take any of my suggestions in hand but pose another question! Why not something about The National Christmas Tree - that would appear to contradict the separation of Church and State. Trafalgar Square not withstanding, a national Christmas Tree is not to be seen in Britain which, unlike the United States, has an Established Church.
it is still, to my British eyes, a curious sight to see how a party in a majority, which has just won a presidential election has to kowtow to the losers.
No whip system in either house; no member of Congress is obliged to vote the party line. A frustrating lesson, but one to be remembered.
#47. Gavrielle_LaPoste: "if you hold a second constitutional convention, at the instant the delegates convene, the original constitution ceases to be in effect"
Now just how do you come to that conclusion? The fact that delegates convene to discuss or debate the matter cannot mean that the Constitution is in abeyance. You'll have to post some definitive links to verify your statement. A few weeks ago you were an authority on the entertainment industry, now you're a constitutional lawyer; which is it to be? Or are you more than one person posing as an individual?
Complain about this comment
54. At 04:18am on 08 Dec 2009, David Cunard wrote:
Now just how do you come to that conclusion? The fact that delegates convene to discuss or debate the matter cannot mean that the Constitution is in abeyance. You'll have to post some definitive links to verify your statement.
See above.
A few weeks ago you were an authority on the entertainment industry, now you're a constitutional lawyer; which is it to be? Or are you more than one person posing as an individual?
No. Just one person who is very widely read and disgustingly well educated - to the point of being one of those elitist intellectuals everyone so despises. The last book I read was, Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonia Army. I highly recommend the section that discusses the use of mules versus camels on the Bactrian march.
And I never said I was an expert on the entertainment industry, nor did I say I was an expert on the constitution. If my tone makes you feel that I have some expertise in these areas, then thank you for the lovely compliment.
Complain about this comment
The best government is the least government. I would suggest that almost any legislation the Senate (or House for that matter) thwarts is a good thing. A stalemate is the best possible outcome. Government has become bloated and a standstill is much more preferable to "progressive" movement, which only means higher taxes. Steven's presumption that the Senate only thwarts decent legislation is infantile.
Complain about this comment
47:
Sorry, Gavrielle_LaPoste, the Army and other branches of the armed forces do not have the legal capacity to do such a thing. They exist at the will of Congress which could instantly cease all funding if such a move on the government was to ever happen.
It is also a well know fact that both amendments and new constitutions require state ratification before they become law; many states already have plenty experience with this given the number of times new state constitutions have been written and approved by state voters.
You might also remember a historical precedent when George Washington commanded his riotous and unpaid army to refrain from marching on Congress in Philadelphia.
No, the Army, the Navy, the Air force, and the Marines would never pull such a stunt because it would violate their oaths to the President and Congress. But given the Civil War period history of what is now the National Guard, it is possible to conceive of future secessionist governors commanding their army of the state of____________, but it is extremely remote and unlikely to accomplish much of anything, with all due respect to the Guard of course.
Complain about this comment
BTW,
Dec. 7 is the date of the declaration of war on Austria-Hungary by the USA in 1917,
Dec. 7 is the day Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan in 1941,
Dec. 7 is the day that Niagara Falls was first written about by an explorer in the 1600s (can't remember exact year or century but about that time-1600s)
And today is Dec. 7, the day of the Copenhagen summit for Climate Change.
That is interesting, but whether it means anything I do not know.:)
Complain about this comment
Ref 47 Gavrielle_LaPoste-
"Now, for those who don't know, when you have a Constitutional Convention, rather than just amending the constitution and tweaking it as the US has done numerous times, not just one item is subject to change, but the whole darn thing."
Per Article V of the United States Constitution:
A Constitutional Convention can be called by 2/3rds of state legislatures to propose one or more amendments to the Constitution. These proposals are then sent to all state legislatures and must be approved by 3/4ths of state legislatures, or conventions, to become amendment(s) to the Constitution of the United States of America.
The Constitution remains in effect during this process. The purpose of a Constitutional Convention called by the state legislatures is only to add amendments to the current Constitution. It does not, in any way, suspend the Constitution.
This procedure for amending the Constitution has never been used in the history of the United States. The actual process of getting 2/3rds of the state legislatures to call for a Convention has never been successfully developed. Getting 33 state legislatures to call for a Convention would be a challenge all its own.
Complain about this comment
I find Mr. Hill's arguments against the Senate unconvincing, for reasons that other pro-Senate posters have already stated. The Senate doesn't always do right, but I think it prevents a lot of wrong.
If the Senate, or some other body that allows small states to make their wishes felt, didn't exist, I think there would be a lot more civil strife - why would a low-population state want to stay in a federation that it felt was only serving populous states?
17: It's "had" a tax-free weekend for gun sales, actually. It's over.
Complain about this comment
57. At 05:05am on 08 Dec 2009, BienvenueEnLouisiana wrote:
the Army and other branches of the armed forces do not have the legal capacity to do such a thing. They exist at the will of Congress which could instantly cease all funding if such a move on the government was to ever happen.
No one said insurrection was legal. See post 53. And do you imagine that the military would actually cease to exist if Congress was dumb enough to order such a thing? They wouldn't obey because their first duty is to protect the country! How can the country be protected without a military? It can't be. Catch-22. Get it?
You might also remember a historical precedent when George Washington commanded his riotous and unpaid army to refrain from marching on Congress in Philadelphia.
Yeah, but our current crop of politicians are not Washingtons. And you couldn't find a general today who'd agree to have his pay stopped just because Congress said so. In fact, you'd provoke the military and make them angrier than they already were at the loss of the constitution and then they'd do what they wanted - without pay - and with no constraints. What would be the point of making a starving mob of armed killers? And that's just the rank and file. At best you'd have destroyed your military, at worst you'd have destroyed your country and all of its potential.
No, the Army, the Navy, the Air force, and the Marines would never pull such a stunt because it would violate their oaths to the President and Congress.
No, the President would already have violated his oath, making theirs null and void. See post 53.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Mardell,
My brother and his wife lived in DC for years (17)--until quite recently--and we visited them about 4 or 5 times.
There is Delaware with a great shoreline, in New Jersey/Maryland border there are the Chicoteaque Islands where wild ponies live (they are actually tame ...because of all the humans who come there) for the kids.
There is Harper's Ferry, Winchester (historical stuff), and Chesapeake Bay which is neat for spotting submarines.
In Virginia, there are the 2 battles of Bull Run (both with walking tours),
There is on the border of Pennsylvania and Delaware, a museum in Pennsylvania of the Wyath Brothers--all painters--grandfather, father and son. (Andrew is one of them)
And there is a place called Longwood Gardens which some rich man--Dupont--built years ago that is very neat and unusual.
So, when they say get out of the Beltway they may mean there are places nearby for your family to visit.
Last, and best, I liked Philadelphia alot, with it's history. They have these tours on a "trolley car" (bus) there with a colorful guide. :)
Complain about this comment
@ publiusdetroit
See post 53.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
That E Sharp article is well...they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. In their attempt to editorialize, they have run roughshod over a few convenient facts.
First - the Senate was NOT struck as a bargain to keep slave owning states in the Union. It was in fact somewhat the other way around - at the time, Virginia was the most populous state, and most influential, even more so than Pennsylvania - and of course, Virginia demanded a population based system, also including slaves in the census, further increasing their clout. The smaller states like Rhode Island and Massechusetts demanded a representation system based on equality, with slaves NOT counting towards the clout in case the system went towards population. There was a deadlock between these two camps, and as a loose confederacy had not worked well, they needed a system. Thus, the compromise system that is surprisingly fair in the long run thought - the House was to be based on population, elected by people. The Senators, however, are a more tricky matter, which brings us to
Second - the Senators were originally elected by their state legislators to represent the interests of the state before the federal government, as the states were still then thought of as governments in themselves - the senators being akin to ambassadors of sorts.
The WHOLE POINT of the Senate was that it'd be a break on things moving too fast. Furthermore, the Supreme Court judges are SUPPOSED to rule by law instead of making law - this oftentimes requires, if a monumental change is to happen in society, overwhelming majority - pretty much near unanimity. Amendments to the Constitution are supposed to be hard to induce - this in opposition to a leader or a legislative body running roughshod over their populations, as happens in the European Union countries. They make the Senate look like Athenian democracy in its ability to affect change from the 'significant hivemind' course already set on. Its sickening that the article basically advocating for us to go play by rules more akin "African Politics", simply to fit some agenda of a bunch of social engineers anyways.
Complain about this comment
The founding fathers were afraid of nothing so much as the popular mob. Their immediate concern, however, was how to balance the interests of the states, large and small, wealthy and poor, agricultural and mercantile, slaveholding and free, coastal and it was expected, western.
The problem with the Articles of Confederation was that none of the states could survive or prosper alone, but there was no framework to keep them in a peaceful, cooperative relationship (trade and tarifs, coinage, contract law, monetary policy, extradition, all the usual petty issues between jurisdictions). Each state's interests, or at least the interests of the property holders, had to be protected from abuse by the populous states' power if Congress was elected solely by population. Meanwhile populous, powerful states feared their interests would be abused by coalitions of small states if every state had equal representation.
So, as has been said, the Senate as formed as a second legislative and consultative body, with equal representation from each state; no legislation could become law without the approval of both houses. The second issue was how long each body of the government would sit. The House of Representatives, representing the population, was given a short term so that popular interests that could change quickly (think economic upheavals), could be promptly reflected in the legislature. The Senate, representing the interests of the states and originally elected by the state assemblies, was given a longer term to provide stability and prevent abuse of established interests (the wealthy) by the transitory will of the mob.
To further enhance the stability of the government two senators represented each state, to be elected separately so no state's interests could be overturned in any one election. Each senator's term was set at six years so that no more than a third of the body could be changed at one time, while the whole of the house stood for election at each national election.
When these new Americans considered their own system of parliamentary representation, many of them openly admired the British system of the day, desiring only to loose the hereditary monarch, and to increase the suffrage to all property holders or electors as each state defined them. So the senate still provides stability and represents the large propertied interests just as did the House of Lords until recently.
KScurmudgeon
Now as far as democracy and oligarchy are concerned, Thucydides has much to say.....
Complain about this comment
58. David:
Turner Prize day, too.
Complain about this comment
#55. Gavrielle_LaPoste: "See above."
No links whatsoever - and hearing from "someone in the room" is hardly an authoritative version of events concerning President Reagan.
"If my tone makes you feel that I have some expertise in these areas . . ."
On the contrary, it makes you appear to be a jill-of-all-trades. mistress of none.
Complain about this comment
Saying the US should abolish the Senate is like telling the EU they should abolish the European Council.
The United States of America are a union of states (obviously).
Thus, all states need equal representation in some form (in our case, this is the upper house of the legislature). States are entities with residual powers. In fact, all states maintain their own armies and militias individually from the federal government. In the case of state militias, they answer only to the state governor, not the President of the USA.
The reasoning for the Civil War, for example, is that since sovereignty is ultimately derived from the People, both the state and federal governments are equally sovereign, therefore, the only way to settle their dispute was through war. (Okay, that isn't the only way to settle a dispute, but the southern state governments weren't in the mood to talk it out with the federal government)
Equal sovereignty is still practiced today. In California, only federal officials prosecute people who use medical marijuana because state officials are bound by state law.
People need to realize that the US is not a country the same way France is a coutry. The US is what the EU might be in the future if it chooses to become a federal entity.
Complain about this comment
Ref 63 Gavrielle_LaPoste-
The Constitution of the United States of America is a body of established laws ratified by the individual States for the creation of a central government. A treaty is an agreement made by negotiation or diplomacy between two or more states, or governments. One can argue that the Constitution is a treaty because it came about through negotiation and diplomacy. That was basically the argument posed by the South in justification for the War for States Rights; or Civil War, if you please.
The Constitution goes beyond being a pact, or contract, by establishing a body of laws to form "a more perfect union" made up of those States who chose to become part of a whole, unite state.
The Articles of Confederation would be a better example of a treaty. In these Articles the Colonies agreed to ban together by way of a pact, to their mutual and individual advantage, for the purpose of revolting against the British government. The Articles of Confederation administered by the Continental Congress did not include a body of laws to be upheld by each of the Colonies; only a set of agreements. The Colonies intended for the pact to be dissolved once the British Government was defeated. Each Colony would become an independent state without allegiance, nor subject to a single body of law.
I am interested in your concept of the role our military plays in supporting the Constitution. You noted in Post #53, "The understanding is that the military accepts an elected civilian official as their Commander in Chief." Where does this "understanding" originate?
I have been looking for a charter, or some other document that defines this "understanding". If you could please direct me to source, I would be most appreciative.
Complain about this comment
I fully expect industry to challenge EPA in court. It is a fact that CO2 is a natural constituent of the atmosphere. There is not one shred of evidence to directly link the death, injury, or illness of even one American ever to the normal emission of CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels. There is however grave risk in the practice some environmentalists advocate related to carbon sequestration, that is the practice of capturing and storing CO2 in geological formations. Should such high concentrations of CO2 ever escape their containment, it would instantly asphyxiate everyone in the vacinity. That is how thousands of Africans in a village near a lake were believed to have suddenly and mysteriously died, escapement of large quantities of CO2 trapped under the lake that suddenly escaped. Also of threat to the health and well being of Americans is the number of jobs that will be lost when the EPA goes on the rampage exercising its new found power. When the Republicans recapture the White House as is lookig increasingly possible for 2012, reversing this absurdity will be among the next President's first actions...if it survives that long.
Complain about this comment
We're reading an awful lot about how and why the Senate was set up; especially about how its members are supposed to represent their states or the populations of them. But from the same people, surely, who have filled these pages telling us that they are actually more likely to 'represent' 'big pharma' or 'the defence industry' or 'big coal' or who/whatever contributes to their campaign coffers and who say therefore the system's broken.
I'm a bit confused.
Isn't it terribly wasteful for one elected body to take months to produce a Bill that is a messy compromise; meanwhile for another to do the same, and then spend a tedious amount of time trying to patch the two together so it'll be an even worse compromise? Or face the possibility of just one or two people blocking it altogether?
And isn't it rather odd that the only solution to this kind of paralysis or stalling is for a President to exercise a kind of 'Royal Prerogative' that in constitutional monarchies has long been done away with?
Surely, at the very least, the US needs to reform its political parties. What's the point in having 'Republicans' who are more 'Democrat' than some Democrats, or vice versa? The labels increasingly seem to mean nothing.
Surely, effective lawmaking for a country of 350 million people can either be done only if those elected can be assumed to vote purely as individuals whose opinions are known to the electorate; or if they can be trusted to broadly conform to an agreed set of principles; or represent the majority wishes of their electorate. Not a legislature composed of people who pick and choose between all three unpredictably, seemingly at a whim.
Complain about this comment
Anyway, since it appears that the US Environment Agency is incapable of ensuring that a fifth of the country' water supply is safe to drink it doesn't look as though it's likely to be very effective at reducing carbon emissions.
Complain about this comment
I agree conpletley that the American Political System,which makes change painfully slow desperatly needs to be overhauled.However,just as importantly ,so does the Party System.At the last Presidential Election Americans voted for much-needed Healthcare reform but this has been frustrated by a handful of Democrats in Congress who refuse to support their own Party's agenda.Could one imagine a major plank of any other democratic ruling party's policy being blocked in this way ?.America's Party System needs to be realigned to reflect the Left-Right axis that is normal in a democracy rather than the intersts of powerful lobbying groups.
Complain about this comment
Undemocratic as the Senate might seem, it is also meant to prevent the "tyranny of the majority" - in other words, to ensure that minorities, including in this case the Republican Party, have a forum in which not only may they be heard but in which they can take action. It might be well to recall that the Democratic minority during the last Administration also used the threat of filibuster to mitigate some of the policies that Democrats felt to be unwise at the time.
Complain about this comment
Actually, maybe (regarding political overhaul),
We've been sleepwalking during the past 20 years or so, letting our government do just about anything. And now people are waking up to the fact that Conservatism is not "the perfect solution" for any problem.
And these Conservatives stripped of power are outraged (probably at their predicament) and are enraged about their loss of power. "How dare the people do what Conservatives dislike. How dare they?"
So, the perspective is off somewhat for the average person. The Status Quo equaling "Capitalism=good, Socialism=bad" is not an absolute universal truth. And people are waking up to this reality Again.
Remember, we outspent the Soviets on military matters, because Capitalism made us more money than did their Socialism.
But, did that prove anything profound? Probably Not. We were enemies and that means hatred, not scientific proof, perhaps. America had rich friends to borrow from and the Soviets did not. We were so impressed with ourselves and Now,
an old fashioned New Deal idea was done and people distrust it completely (also they distrust this big new debt to China--rationally).
But, if Obama's idea for a stimulus works, its like "the World Turned Upside Down" or maybe "Socialist ideas working means the Devil is back! Oh nooo!" ("Scream of Terror.")
Complain about this comment
Marc:
Two Question:
1. did you feel this way when the situation was the opposite and the Dems were notorious in abusing advice and consent especially Barbara Boxer she who refuses to investigate climate gate?
2. Would you prefer a situation like Bolivia where the voters whose canidate won gives them special privlidges and put the burden of paying for it and treats them as second class citizens on the losers?
Complain about this comment
I am guessing that the Senate worked quite well when it was designed and I am not going to measure its relative merits against say the British two tiered model, but I am slightly confused by the idea that because it worked two hundred years ago means that it does not need overhauling now. The world has changed drastically since the late 1700’s and what were acceptable timescales for reviewing and passing legislation then surely cannot be acceptable in today’s environment.
Technology means that the world is moving faster than the legislation designed to protect the people. Obviously this is not an issue limited to only the US, the UK government also takes too long. But it should be noted how the two British Houses work has changed since 1800 though, the balance of power shifting from the Lords to the Commons, though the Commons are normally still lead by a lord as technically there is no such thing as a Prime Minister.
Nero – Good to see you back! Sequestration of CO2 would not be done in geologically unstable areas such as Lake Nyos, the whole idea being that the CO2 remains trapped after all and not in the atmosphere. Also like the little bit of paradox natural levels of CO2 are safe except when they are not!
Complain about this comment
Good luck to you all your political system seems like it needs a bit of adjustment, but then so do most of them. Life is flux, what is wrong is rejecting other ideas without looking at them carefully first. I hope you get your healthcare, reform I hope it's not like the UK NHS which is too bureaucratic for words. Have a close look at France theirs works well.
Re an earlier post by MA11 the fact that China is now a bigger CO2 emitter than the US is a pathetic red herring, shame on you for an engineer. In case you hadn't noticed there are some 1.15bn (over 4 times as many) more Chinese than there are citizens of the US and the US per capita productionc of CO2 is appalling. The wasteful lifestyle exemplified by badly engineered fuel hungry motor vehicles, inefficient coal burning power generation etc are the problem. The EU you love to hate so much has a population of 460 million persons is as technologically advanced as the US but only produces 15% of the annual world CO2 output as against 28% for the USA. Europe will meet it's CO2 emission targets and we hope that now there is a more sensible proactive approach from Washington the same will apply from the US.
There is one thing that puzzles me. Why is it that a nation that started from a basis of protestant frugalism where waste was not just frowned upon but treated harshly has become so wasteful and what is wrong with using less raw materials and being economical. Why has waste and greed become so fashionable in the eyes of many Americans?
Complain about this comment
Ref 76, Magic
"2. Would you prefer a situation like Bolivia where the voters whose canidate won gives them special privlidges and put the burden of paying for it and treats them as second class citizens on the losers?"
The debate is not about cultural and political comparisons between life in the USA and life in impoverished countries like Bolivia, but about the effectiveness of Congress and the need of legislation to mitigate the effects of carbon dioxide and other pollutants on our population and our planet.
You seem fixated on the behavior and alleged abuses of poor people against the elite in countries that until recently were governed the way feudal states were in the Middle Ages. The elite in Latin America are anything but treated as second class citizens, they enjoy all the luxuries that money can afford while the masses barely have enough to subsist.
Spend a little time living in those countries that you constantly malign, visit the shanty towns where thousands of people live alongside domestic animals chewing coca leaves to kill hunger pains, then take a look at the mansion in exclusive gated communities where the "second class" citizens live and then come back and tell us about the injustices being perpetrated against those that have abused their fellow man for centuries to enrich themselves and control all facets of life in their countries.
Ignorance is bliss, ignoring or twisting reality to make a political point in inhumane.
Complain about this comment
SaintDominick wrote:
Ref 76, Magic
"2. Would you prefer a situation like Bolivia where the voters whose canidate won gives them special privlidges and put the burden of paying for it and treats them as second class citizens on the losers?"
The debate is not about cultural and political comparisons between life in the USA and life in impoverished countries like Bolivia, but about the effectiveness of Congress and the need of legislation to mitigate the effects of carbon dioxide and other pollutants on our population and our planet.
You seem fixated on the behavior and alleged abuses of poor people against the elite in countries that until recently were governed the way feudal states were in the Middle Ages. The elite in Latin America are anything but treated as second class citizens, they enjoy all the luxuries that money can afford while the masses barely have enough to subsist.
____________________
I was responding to comparing the U.S Senate to the House of Lords and the rights of the minorties parties in the goverment.
As far as the EPA this is going to be stuck in courts for years especially as they are basing on the climategate research.
You seem to be fine when an ethnic group which is white European or wealthy is victimized. Morales says he will allow special privlidges to his ethnic group in self goverment why not the one who are not? he al least is legimatly elected, but Chavez steal other peoples property and you seem to be fine with that.
Complain about this comment
# 29 chronophobe wrote:
"Much like the House of Lords, our Senate serves an ornamental function: a place where political hacks go to their earthly reward, spending the twilight of their careers engaging in serious but largely meaningless self importance. Hmm, reminds me of internet blogs. But I digress."
I genuinely laughed out loud.
Ironically, this has to my mind been one of the more interesting and informative debates here - with the obvious exception of some of The Usual Suspects. [The type who think they're Roman emperors...or the type who think they're magic, but can't spell...]
Complain about this comment
#81 John_From_Dublin
Thank you. You have a genuine talent for expressing things in an amusing but pointed fashion. Long may it continue.
Complain about this comment
Ref 80, Magic
"You seem to be fine when an ethnic group which is white European or wealthy is victimized. Morales says he will allow special privlidges to his ethnic group in self goverment why not the one who are not? he al least is legimatly elected, but Chavez steal other peoples property and you seem to be fine with that."
There you go again. Morales is proposing a level of political autonomy to the indigenous population of his country that is consistent with the aspirations of the majority of the population. Morales, the only 100% Native American President in the Americas, understands better than any of us what it is like to be an ethnic minority in the New World and is trying to correct the wrongs that have been perpetrated against the indigenous population since Cortez, Pizarro and other set foot in the "Indies".
Appropiating some of the land of those that stole it from the original owners may be unacceptable to people that see such policy as a dangerous precedent that could be easily applied in other parts of the world for similar reasons, but to people that evaluate policy on the basis of morality and human rights there is definitely nothing wrong with sharing the resources that Nature made available to all living things with our fellow man. Particularly, when it involves returning property that was illegally seized to the descendents of the former owners.
You may see nothing wrong with white Europeans conquering lands, stealing the gold and possessions of the indigenous population, and appropiating the lands where they lived, but I do. I think it is important to point out that most of the land that is being taken away from the feudal lords that currently own it is not being cultivated or used for any productive purposes.
Hugo Chavez is not my favorite foreign leader, but he was elected and re-elected by an overwhelming majority of his people and enjoys the support of most Venezuelans. His policies are unacceptable to us because they affect our interests in the region and our ability to pay a pittance in royalties for the natural resources we extract from other countries, process them, and then sell them at huge profits. Obviously, many are offended by the audacity of a man of mixed blood (Native American, black and Spanish) insulting our President and denigrating our government. Chavez's childish rhetoric and behavior are unbecoming of a national leader, but it appeals to his people and, in the end, that is all that counts. He is not running for President of the USA, he is the President of Venezuela and, understandably, his priorities and policies are designed to benefit the majority of his people not us or the tiny minority that did our dirty work in the past.
In the interim, why don't you focus on the topic at hand and let others worry about their own internal problems and goals? Heavens knows we have enough problems of our own to worry about someone else's, or do you think a few more invasions, and the business and job opportunities that go with them, may help solve our economic problems? Halliburton and Blackwater USA would love it...
Complain about this comment
The EPA and environmental issues goes back to another thing with what's wrong with our government.There are plenty of laws and departments for things such as FDA,Immigration,Environment,Child and Slave labor laws,and garbage poison products from Foreign nation,etc.....Both on a federal and state level but if the Congress and Executive office don't fund or man these departments and enforces laws already written then they are useless.Which both state and federal government usually underfund.We would all be better of if they enforce our laws.
Complain about this comment
I don't understand why foreign news and people care if we have health care or not or how our government works or not understanding why our states should have representation or some rights.If the people want health care bad enough than bill after bill will be introduced untill it's finally passed and people will vote for elected officials who will deliver.The reason why some state haven't offered health care to it own population is because they get watered down by federal regulations and courts.Our system of government ensures that if a issue is important than it will pass with time in government and that we don't get sloppy laws and regulations.Things are never a simple as that guy make out our senate to be or our government.And why can't to be loyal to your state(whether born into it or move to it) and federal government.People love both their parents and all their children why is it you can't be proud of your state and federal ties.Our federal government is slow even compared to state governments but they are responsible for many people,cultures,and issues.I would rather have a slow effective government than a fast one passing stupid laws.However I think this guy missed the point that our political parties are bogged down by rich corporate lackys who right now have been doing more for businesses than the people they represent.
Complain about this comment
Magic, after pondering about your propensity to link every topic to indigenous leaders in Latin America and the perennial Palestinian evils I decided to suggest a change to the decor in your abode. Why don't you have a plaque engraved with a modified version of Gen Sheridan's famous "The only good Indians I ever saw were dead" and inserting Palestinians to make it more timely and more in line with the innuendo of your final solutions?
Complain about this comment
The problem isn't our system of government but political parties,who are by all means also a business collecting money and selling a product which is a person for office.They don't even follow their own platforms because then they would have less members and people to run for office.That is the problem most of the people in the GOP or DEM party don't actually belong to those parties based on their own ideas but they use them to get into politics and by using them they either don't follow their own principles or the parties.
Complain about this comment
The business of government is business. As we have all seen with banking and financial services, they are above the law and have elected officials in their pockets to do their bidding. The influence of big business in government has had a major corrupting influence and balance needs to be restored. Governments have not wanted information on the helath impacts of coal and oil. Although we have seen the elimination of lead from gasoline because of health impacts, smog alerts, fly ash disposal, etc. the larger impact on populations has not been investigated. If coal and oil were priced to reflect the true costs on society the prices would spur alternatives but because of the political influence they have the price is kept artificially low. Honesty has no home in politics. The greater issue for government is that the people no longer believe or thrust the government to represent them and feel that big business and banking can enhance their profits through legislation at the expense of the people. What started over 200 years ago is now a shell of its beginning and has become a cesspool of influence buying and corruption.
Complain about this comment
ref #83
You seem to miss the point Marc and the reviewer were comparing the Senate to the House of Lords. I was pointing out that unlike the House of Lord the Senate provides some benefit to the country.
Regarding Morales and Chavez and favortism and stealing the requivilents in the U.S would for Obama to cut blue state taxes 50% and raise red states 50%.
I am merley pointing the check and balances were designed in part to prevent autocrats like those in Venezuela and Bolivia and were used sucessfully to prevent another dictator from taking power.
Complain about this comment
Spanners71 claimed, "I never understood why the Senate should be two members per State regardless of its population. You either believe in one person, one vote or you don't."
It is not the end of government to give everyone an equal vote; rather, it is to protect the rights of its citizens. How you exactly arrange the various powers and groups of society to that end is a practical matter. This is to say, the formers of the American constitution did not, nor should they have, believed in one person one vote, unless it best matched this end; which, by the by, it does not. The senate serves as a check against the momentary majority.
Complain about this comment
U-Boat;
"Re an earlier post by MA11 the fact that China is now a bigger CO2 emitter than the US is a pathetic red herring, shame on you for an engineer. In case you hadn't noticed there are some 1.15bn (over 4 times as many) more Chinese than there are citizens of the US and the US per capita productionc of CO2 is appalling. The wasteful lifestyle exemplified by badly engineered fuel hungry motor vehicles, inefficient coal burning power generation etc are the problem. The EU you love to hate so much has a population of 460 million persons is as technologically advanced as the US but only produces 15% of the annual world CO2 output as against 28% for the USA. Europe will meet it's CO2 emission targets and we hope that now there is a more sensible proactive approach from Washington the same will apply from the US."
I love torpedoing your arguments and sending them to Davey Jones' locker where they belong but this excrement keeps getting thrown out and floats back to the top.
To hear people like you tell it, each person in the world has a "right" to produce a certain amount of CO2, as much right as anyone else and each person therfore should be limited to that alottment. Countries should be allowed CO2 emissions on a per capita basis. That argument is pure trash. Engineers and the managers in private idustry they answer to make evaluations and decisions based on a cost benefit analysis, that is they look at what is desired and obtained output versus what it costs in terms of sacrifice. The benefit is wealth, GDP while the cost is CO2, a supposedly greenhouse gas. It is hard to compare economies but many economists agree that the US economy is about 4 times the size of China's. So the US economy is four times as efficient at producing wealth per unit CO2 evolved as China is. What is more with around 1/4 as many people, each American is about 16 times as efficient at producing a unit of wealth per unit of CO2 as the average Chinese. Yet it is the Americans who would be penalized, by many so called environmental schemes to a far greater degree than China. Of course the problem is far more complicated than the simple reduction to numbers most simple minded people would like to make it even when more elaborate and revealing calculations are made. There are many considerations such as a country's geographical distribution of people, what has to be moved in an economy, how far, what the climate is, and what the specific nature of the economy is. Also what resources and options are available to support that economy. If the US had 100 times as much hydroelectric power capacity possible, it would have a zero carbon footprint. But it doesn't, it has lots of coal, natural gas, and uranium.
One consequence of cutbacks to CO2 output the world would feel is the consequence of the US being not only the world's largest economy but the world's most consuming economy and the number one net importer. It's economy is based 2/3 on private consumption. Therefore a slowdown in the US economy will impact every other economy in the world. One way to slow it down is to tax it...by either an energy tax or a carbon cap and trade tax. Fortunately the United States Senate, the world's greatest deliberative body will debate this issue extensively and in all probability reject any rediculous committments President Obama makes at Copenhagen just the way it rejected Kyoto. (those who don't understand the role of the United States Senate would do well to study American history and why it was created the way it was. It plays a vital role in the exercise of American democracy. It should not and will not change.) But even President Obama is smart enough to know that there is far more to CO2 emissions than just numbers. For example, he has already said agriculture will be exempt from the carbon cap and trade tax system. That is not only because agriculture is America's number one export industry, and because it is a lot easier for farmers to sell their carbon credits to power companies and get a desk job in the city than to work their farms but should America's agriculture decline substantially, much of the world that depends on its bounty to survive would face starvation and death from famine.
The EU produces 22 percent of the world's CO2 according to Wikipedia and it is for the most part on target to fail its Kyoto committments by a vast margin. As of 2004 the EU 15 reduced carbon emissions by 2.6% compared to 8% committed relative to 1990 levels. Among the most egregious violators of the committments were Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Greece. Much of the data even for those who seem to have done well is suspect because it was shown that original CO2 output estimates for many European countries were wildly exaggerated to show greater reductions later on and to cheat on the cap and trade system in what has been admitted to be a clearcut case of widespread fraud. Meanwhile among the non obligated nations as of 2004 the US output has increased 20% (gone down since 2004 due to recession and green energy projects) China up 150% (continues bringing on two new coal fired power plants a week) and India up 103%.
"The wasteful lifestyle exemplified by badly engineered fuel hungry motor vehicles..."
Yes just like the top echelon leaders of the EU as was revealed about 3 years ago. When confronted with this fact they said it was their own private affair and that Europeans should do as they said, not as they did themselves. Who are these upstart Americans to think they have a right to live the same eco-unfriendly lifestyle as the new European aristocricy who run the European Union anyway? Don't they know they are colonial peons who are supposed to grovel and live in the stone age like the "developing world" does? Why should Americans live better than peasants in India or China let alone better than the average European? All the more reason for Americans to detest Europe and reject what they say, in fact to not even listen to them. And in my view that for the most part is exactly what most Americans do.
Complain about this comment
Ref 89, Magic
"You seem to miss the point Marc and the reviewer were comparing the Senate to the House of Lords. I was pointing out that unlike the House of Lord the Senate provides some benefit to the country."
You are right, I am definitely missing whatever point you tried to make when you made the statement below to compare the U.S. Senate to the House of Lords. I'll attribute my lack of understanding to age and leave it at that. In the interim, why don't you read your original posting (shown below) and reflect on it.
"Would you prefer a situation like Bolivia where the voters whose canidate won gives them special privlidges and put the burden of paying for it and treats them as second class citizens on the losers?"
Complain about this comment
While I think it always necessary for us as a nation to listen to our friends' constructive criticisms of us and take their advice on not only domestic issues, but especially on international affairs whenever possible, nevertheless, I also expect our international friends making the criticism to be well informed about the topics of which they criticise us on and aware of the mood of the nation when they choose to make their criticisms known, and these, I feel, were severely lacking, to put it nicely, from Steven Hill's article.
Right down to why the Senate was created in the first place. Yes it was created, in part, to apeas the secessionests from killing the hopes of a fledgling nation. But it was largely created because its founders thought it crucial for that new republic to have a bicameral legislative branch of government made up of two houses. One based on perportional representation, and one based on state-wide representation. All major successfull democracies have this type of legislative branch of government. The only difference is in parlamentary systems the Executive and Legsilative branches are somewhat fused together, because the majority party chooses a leader who in many respects is the face of that nation to the outside world.
Keep in mind, that this is in no way meant to look down my nose at those "damned Europeans" who "have no idea what American life is like." Its merely intended to give this criticism a more fair and balanced rebuttle. While I didn't particularly care too much for Mr. Hill's sniffy sarcastic reference to the fact that "In the 1960s, the Supreme Court established the radical groundbreaking principle of majority rule based on "one person, one vote," meaning that all legislative jurisdictions must be equal in population," (it wasn't "radical" nor "ground braking"; democracies going all the way back to Athens in Greece opporated on this principle, nevertheless I feel this is the strongest argument for Senate reform put forth in the article. It is a well known fact that the Democrats are too welcoming and lack a strong back bone, while the Republicans are too rigid, unyielding and uncompromising. And in this sense the Democrats do in fact need to learn to recognize when the Republicans will not come on board with a piece of legislation and move forward on it regardless. As regards that "arcane" filibuster that "takes us out of the fryer and into the frying pan," when it was created it was not intended by our founders to be used nearly as often as it is. As others have already said on here, the Senate was deliberately created to be slow so as to avoid any hasty implemented decisions. But if our founders could have forseen that the filibuster would be used as often as it is today, I highly doubt that they would have introduced it. So perhaps it would be a good idea to do away with it, or at the very least change the rules of the Senate to make things move faster.
Mr. Hill's point about the Senate largely being comprised of white, over 50 males and how that is in no way representative of the population of the US is also well made, and I believe should be rectifyed. But the Senate is not our "House of Lords" as the title of the article suggests, because all 100 of them are elected (something which, I should point out, is still not done in the House of Lords to this day.) And yes it is not perportionally representative of the population of the United States, but that is because it wasn't designed that way. That is the House of Representatives job. The Senate's job is to represent the individual states to the federal government, while the House's is to represent the American people.
So does this mean that we can now justly criticise how Europe runs?
Complain about this comment
So I was interested to come across this article from Brussels' main political magazine, E! Sharp, arguing that the Senate almost exists to thwart decent legislation, from anti-slavery laws onwards, and that it is high time it is reformed. What do you think?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sacred cows roaming freely in india...99.9% of these cows dont produce milk,they become burden to their owners, so they set them free ..these cows then roam in the streets nonchalantely, grazing this and that,creating traffic hazards, but no one can do anything to these out of function cows as they have a holy status..same goes for the american senate..
Complain about this comment
Connecticut might have 3.5 million people while California has 34 million --
but if you just move the decimal point over a space, then Connecticut wins!
Besides, what does California know about Carbon Dioxide? Just because the Los Angeles basin has a slightly greenish-brown atmosphere...
BTW: I was in LA during the rolling black-outs in the late 90's. Because the price of energy had increased, plants could pay off the pollution fines and still make a profit. Coal ashes were floating down over Pasadena like summer snow.
--------
You know, Senators of small states won't vote to lose power and Parties won't split if it means dividing and weakening their influence.
BUT - if there are folks up there who make serious effort to fairly represent the people... I figure the system still works. If.
Complain about this comment
But Dominick, Majik would also argue that the Zionists are only reclaiming land stolen from their ancestors....inconsistency doesn't bother him. It's different for Savages...
Complain about this comment
Democracy is the most unsuitable system as proven by socrates who was killed because he rejected or questioned it. And ever since then, the democracy mafia has killed everyone who rejects it as the only universal system of government..it has no qaulity , it relies on quantity, It is just like chinese goods, bad quality but in limitless quantity..
Complain about this comment
:
""Since the U.S. government's well-being is so vital to that of the world, why doesn't the U.N. take up monitoring of our elections the way they do in countries where more obvious coups happen?"
...and that violates our sovereignty. The U.S. Ambassador would be compelled to veto any such measure."
Andy would it not just give the USA more legitimacy when claiming to be the freest nation.
the most democratic nation etc.
How is it that it does not impinge upon the sovereignty of any other nations. but does the USA?
Why should THEY accept US if we wont obey by the same rules.
How about that Diabold .
22 Lucy.
not taking the rest of you post on but the
"Most Americans want to help the environment, but we have to be financially stable/secure before we can put any money into it. "
doesn't pass muster.
for 15 years the world tried to get america on board. to help to sign up to accept to even begin to discuss rationally not gherky wise. (ie like SO MANY americans that say it ain't happening,and not just yanks but there is still american influence there on that).
Nothign.
America didn't CARE when it could afford to do something. Now they want to say "we can't afford it" I'm with you a great shame. but there is little evidence to show that money is anything other than an excuse.
the whole world except america understands that there is more money to be made out of sorting the problems out than doing the same with declining industries.
the Smith in me knows that very well.
the Greeen Jobs went to China where the EPA regulations were worse than the USA and things could be got away with.
so now we have panals available (and did you all see they found they last longer than expected:) but from China.
We are behind.
we are bloody close to missing the boat.
"I like the USA's separation of powers system, because it protects one person or party from getting too powerful."
Until recently that is.
Where it protected Industry at the cost of american lives.
Hope not. good luck.
Complain about this comment
THE MILITARY AND THE CONSTITUTION
#47 Gavrielle_LaPoste, At 01:31am on 08 Dec 2009, wrote:
In the case of the military, they must "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic", obey the President, etc.
TRIATHLON REPLYS:
In Theory only does the military work for the people in fact that is the only place were it works for the people, it’s that little tricky item of all enemies domestic, that is the catch phrase, and it is the [MIC] Military Industrial Complex that makes the decision as to whom those enemies are. And the list is long and historic of the time the military has been used against the civilian population of the American-Israeli Empire, some of the instances;
1. Against the Mormons and the Mormons beat them.
2. The New York City Draft riots of the Civil War
3. The Chicago Haymarket Street Riots
4. Cleaning out Hoover Ville in Washington, D. C.
5. In School Integration in the Alabama
6. Kent State University
7. The Delta Force was involved at Waco.
The list is much longer, Gen. Chesty Puller, the Command Officer who was surrounded in the Chosin Reservoir in Korea, and said now we can shoot in any direction and kill the [children born outside of wedlock], once said that the Military was nothing more than enforces for the Government which was nothing more than the very large Mafia Organization, and would in his era have put the Mafia to shame.
The Senior Officers of the Military the military academy graduates the [Ring Thumpers] as all like John McCain multiple-generational decedents of other [Ring Thumpers] who become head of the board of the Corporation, the military then retire to board seats of corporations of companies that supply the weapons of war to the military it’s the [MIC].
The Constitution really looks good on paper and sounds good when it is being taught in any school outside the inner cities which stopped teaching and started baby sitting long ago, but the practical reality and truth is the [MIC] and its government owned puppets will use the military in a heartbeat against the citizens as enemies domestic, civilian riot control actions have been taught a long time in the military with various chemical agents a high point.
HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN
Complain about this comment
Democracy has been hijacked by capitalism...it should have been the other way..
Complain about this comment
ref #92
SaintDominick wrote:
Ref 89, Magic
"You seem to miss the point Marc and the reviewer were comparing the Senate to the House of Lords. I was pointing out that unlike the House of Lord the Senate provides some benefit to the country."
You are right, I am definitely missing whatever point you tried to make when you made the statement below to compare the U.S. Senate to the House of Lords. I'll attribute my lack of understanding to age and leave it at that. In the interim, why don't you read your original posting (shown below) and reflect on it.
"Would you prefer a situation like Bolivia where the voters whose canidate won gives them special privlidges and put the burden of paying for it and treats them as second class citizens on the losers?"
_______________
And I suggest you go to the main HYS page on the Bolivian election and you will see that my concerns are echoed by Bolivians that Morales doesn't seem to care about.
I stand by my analogy from ref 89 Regarding Morales and Chavez and favortism and stealing the requivilents in the U.S would for Obama to cut blue state taxes 50% and raise red states 50%.
Complain about this comment
It is sad when American government and the history behind its creation has to be explained not just to Europeans who know little or nothing about how the one true democracy in the world works but to Americans too. What do they teach in high school civics classes these days, Kumbaya, Kumbaya?
POL your explanation is so far from the facts it is truly discouraging. The problem the Constitutional convention faced was the fear among small states like Rhode Island and New Hampshire that they would be overwhelmed in a legislative branch based on proportional representation by the large states like New York and Virginia. The United States Senate was created to allay those concerns in what was called the grand compromise. In one House, the lower House, the House of Representatives each state would be representated in proportion to their population. To this end, the Constitution mandates that a census be conducted every ten years and the house membership reapportion the number seats for each state based on the results. In the Senate each state has two Senators and all states are therefore equal. Since both houses must agree to a bill before it is passed on to the President for signing, neither house is exclusively in control over what happens because it has no power over what happens in the other.
There are many other differences between America's more perfect union and European parliamentary systems, so many in fact that you could write entire books explaining those differences and what their practical consequences are.
POL, while you may not be looking down your nose at European governments and their advocates, I am. Their types of government and the philosophy behind them is unacceptable here. Yes democracy is a messy business. It was not meant to be neat, clean, or efficient, quite the opposite. When men set at each other with deliberately competing interests cannot come to common cause and understanding in their own self interest, the govenment is paralyzed. That is exactly what the founding fathers meant it to be because it is part of the bulwark against tyranny they built, the kind of tyranny that actually prevails in all of Europe to this day. Being polite about it so as not to offend Europeans does not change the facts of their case.
Complain about this comment
all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this constitution doesnt say, that all humans are equal, it just say that all men are created equal..something the founders of this consitution took from the bible..this is the main flaw in it,....and then ofcourse there was this slavery in usa..
Complain about this comment
PhillyMom;
"Besides, what does California know about Carbon Dioxide? Just because the Los Angeles basin has a slightly greenish-brown atmosphere..."
Carbon Dioxide is a colorless odorless gas that is a natural constituent of the atmosphere. Life on earth could not exist without it. It is not a polutant and unless present in concentrations far far higher than anything that the atmosphere will ever have, it is not a threat to human life or health, at least not directly. No American has ever died or been made ill by the carbon dioxide produced from the combustion of fossil fuels.
If California were to ban all electrical power produced by the burning of fossil fuels it could shut the entire state down in about 30 seconds. Much of California's electrical power comes from Wyoming where it is produced in coal burning power plants as Wyoming has an abundance of coal. There is no coceivable way California could begin to make up for the loss by building and installing wind turbines or other alternate energy generators even if they were all located in Sacramento right outside the state legislature's door or the governator's mansion. As it is, California is in grave jeopardy of having insuffient available electrical power for its needs a consequence of its enormous growth and lack of maintaining and extending its power generating and distribution infrastructure. This is all the more worrying since California is the state that has America's largest economy with one tenth of all Americans living and working there.
Complain about this comment
"You see, it is a little known fact that the United States government does not control the military per se, but has a treaty in perpetuity with the Armed Forces which obligates both parties to perform certain actions." (from post #47)
This may be the kookiest thing I have read in this forum yet!
Complain about this comment
TRIATHLON REPLYS:
Just love that mot juste, conversation-clinching one-liner, [until recently], but would disagree, unless recently has been Abe Lincoln created a central government that took away most of individual states rights, the whole thing has pretty much been down hill from that point. The government is more of inter-related generations of horse thieves.
But, ACTON, LORD: All power, as Briton's Lord Acton famously said, corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton once wrote that in a political system’s success lie the seeds of its eventual decline.
Me thinks Lord Action got it right, nothing lasts forever, and the seeds for this Empire’s decline were planted a long time ago.
HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN
Complain about this comment
Ref 89, Magic
"Regarding Morales and Chavez and favortism and stealing the requivilents in the U.S would for Obama to cut blue state taxes 50% and raise red states 50%."
Are you suggesting that Morales and Chavez are lowering taxes of people living in states such as Zulia and Tachira, and raising the taxes of those living in Sucre or Anzoategui states?
Trying to compare the redistribution of wealth that is taking place in some Latin American countries with "red" and "blue" state privileges in the USA is absurd. A more accurate analogy would be to suggest President Obama having the audacity to propose tax breaks for Native Americans and descendents of African slaves and proposing tax increases for billionaires and those in the top 2% income bracket in our society, or proposing the appropriation of unproductive land owned by wealthy landowners and giving it to Native Americans living below the poverty line.
Obviously, such proposals would be un-American and our current President, like his predecessors and successors, would never propose such a "socialist" approach to correct past wrongs...
Complain about this comment
"Surely, at the very least, the US needs to reform its political parties." (from squirrelist at #71)
No, in the United States, political parties are private associations of people excercizing their freedoms of speech, press, assembly, petition, and so forth. The right of the people to associate with others of their choosing for political purposes does not fall within the jurisdiction of the government to regulate. Parties may (or may not) reform themselves. People who are dissatisfied with the way their party operates may form new parties. The government has nothing to do with it, except by way of regulating the process of elections to public office, which is a public process.
Complain about this comment
# 71., squirrelist At 07:04am on 08 Dec 2009 wrote:
I'm a bit confused.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TRIATHLON REPLYS:
Don’t be confused, it’s simple as pie, it’s all theater, they put on a show, while the media shows it. The Lobbyist get money from Wall St. or other special interest groups, much as the think tanks do from the big defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, then they enter into a Japanese style Kabuki Dance show, while the various Lobbyist behind the scenes in the posh hotels, no backrooms more sex with partners of your choice, booze, money and drugs, and less cigars.
It’s all just theater.
HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN
Complain about this comment
"each person in the world has a "right" to produce a certain amount of CO2, "
come now marky warky. you know you think this is true as long as it is your right.
Complain about this comment
Ref 93 PursuitOfLove-
"But the Senate is not our "House of Lords" as the title of the article suggests, because all 100 of them are elected..."
And who is it that elects the Senators? Is it not the people? Thus, are we not the ones entirely responsible for the behavior and inefficiency of our elected representatives? They would not be in office if a majority of the people, in each state, had not elected them to represent our interests.
This, of course, leads back to the basic concept that it is the duty of the electorate to be well-informed as to how our political system is structured and how well a political candidate will represent our interests as a State and a Nation. The other part of that duty as a citizen is to be an active elector, participating in all elections held within ones own district where they are registered to vote.
The evidence of our failure as citizens can be found in the record of voter turnout for our elections. A scant majority of registered voters turned out in the last Presidential election. (Which actually showed a higher voter turnout than average) There have been a consistent, minority of registered voter turning out for bi-elections which determine who is seated in Congress. Off-term elections, like those held just this past November, exhibit a disgraceful voter turnout of less than 1/3rd of eligible, registered voter participation to determine who runs our local governments.
This very thread on this blog gives evidence of how ill-informed some people, claiming to be U.S. citizens, are of how their own political system and how their own government actually work. These same, ill-informed citizens call for a rewriting of the Constitution which they claim is no longer working. How would they know? They have not taken the time to learn the Constitution and how it is to work.
It is not the Constitution that is failing. It is the electors, and the lack thereof, that are not doing their vital work by becoming well-informed and participating in every election.
Is it any wonder that the current government, and the political system that brings candidates to the ballot, is so alarmingly splintered and unable to conduct political business in a responsible manner?
Complain about this comment
that house of lords rejected the "criminal justice bill" when the elected officials thought it great.
they could see that there was a curtailing of rights to protest as well as freedoms enjoyed by many.
Unfortunately they didn't get the final say.
Complain about this comment
ref #107
Dominick did you read the concerns of Bolivians who do not support Morales.
Complain about this comment
71 squirrelist
"I'm a bit confused."
lol at least we admit it. So am I.
Complain about this comment
"The EU you love to hate so much has a population of 460 million persons is as technologically advanced as the US but only produces 15% of the annual world CO2 output as against 28% for the USA"
lol U number.
how can that be . they got more people and use less!
Complain about this comment
colonel artist ,that very phrase is why slavery was ended over a century ago in the USA,foreigners act like it was yesterday.Men as in Mankind.That is also why Americans want to end trade of slave made and child labor goods because if we can't change others laws we want to at least not let our companies profit from them.Luckily Americans look to tomorrow and what needs to be done today instead of using the past to justify ill treatment of people today because of their own guilty consciences.Time for you to find a blog about Afghanistan don't you think?
Complain about this comment
Many posters have tried to clear up this misunderstanding. Thanks all. As someone with basic knowledge of the British constitution, constitutions IMO are never meant to be set in stone - they have to reflect the needs of the society at the time or it faces illegitimacy. I don't understand this defence of the arcane. The UK has a problem with the House of Lords, but it's nearly a thousand years old - what's the USA's excuse for the Senate.
Another thing I don't understand is these arguments that the Senate prevents reactionary and badly thought out bills from the lower House. Anyone care to provide evidence to back this claim? Didn't the Senate prevent the abolition of Slavery for another half century or so in the US? And furthermore, what unnecessary and immoral wars did the Senate prevent the kneejerk US going into?
I also fail to understand why it's the Senate's job to prevent encroachments on citizen's rights. Aren't citizen's rights enshrined in constitutional law - so it's a job for the Supreme Court not politicians? Politicians are the last people anyone would want to defend people's rights.
I read some posters claim that the Electoral College is representative unlike the Senate. The EC may be more representative than the Senate but still makes votes in smaller States more valuable than those in the more populated ones. Again, in a General Election, a vote in New York is worth less than one in Montana. So not only do States have their rights of relative autonomy enshrined, but smaller States have more relative power, not only in the Senate, but also in the election of the POTUS.
Also, if the House of Reps is meant to be the most representative part of the Constitution, can't PR be used? Or is not supposed to be that representative?
Complain about this comment
colonel artist when you say ignorant things, people with think of your more creditable ideas with indifference because of your previous comments.
Complain about this comment
#92 StDom
Ha ha! Touche!
Complain about this comment
108 if political parties are so private and not scared of public and voters than why did the two parties feel the need to change state and federal ballot laws that virtually keep out 3rd parties from competing and off ballots and collecting money.
Complain about this comment
redchicken OK you are prat right.
yep gun special over. but it did happen right?
so your point?
you are back at none.
well done .
squirrelist that "place head in bag trick" do you think we could get you to do a teaching tour of the states.
plenty of volunteers here I'm sure.
Complain about this comment
#89 MagicKirin
Here we go again yet more nonsense. Magic as a Brit I can categorically state that the House of Lords does serve two useful purposes, firstly it scrutinises legislation and can refer it back to the Commons for amendment and, secondly it delays legislation to allow for time to reconsider. What it cannot do is completely deny the passage of legislation once it has obtained the approval of the lower house. It would appear your Senate can do that and that,I think, manifestly wrong.
Your other erroneous point is that you have appeared to call the governments of Bolivia and Venezuela dictatorships they are not they are freely and popularly elected governments rather like the government of Israel.
Complain about this comment
colonel artist ,that very phrase is why slavery was ended over a century ago in the USA,foreigners act like it was yesterday.Men as in Mankind.That is also why Americans want to end trade of slave made and child labor goods because if we can't change others laws we want to at least not let our companies profit from them.Luckily Americans look to tomorrow and what needs to be done today instead of using the past to justify ill treatment of people today because of their own guilty consciences.Time for you to find a blog about Afghanistan don't you think?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compare the date of the end of slavery and the date when someone wrote this consitituion...not the same date...And the indian caste system like segregation of blacks ended hundreds atleast two hundred yrs later...the psychololgical segregation has still to end...the segration in punishment for the brown and white cocaine is still yet to end..
Complain about this comment
Luckily Americans look to tomorrow and what needs to be done today instead of using the past to justify ill treatment of people today because of their own guilty consciences.Time for you to find a blog about Afghanistan don't you think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Americans are still rushing for gold, in the past they did this rush inside their own boundries looking for the golden gold, now they rush outside their country looking for the black gold...destroying everyone and everything that comes in their way, just as they destroyed the red indians and their way of lives, now they proudly call them native americans and are proud that they gave them a restriced area called reservations..unfortunately for you, the taliban of today know this extremely well..
Complain about this comment
fluffy,
The Green Revolution has already started, but what needs to be done will take billions and billions, which is difficult in times of recession.
We can start by doing the best we can with what resources we have, but until people have good paying jobs (not minimum wage) with benefits, people will not be able to afford expensive green techonology.
So we are taking steps, but we cannot run with it yet. Rome was not built in a day and all that. But people are beginning to care, which is more than it was ten years ago. Sometimes, you have to take what you can get and build from there. There are definitely more pro-environmental people now, but we must recover with good jobs first. There has got to be optimism and hope, or we are all bust.
It is true that Bush and the Repubs were almost unstoppable in their quest for power(it was their way or the highway), as is how Obama and the Dems are now with health care (they don't mind throwing people in jail and criminalizing them if they do not pay health care fees). Still, Bush could not do everything he wanted to do. Obama can not do everything he wants to do. This is a good thing for all parties and people in the USA.
Complain about this comment
colonel artist when you say ignorant things, people with think of your more creditable ideas with indifference because of your previous comments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I consider the source...I am indifferent to the indiference of the people here..they are the product of democracy which thrieves on ignorance and lies..I go for quality..
Complain about this comment
Some of the new "Americans" did take the words of the Declaration of Independence to heart at the time it was published, or shortly thereafter. My own family, on Long Island, New York, freed their slaves and indentured servants at that time in support of the concept of equality. They were not the only ones to do so throughout the rebelling colonies. Most of the former slaves and servants continued working on our lands as freemen with paid employment and the liberty to stay, or leave to pursue their own opportunities as they chose.
Complain about this comment
" ... what's the USA's excuse for the Senate?" (from spanners 71 at #117)
No excuse necessary, thank you. We are satisfied with the way it is organized, if not always with the way it works.
"Another thing I don't understand is these arguments that the Senate prevents reactionary and badly thought out bills from the lower House. Anyone care to provide evidence to back this claim?"
Here's an example: http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimLink?id=26020
"And furthermore, what unnecessary and immoral wars did the Senate prevent the kneejerk US going into?"
Unfortunately, not many. But two courageous senators, Morse (of Oregon) and Gruening (of Alaska) strongly opposed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which led to the escalation of the unnecessary war in Vietnam. Eventually, more senators (and many others) came around to their thinking.
" also fail to understand why it's the Senate's job to prevent encroachments on citizen's rights. Aren't citizen's rights enshrined in constitutional law - so it's a job for the Supreme Court not politicians?"
Here, you are correct.
"I read some posters claim that the Electoral College is representative unlike the Senate."
It is more representative than the Senate, but is not as representative as the House, primarily because of the Unit Rule used by nearly all states. It is the most controversial institution of our federal system. Let's just say that it's peculiar, and leave it at that.
"Also, if the House of Reps is meant to be the most representative part of the Constitution, can't PR be used? Or is not supposed to be that representative?"
I frankly don't understand the affection that some people have for Proportional Representation. In some cases it works reasonable well (Denmark); in others it does not (Italy). Neither of these countries matters much on the world stage. Such a system in the US (and to a lesser degree in the UK and Canada) would be disasterous, in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
#104 MarcusAureliusII
And now we arrive at the terrible truth. The reason why the USA wouldn't sign up to Kyoto it's coal. Hail Imperator us poor dumb Europeans can read, we know that Wyoming produces 40% of the US coal we also know that the US produces 50+% of it's electrical energy from coal. Guess what? We also know that Richard Cheney was born in Caspar Wyoming and that before he became Vice President of the USA he was the long term serving Senator for Wyoming. Aren't we well informed?
We also know that your electrical power generation systems are old and out of date as is most of your infrastructure (as you pointed out in great detail in a post on another blog two days ago). Stop trying to throw sand in our eyes, we know why some of you don't like the consequences of climate change but all your 'bovine excreta' isn't going to make it go away. C02 in the quantities now being released is bad for the health of this planet, it's the only planet we have and I for one am not going to let you or the likes of you put my kids and grandkids at risk to make your life easy. Start being a good engineer and come up with solutions not smokescreens because time is running out.
It would appear that your President has an uphill struggle convincing some of you as did Roosevelt in the run up to your final involvement to WW2 but he has made big steps and I'm sure he will succeed. Just try, this once, to think of someone else apart from yourself. It's actually not our planet, we live on it for a short time and then pass it's stewardship on. A good steward would pass it on in as good as or better state than that in which he received it can you honestly say that to be true of our generation?
Complain about this comment
#125 Lucy
The Green Revolution has already started, but what needs to be done will take billions and billions, which is difficult in times of recession.
In times of growth they say the 'Green Revolution' will de-rail it! These are just excuses IMO. The US government can find trillions to save banks, but none to save the planet for its future generations. It can spend trillions on the military to kill people, but won't spend the billions to save its own citizens.
But like you said, things are slowly turning. As Kipling wrote:
We are the worm in the wood!
We are the rot at the root!
We are the taint in the blood!
We are the thorn in the foot!
Complain about this comment
#111 publiusdetroit
Very true, true in fact of most of the Western democracies and very worrying. The citizens 'get the government they deserve' is a very true phrase.
Re the House of Lords, the fact that are not all elected is of very little relevance any more because any government in the UK can always just create 'Life Peers' until it has enough to tilt the balance of voting. Plus unlike your Senate the Lords cannot put more than a temporary hold on legislation it cannot stop it. Also the 'filibuster' cannot happen in the UK anymore we have a procedural device the 'Guillotine# which curtails debate. Many have argued that it is undemocratic but we have it.
Complain about this comment
"108 if political parties are so private and not scared of public and voters than why did the two parties feel the need to change state and federal ballot laws that virtually keep out 3rd parties from competing and off ballots and collecting money." (from fayeth at #120)
"Scared" doesn't enter into it. It is true that the dominant parties have tried to manipulate the election laws to their advantage. This is just a matter of power, not fear. In 1976 and 1980, the independent candidacies of Eugene McCarthy and John Anderson, respectively, led to lawsuits in many states and significant improvement in ballot access for independent and minor party candidates. In the 2008 presidential election, there were 24 candidates for president nationwide, plus "none" and write-in. (Source: Federal Election Commission) The poor showing of minor parties in collecting money and receiving votes is a consequence of the (legitimate) discrimination of contributors and voters, not the (illegitimate) discrimination of the state governments if access to the ballot.
In the United States, the dominance of two major parties is merely a consequence of the system of electing members of Congress in single-member districts, and the structure of the electoral college which is derived from the Congressional election system, and not to any conspiracy to marginalize third parties. The parties have realigned in the past, and they may again, someday.
Complain about this comment
##115 fluffytale
Maybe it's because we are quite good engineers but don;t tell the Emperor that you know this he will probably throw you to the lions.
Complain about this comment
Well, I'm getting even more confused about what people think belongs to 18th century constitutional theory and what the actual 21st century practice is.
1) 77. At 10:43am on 08 Dec 2009, D R Murrell wrote: "the Commons are normally still lead by a lord as technically there is no such thing as a Prime Minister."
The Prime Minister is the "First Lord of the Treasury", but that is merely the traditional name of the office. A Prime Minister could now never sit in the House of Lords. Hasn't for over 150 years or thereabouts if I remember rightly.
2) 90. At 2:46pm on 08 Dec 2009, Tully106 wrote: "It is not the end of government to give everyone an equal vote; rather, it is to protect the rights of its citizens. How you exactly arrange the various powers and groups of society to that end is a practical matter. This is to say, the formers of the American constitution did not, nor should they have, believed in one person one vote, unless it best matched this end; which, by the by, it does not."
You what? Well, maybe you're quite right. Each 'liberal' should have two; every 'socialist' three and of course, Red Squirrel Party members four. I suppose anybody who's of the 'right' can have one, if they really must vote. The children of recent 'Hispanic' immigrants, Native Americans and the descendants of slaves, of course, shouldn't have any. Ruins democracy, that sort of thing.
108. At 4:58pm on 08 Dec 2009, GH1618 wrote: "No, in the United States, political parties are private associations of people excercizing their freedoms of speech, press, assembly, petition, and so forth. The right of the people to associate with others of their choosing for political purposes does not fall within the jurisdiction of the government to regulate. Parties may (or may not) reform themselves."
Where on earth did I suggest it was? And doesn't 'the ability to gang together to raise enormous amounts of money to get their members elected' come into it?
93. At 3:35pm on 08 Dec 2009, PursuitOfLove wrote: "The Senate's job is to represent the individual states to the federal government, while the House's is to represent the American people."
It may have been expected to be once; it isn't now, quite clearly. And what is -- and was --the 'state' composed of?
111. At 5:16pm on 08 Dec 2009, publiusdetroit wrote: "It is not the Constitution that is failing. It is the electors. . ."
Well, to paraphrase a Brecht poem, perhaps it's time for the Constitution to dissolve the people and elect another . . .
And I do wish people wouldn't confuse Athenian democracy with universal suffrage, or even 'one man one vote'. It didn't work like that at all.
Complain about this comment
Carbon dioxide and health
Carbon dioxide is essential for internal respiration in a human body. Internal respiration is a process, by which oxygen is transported to body tissues and carbon dioxide is carried away from them.
Carbon dioxide is a guardian of the pH of the blood, which is essential for survival.
The buffer system in which carbon dioxide plays an important role is called the carbonate buffer. It is made up of bicarbonate ions and dissolved carbon dioxide, with carbonic acid. The carbonic acid can neutralize hydroxide ions, which would increase the pH of the blood when added. The bicarbonate ion can neutralize hydrogen ions, which would cause a decrease in the pH of the blood when added. Both increasing and decreasing pH is life threatening.
Apart from being an essential buffer in the human system, carbon dioxide is also known to cause health effects when the concentrations exceed a certain limit.
http://www.lenntech.com/carbon-dioxide.htm
The primary health dangers of carbon dioxide are:
- Asphyxiation. Caused by the release of carbon dioxide in a confined or unventilated area. This can lower the concentration of oxygen to a level that is immediately dangerous for human health.
- Frostbite. Solid carbon dioxide is always below -78 oC at regular atmospheric pressure, regardless of the air temperature. Handling this material for more than a second or two without proper protection can cause serious blisters, and other unwanted effects. Carbon dioxide gas released from a steel cylinder, such as a fire extinguisher, causes similar effects.
- Kidney damage or coma. This is caused by a disturbance in chemical equilibrium of the carbonate buffer. When carbon dioxide concentrations increase or decrease, causing the equilibrium to be disturbed, a life threatening situation may occur.
[../_adsense/eng_hor.htm]
" No American has ever died or been made ill by the carbon dioxide produced from the combustion of fossil fuels. "
Mostly erroneous 2009
Complain about this comment
101 you stand by a lot but they all run away when you lift your hands in praise.
Complain about this comment
"Sometimes, you have to take what you can get and build from there."
"(they don't mind throwing people in jail and criminalizing them if they do not pay health care fees)"
I think they do, but they saw no other way. much like climate the american people stood by and waited to be TOLD what to do. they then got all defensive when told and hey presto now they can't afford to fix it.
yes it is great tat america finally went looking for a train station.
but they are just viewing the platform at the moment. looking at the cost of the ticket.
not the cost of not getting onboard.
Complain about this comment
big quotation marks around that article above.
Complain about this comment
Squirrelist (#134) "Where on earth did I suggest it was?"
What you said was : "Surely, at the very least, the US needs to reform its political parties."
So my question then would be what you mean by "the US". The United States acts under that name through its federal government. Perhaps you merely mean that the people of the United States (most of them, anyway), acting individually, should somehow come around to your way of thinking. In a diverse population of about 300 million people, that's a lot to expect.
Just how do you expect that "reform" (whatever you mean by that) would come about, given that the manner in which a particular political party operates is the business only of the members of that party?
Complain about this comment
133 don't worry he don't read my posts. cuse I'm fik.
Complain about this comment
128 and Morse from Oregon had a "freespeech plaza" named after him. which was fine until the unfree police now try to control Who says what there.
by tasaring demonstrators and generally making people uncomfortable at the plaza.]
rest well Wayne Morse the people were in contravention of"Homelands security" officer's reasoning.
Complain about this comment
Ref 135 squirelist-
"Well, to paraphrase a Brecht poem, perhaps it's time for the Constitution to dissolve the people and elect another . . ."
That is what is taking place. "We the people..." are dissolving in our own ignorance and lethargy.
"And I do wish people wouldn't confuse Athenian democracy with universal suffrage, or even 'one man one vote'. It didn't work like that at all."
If the people could take the time to learn about the real working of Athenian democracy, maybe they would discover that we live in a Republic with democratic principles, not a Democracy.
Complain about this comment
" a particular political party operates is the business only of the members of that party?"
what so if it is run by fraud and deceit then it is of no concern to anyone?
interesting diversion from your normal stance.
Complain about this comment
political analysts from the other side will of course have no concern and lobbyists don't matter anyway right?
Complain about this comment
"Thus far I have considered the circumstances which point out the necessity of a well-constructed Senate only as they relate to the representatives of the people. To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind? What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next." -James Madison, Federalist Papers
The sections on house and senate are fun http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa00.htm
Complain about this comment
maybe they would discover that we live in a Republic with democratic principles, not a Democracy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just imagine if you didnt live by the democratic principles or democracy...the biggest advantage would have been that you didnt have to demonise anyone or any group to not let them speak as freely...
Complain about this comment
PubliusDetroit (#142) " ... we live in a Republic with democratic principles, not a Democracy."
No difference, in my opinion, because "Democracy" does not imply a particular structure of government in any detail. All it means is that political power derives from the people. Here is the Concise OED definition:
Concise OED - democracy
The third definition applies to groups, but hardly ever, if ever, to groups as large as nations.
Complain about this comment
All it means is that political power derives from the people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobocracy.
Complain about this comment
U-Boat;
"And now we arrive at the terrible truth. The reason why the USA wouldn't sign up to Kyoto it's coal. Hail Imperator us poor dumb Europeans can read, we know that Wyoming produces 40% of the US coal we also know that the US produces 50+% of it's electrical energy from coal. Guess what? We also know that Richard Cheney was born in Caspar Wyoming and that before he became Vice President of the USA he was the long term serving Senator for Wyoming. Aren't we well informed?"
Clearly you are not well informed at all. When the United States Senate voted 95-0 against Kyoto in a Sense of the Senate vote around 1993 or 1994, It was a message to President Clinton and Vice President Gore that the treaty would never pass the Senate and not to waste time negotiating it. Among the many reasons were; it would not work to reduce global warming. When real scientists pointed this out to advocates based on real models that showed it would reduce global warming by only 2/3 of a degree over 65 years, suddenly they changed their tune and said Kyoto was just the beginning. And so it was. There was the fact that sacrifices were disproportionate with the US bearing the brunt of the sacrifice while many other countries like India and China bearing little or none. It's still that way 15+ years later at Copenhagen. It would have a horrific impact on America's economy. That hasn't changed either. There is no valid reason for the US to make any concessions today if they are unfair, will not work, and will wreck its economy especially when it won't affect others to nearly the same degree or at all. You can add to that the fraud of the EU cap and trade debacle Obama wants to impose on America and now the fraud of the scientists themselves whose data is being called into question and whose ethics are now beyond question having been entirely discredited.
"We also know that your electrical power generation systems are old and out of date as is most of your infrastructure (as you pointed out in great detail in a post on another blog two days ago)."
Utterly irrelevant to this debate and besides the point. More transmission lines, more efficient power plants, and more capacity will only make marginal improvements which in the end will add up to nothing. My lament is about issues of reliability and availability, not of global warming. Given the sheer size of America's need for electrical and other power, even a massive program of wind farms and solar panels would not make a meaningful dent in decades. There is no time left for such a feeble and ineffectual effort. If there is to be a meaningful cuts in CO2 output, it will come from a radical change based on a major technological breakthrough that can be quickly implimented. None are in sight. When that should have been the priority of those concerned like the Europeans, they wasted their technological resources such as they were on a redundant space program, a redundant global positioning system, and a useless super jumbo airplane. The net result....worthless junk.
"Start being a good engineer and come up with solutions not smokescreens because time is running out."
Stop being a poor manager and face reality. There are no good solutions avialable. Only very bad ones and far worse ones if the science now in question turns out to be right.
If you want something that has a chance of working but that no one is discussing at all because of the politics, think of rapid drastic reductions in world population. That is at the root cause of the problem anyway if the problem really exists. Too many people wanting the benefits that technology makes available given the limits of the current technology due to its impact on the climate. If the science is right and global warming is to be checked assuming that is still possible, either we all live at a far lower level of comfort, mobility, efficiency, productivity as environmentalists advocate or there are far fewer of us. Those are your choices. I for one do not intend to willingly sacrifice my standard of living for the benefit of others. I'm taxed far too much for that end already. I think most other Americans in their heart of hearts feel exactly the same way. That is what we have a United States Senate for, to prevent the House of Representatives and the President from making rash foolish moves we don't agree with. That is exactly what our system was designed to do, now all it has to do is do it.
Complain about this comment
#134 Squirrelist
I'm of the opinion that Proportional Representation would break the hegemonic hold the two-party political system holds over political life. I believe many people oppose PR because they support the two party system and that they are afraid of change. Americans have nothing to fear from coalition governments. Trying to pass Bills in the US is like trying to pass water through a knatt's chuff. It'll be even harder IMO in a multi party system.
Complain about this comment
"If you want something that has a chance of working but that no one is discussing at all because of the politics, think of rapid drastic reductions in world population." (from MarcusAureliusII at #149)
Marcus has hit the nail on the head here.
Complain about this comment
marcus you reckon CO 2 is healthy to breath as well so what's your point?
you can't read.
Complain about this comment
#128 Gary
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. That world at work link you kindly gave though said that the Fair Pay Restoration Bill would have been vetoed by the Shrub anyway.
Complain about this comment
spanners they couldn't decide if there was a single party system.
Complain about this comment
Gary you infantile idiot.
There are a whole host of solutions. you have in the past expressed views that show you do not really care for them. or care to think about them, but you will consider this absolute fallacy.
the pessimists outlook.
The bit that no oe wants to discuss is WHO would get killed. cause if it is cause and effect and science driving it. MA and you would be top o the list, as life long americans that refuse to look for other solutions.
of which there are plenty.
we are already causing massive deaths by ignoring the problem and the solutions.
Complain about this comment
I'd add Gary that as an architect if you do not realise the great importance of better design then you should be unemployed.
there are plenty in your field that could put you to shame it seems.
go join the "eco builders" guild.
start learning the truth .
Solutions are there. the will is not.
Complain about this comment
fluffbrain;
"marcus you reckon CO 2 is healthy to breath as well so what's your point?
you can't read."
No it is you who can't read...or won't. Look at PhillyMom's posting I responded to. She spoke about a brown cloud over Los Angeles. CO2 has nothing to do with that. Now read the EPA's statement about CO2 being a pollutant and dangerous to health. EPA's statement is an utter lie on both counts. Now read your own statement and go hide in a corner for awhile as pennance.
Complain about this comment
Now read the EPA's statement about CO2 being a pollutant and dangerous to health.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell this to the plants and trees...EPA said CO2 was dangerous to the health of the americans..and that what is dangerous to americans is good for trees..I support the trees and plants..they provide more benefit than the whole american nation, taken together and mulitplied by 2..
Complain about this comment
#149 MarcusAureliusII
So now we have it you are a defeatist. Who would have guessed it? All that hot air, all that brag and the bottom line is you have no solutions the great US engineer has no solutions other than:-
"If you want something that has a chance of working but that no one is discussing at all because of the politics, think of rapid drastic reductions in world population."
Well after you Marcus, you first, after all it will be one less and a lot of hot air taken out of the system. Or are you suggesting a little culling of the world population using all those nukes you have stockpiled before you get round to scrapping them?
But is that the real reason. No I don't think so. I think the real reason is that you have given below:-
"I'm taxed far too much for that end already. I think most other Americans in their heart of hearts feel exactly the same way."
That good old 'I don't want to pay tax.'
Oh and Marcus as I've told you before I live in France, 83% 0f our electricity is delivered by nukes, the rest from hydro, solar, and a little natural gas. No coal in spite of having large coal reserves.
You mentioned several EU states in one of your interminable anti European diatribes. Other than Spain which is rapidy forging ahead on the solar and wind energy front none of the others were major C02 producers anyway so your point was?
Oh and whilst on the subject of engineering excellence why does GM so desperately want to hang onto Opel? Nothing to do with the need to keep it's hands on some high efficiency car engines I suppose? No of course not you can design them tomorrow ho ho ho.
Is the Dreamliner flying yet?
Coal is King in the US because a certain kind of rich ruthless greedy American puts his wealth and ability to avoid paying taxes ahead of the future of his country even his planet. Mentioning no names of course but I wouldn't go out on a shoot with him.
Complain about this comment
"Is the Dreamliner flying yet?" (from #159)
The first test flight is expected this month. But that question was rhetorical, I suppose. The Airbus A380 program was also delayed. What's the point?
Complain about this comment
159 LOL the Dream on liner.
A marcus classic.
Speaking of backwards (like the progress on the dream)
" No American has ever died or been made ill by the carbon dioxide produced from the combustion of fossil fuels. "
"CO2 has nothing to do with that."
"No it is you who can't read...or won't. "
"Now read your own statement and go hide in a corner for awhile as pennance."
time for the meds Marcus.
Complain about this comment
" ... why does GM so desperately want to hang onto Opel? (from #159)
Why do you say it is desperate? It's just a business decision. If anything, the prior decision to sell a division which they have owned for many decades was the act of desperation.
Complain about this comment
6131
sorry who were U?
just I want to say great reaming of the MA there.
as to dick
"but I wouldn't go out on a shoot with him. "
I would. I wouldn't give him a gun though.
Complain about this comment
162 Or gary it could be noticed if you tried that opel get better milage. but sorry your fair mindedness falls well short when there is Patriotism at stake.
.
sad , surely you could be exploring the possibilities of solar cells with heating and photovoltaic included instead of wasting your time basically saying nothing.
Complain about this comment
160 The point was MA had said the Airbus was crap and boing are teh best.
that engennering wise they are years ahead and Airbus only needed to build a C5 transport and p[ut seats in it.
when all boing were doing was redesigning the mid size liner and still not figuring out how the wings work:)
Whats your point.
Oh that you have one.LOL
Complain about this comment
[EARLY MORNING OR HIGH NOON STROLE]
#159. U4466131 wrote: At 8:42pm on 08 Dec 2009,
Mentioning no names of course but I wouldn't go out on a shoot with him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TRIATHLON REPLYS:
That’s were we differ, a early morning [10] ten pace and turn walk now that wouldn’t be hard to take, or just a short walk in the street at High Noon! That would be sweet Justice, but am willing to settle for his standing trial in Hague along with a certain President and Secretary of Defense.
HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN
Complain about this comment
hercule says"but am willing to settle for his standing trial in Hague along with a certain President and Secretary of Defense."
I'm with you. and " willing to settle" is most appropriate.
Complain about this comment
"The Essay (on Population) transformed Malthus into an intellectual celebrity. He was reviled by many as a hard-hearted monster, a prophet of doom, an enemy of the working class, etc. The ridicule and invective rained down on Malthus by the chattering and pamphleteering classes was relentless." (from linked document below)
Thomas Robert Malthus
Amusing parallel. Today it would be "the chattering and blogging classes."
Complain about this comment
Ref 113, Magic
"Dominick did you read the concerns of Bolivians who do not support Morales."
To the best of my knowledge there is not a single national leader in the world that enjoys 100% support from the citizenry. Why should Morales be any different? Of course the Bolivian elite opposes his political and socio-economic reforms! Wouldn't you if you were among the 2% that owned 98% of the wealth in that impoverished country?
Complain about this comment
Fluffbrain, do we have to go through the A380/C5A discussion again? OK we will every time some fool brings it up. The Europeans were jealous of the 747 from the day it first flew across the Atlantic and they got their first glimpse of it around 1969. They always wanted to go it one better just to prove how great they were. They were sure the Concorde would do it but when nobody bought it, they were furious. I was there in France when Concorde made its appearance and there were no takers, I know. But what they ignored or didn't know was that America had its own supersonic passenger airplane program that was in the form of a contest Congress held. The two finalists were Lockheed and Boeing both of which proposed planes that were significantly faster, larger, and more economical than Concorde. Either would have made money. Life Magazine did a spread on both submittals. But much to the relief of everyone including environmentalists, airlines, the public, lots of people the entire project was abandoned around 2 years before Concorde was ready. And so the Euros spent over 30 years scheming. What they came up with was a plane about the size of the C5A American military transport that was developed in the 1960s, nearly 40 years before A380. Naturally the technology was different but lift capacity, volume, range, size shape were all similar. Clearly had any American civil aviation company wanted to develop a very large passenger plane that would have been an excellent starting point, merely building a civilian version of it. In fact I think it can even be used as a troop carrier in one configuration. (The Soviets had an even bigger one they could have used.) Naturally it was not developed only because there appeared to be an insufficient market for it. The decision not to develop it was market driven, not ego driven like Concorde and A380. Boeing estimates the world market for such a plane is 500 units, EADS says 1200. European taxpayers spent billions to re-invent a wheel that isn't needed, one more monument to stupidity their leaders impose on them. So a super duper jumbo jet could have been built decades earlier had it been wanted and needed and of course it would have evolved as technology advanced. For example, the B52 of today bears little resemblance except for its air frame to the B52 of 50 years ago. Is this silly discussion over yet or do we have to go through it again?
U-Boat;
The US generates 20% of its electricity by use of nuclear power. The US invented civilian nuclear power. In absolute megawatts and megawatt hours the US generates more power from nuclear energy than France. But the amount of energy America needs because it is so much larger than France in every conceivable way (except national ego which only consumes mental energy) that is not nearly enough. America made a decision NOT to develop any more civilian nuclear power as a result of the accident at Three Mile Island around 1978 or 1979. That decision is being revisited and may be reversed. Among many problems with nuclear energy has been that no satisfactory way has been devised to deal with all those spent fuel rods.
If there was one technology that MIGHT have mattered it was geothermal energy. Heat to turn water into steam is available everywhere on earth if you dig deep enough for it. But that source was not explored much. Yes it may be hard to extract heat from dozens of miles below the earth's surface but it was also hard splitting the atom, sending men to the moon, and decoding the structure of human DNA. Guess the Americans didn't invest any money in geothermal energy and the Europeans weren't going to invest in it either because in their case, it might have worked.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII (#170) "The two finalists were Lockheed and Boeing both of which proposed planes that were significantly faster, larger, and more economical than Concorde. Either would have made money."
I'm not so sure of that last statement. I lived in Seattle at the time, and knew people who had worked at Boeing. Boeing was in the competition because they weren't about to take a back seat to Lockheed, but what I heard is that they were glad to see the project terminated, because they did not expect it to be a business success.
Complain about this comment
#168 GH1618
The point was that Marcus spent ages crowing over the problems Airbus had with the 380 but he still, after a year of being asked that question, will not even answer it.
Re the Opel point it's not a simple as you have made it out to be. When GM first tried to get the German Government to take a stake in Opel the did so having stripped Opel of the intellectual property (the engine and transmission designs) the German Government who are not as stupid as GM took them to be said no way. GM were then forced to add the intellectual property and that's the one thing they wanted to keep. They need those engines Ford have their European designed samll car engines and GM needs theirs to survive.
Complain about this comment
#163 Fluffytale
Hi I am, or was until being made a 'U' person by the BBC, T1m0thy.
Just as a thought after doing your penance maybe MA11 could sit in a corner and do his for his spelling error. It's too easy really. Ne c'est pas.
"Now read your own statement and go hide in a corner for awhile as pennance."
Complain about this comment
I see that Marcus has remembered that small accident at Three Mile Island that's a pleasant surprise. I didn't think he ever remembered embarassing things like that.
Maybe there is hope after all.
Complain about this comment
U- (#172), I see. That explains why they reversed their decision. I'm ok with Opel staying with GM, but it's going to take more than that to keep GM going.
Complain about this comment
#170 MA11
"but it was also hard splitting the atom, sending men to the moon, and decoding the structure of human DNA"
And doubtless you are meaning to claim that all the above three were purely US success stories even though virtually all the men who split the atom were Europeans mainly European Jews, a vast amount of the work had been done at the Ruthrford Labs in Cambridge England pre WW2. The moon shot was a great US success but even then it was Von Braun's rocket designs and team that built the propulsion unit. The human DNA work was a truly magnificent acheivement and out of the three the one that the US can justifiably claim as all it's own work.
It is a mistake to denigrate the work of others to glorify yourself? Let others be the judge of what is good the more claims you make that are not totally true the less true acclaim you get for your real work.
Complain about this comment
Re: spanners71 117:
Many posters have tried to clear up this misunderstanding. Thanks all. As someone with basic knowledge of the British constitution, constitutions IMO are never meant to be set in stone - they have to reflect the needs of the society at the time or it faces illegitimacy. I don't understand this defence of the arcane. The UK has a problem with the House of Lords, but it's nearly a thousand years old - what's the USA's excuse for the Senate.
- The United States of America exists as a single political entity because its constituent states agree to yield certain powers, wielded in a certain way, to the federal government. The Constitution is what spells out those powers and regulates their use (as well as enumerating specific rights held by citizens). Without the Consitution, there wouldn't be a United States - it's a nation with a fundamentally political basis. The laws governing the Senate aren't even particularly arcane - the "big stuff" of course, is in the Constitution, which is a pretty straightforward document, and most of the other relevent info. can be found without too much digging. The Constitution isn't really even set in stone, it has been amended. Getting an amendment ratified is fairly difficult, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. While a lot of people think that the Senate is flawed, I don't see that its been established that a majority of Americans consider that body to be illegitimate.
Another thing I don't understand is these arguments that the Senate prevents reactionary and badly thought out bills from the lower House. Anyone care to provide evidence to back this claim? Didn't the Senate prevent the abolition of Slavery for another half century or so in the US? And furthermore, what unnecessary and immoral wars did the Senate prevent the kneejerk US going into?
-Not knowing your opinions on abortion, I don't if you'd consider the House's amendment reactionary or badly thought out, but the Senate recently was able to block a fairly strong anti-abortion amendment (the Stupak amendment) to the health care legislation that's currently getting tossed around. I think that's a good thing, and a good example of the Senate blocking bad legislation coming up from the House.
-The Senate does sometimes act to moderate measures coming up from the House, and that's a good thing, but that's not really its main reason for existing. It exists to keep the interests of small states from being ignored. The Senate certainly did help prevent abolitionist measures from passing. However (without condoning their views of course), it's worth pointing out that the Senators who opposed abolition were doing what their constituents wanted and what they felt was in the interest of their states, and they wouldn't have recognized the moral shortcomings of their position that most modern folks see in it. It didn't work out very well, but the flaw was in southern society, not in the Senate as an institution.
I also fail to understand why it's the Senate's job to prevent encroachments on citizen's rights. Aren't citizen's rights enshrined in constitutional law - so it's a job for the Supreme Court not politicians? Politicians are the last people anyone would want to defend people's rights.
-Shouldn't legislators be expected to refrain from passing legislation that infringes on citizens' rights? Just because we have a system of checks and balances doesn't mean self-regulation by the different branches of government isn't desirable.
I read some posters claim that the Electoral College is representative unlike the Senate. The EC may be more representative than the Senate but still makes votes in smaller States more valuable than those in the more populated ones. Again, in a General Election, a vote in New York is worth less than one in Montana. So not only do States have their rights of relative autonomy enshrined, but smaller States have more relative power, not only in the Senate, but also in the election of the POTUS.
-I think the Electoral College should be abolished. Small states may have more relative power in the College, but if your state only has one elector and you don't vote for the winning candidate, it's almost like you might as well not have voted at all.
Also, if the House of Reps is meant to be the most representative part of the Constitution, can't PR be used? Or is not supposed to be that representative?
-How would this work?
121: My point was merely to make a technical correction. I am curious about why you find a silly stunt pulled by a legislature on the opposite coast so notable, seeing as it has no obvious connection to the topic being discussed.
Complain about this comment
Carbon got us this far, but it's hydrogen that's going to carry us ahead.
Think of these times as the bridge between the carbon world and the hydrogen world. And think of the climate change hypothesis as a goad driving us reluctantly across (or at this point, perhaps, onto) the bridge.
Complain about this comment
And as to Malthus -- it was the advancement of technology and a reduction in fertility rates attributable to increased in living standard and education (particularly of women) that undercut his analysis. But in principle, of course, he is correct -- population growth cannot continue infinitely.
What the maximum sustainable population of this planet is depends upon many things. The medium term goal has to be to stop population growth -- by increasing standards of living and education. No mean feat, technologically or politically speaking.
In the long term, well, wasn't it Carl Sagan who said that all civilizations are eventually either space faring or extinct?
Complain about this comment
ref #169
, SaintDominick wrote:
Ref 113, Magic
"Dominick did you read the concerns of Bolivians who do not support Morales."
To the best of my knowledge there is not a single national leader in the world that enjoys 100% support from the citizenry. Why should Morales be any different? Of course the Bolivian elite opposes his political and socio-economic reforms! Wouldn't you if you were among the 2% that owned 98% of the wealth in that impoverished country?
______________
35-40% do not sup[port him and if you are not an indian he does not seem to care about your needs. And he seems to prefer the friendship of dictators like Chavez and terrorist like Amedijiad than trying to have a relationship with the U.S. and it should be pointed out he was antongnistic towards the U.S from the first day. He has not changed and the hemisphere would be better off without him. The man is a racist towards caucasians
Complain about this comment
37. At 11:50pm on 07 Dec 2009, CuriousAmerican wrote: RE 31. At 11:09pm on 07 Dec 2009, JMM
“Her response is both amazingly scary and very telling of your typical liberal democrat..."rules...we don' need no stink'n rules"....Just shut up and do what we say because we know better than you...”
I agree with you on the problem, but not that it is confined to liberals [and yes the extreme ones who want open borders, no defense, etc. are very scary]. There are some conservatives who don’t know, or don’t care, what the US Constitution says, as well.
There are idiots on both sides who do not realise that the US became a super power because of how we continued to develop the country, while keeping alive the ideals of the founders, including those ultra liberal [for the 18th Century] revolutionaries, James Otis and Samuel Adams.
Some of the idiots are “Liberal” who don’t want the US to continue being a superpower. Some of the idiots are right-wingers who think isolation wouldn’t lead to an American decline [which it probably would].
“We know better than you…” is hardly confined to liberals, CNN or FOX.
Complain about this comment
#177. redchicken wrote:At 11:30pm on 08 Dec 2009:
And furthermore, what unnecessary and immoral wars did the Senate prevent the kneejerk US going into?
**************************************
TRIATHLON REPLYS:
That is a no brainer, every war since [WWII] World War Two, the boys have changed the concept of a clear Declaration of War, into neet little things called Resolutions, or given the Imperical Media Messiah President of the moment a [90]Ninty-day window in which to send troops before coming to them for a wink-wink, Oh! by the way we totally support [Your Action], which had been decided upon months if not years in advance in one of the [MIC] Military Industrial Complex Think Tanks.
The next military involvement is in Bolvia and all the part are being put into place as you blog.
The Declaration of Independence was a quiant [17th] Century document that no one really believes.
HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN
Complain about this comment
U-Boat;
"Re the Opel point it's not a simple as you have made it out to be. When GM first tried to get the German Government to take a stake in Opel the did so having stripped Opel of the intellectual property (the engine and transmission designs) the German Government who are not as stupid as GM took them to be said no way. GM were then forced to add the intellectual property and that's the one thing they wanted to keep. They need those engines Ford have their European designed samll car engines and GM needs theirs to survive."
Rather remarkable that a company with the size and history of General Motors didn't have the experience or resources to simply buy an Opel car, disassemble the engine, study it, and copy it or even improve it, they had to buy the entire company to get at its secrets. Is that what the German government was trying to protect, the technological secrets of the Opel car engine. I guess that must have been at the top of their list of state secrets, nothing so mundane as ICBM designs or codes for disarming nuclear weapons and such. Well I guess each nation has its priorities based on what it considers valuable.
Complain about this comment
47. At 01:31am on 08 Dec 2009, Gavrielle_LaPoste
Gavrielle,
Your post is extremely scary for two reasons:
1. Ronald Reagan nearly got to be in charge of rewriting the Constitution.
2. Our government is much closer to the Turkish model, with Praetorian Guards to enforce Constitutionality.
This makes me think, very uncomfortably of the occasion when the president was disabled and a high ranking general said, on TV, “Don’t worry, I’m in charge!”
With this in my mind, I will have trouble sleeping for some time.
There are 3 things that your post overlooked, even as amended in post #53. At 04:08am on 08 Dec 2009.
1. A convention would not NECESSARILY extinguish the current document rather than amending it.
2. The original had stipulations as to ratification and coming into effect. A new constitution could be so written and with such stipulations that:
a. there would be no extinction of the old constitution [the new could be like the Bill of Rights, an omnibus amendment].
b. The obligation of the military could be transferred or the officer corps could be ordered and required to order their troops to transfer their allegiance to the new document.
3. Most importantly, your view is a Confederate interpretation of the constitution, not a Northern one, and as we [sorry] won the Civil War [sorry, not the War Between the Sovereign States], the treaty notion could be considered moot.
I’m still going to have trouble sleeping, as the Civil War DID result in treason by Military officers who had sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies [Jeff Davis for No. 1] foreign and domestic.
Complain about this comment
Lucy,
This sounds perilously close to arguing that we can only afford to save the Earth if The Economy can afford it. I believe this is sometimes referred to as a "category error".
The Economy is a small part of (and totally contained within) The Environment - not the other way round.
Wendell Berry
A proper sense of perspective
Peace
Complain about this comment
Fluff 137,
but they are just viewing the platform at the moment. looking at the cost of the ticket.
not the cost of not getting onboard."
Reminds me of something from Thoreau:
Complain about this comment
Not quite no one
Complain about this comment
Pinko,
Uncombined hydrogen is rarer than hen's teeth. It takes considerable energy to get it out of combination. Then it is capable of giving you back just about all of that input (theoretically), but not a single erg more.
The difference between theory and practice is greater in practice than in theory.
Complain about this comment
CM, all of the geothermal systms I've known about whether water injected or using underground water already there are open systems. Generally this means that the water must be chemically polished before it can be put through a turbine or it would destroy it. Unfortunately, in this process, most of the enthalpy (usable thermal energy) is lost too. Developing closed systems is not something I've heard much about. Yet the earth is a limitless source of heat...usually many miles beneath your feet but always there.
The data the UN used came from predominantly three sources, UEA, NOAA, and NASA. The media has refused to consider a conspiracy even of elements within those organizations to skew data to convince the world that the end is coming. I have no evidence that would suggest this but no proof that such a conspiracy doesn't exist either. I think a careful and extensive investigation is warranted given the consequences of what the truth implies. The madlong dash to begin taking severe actions without such evidence as the UN and media dismiss the notion that we've been lied to is outrageous. One point of evidence scientists who dissent from the CO2 doom scenario present is that the rise and fall in CO2 lags temperature changes, it doesn't lead it and is therefore a consequence of some other process, not the cause of global warming and cooling. In fact cycles much longer than the last few hundred years show the earth was much warmer in the last 1000 years for reasons that had nothing to do with industrial activites.
Complain about this comment
Pinko,
Not forgetting the Fossil fuels. We have become detritovoress, living high with exploding population based upon consuming the detritus of former ages. An end comes, and perhaps sooner than we might expect. Malthus didn't (couldn't?) forsee the (temporary) expansion of carrying capacity provided by the fossil fuels. He wasn't wrong, just "early".
Catton
Complain about this comment
73. At 07:42am on 08 Dec 2009, WebPendragon wrote:
“I agree conpletley that the American Political System,which makes change painfully slow desperatly needs to be overhauled.”
Yes, efficient and fast government, like Russia [and USSR], China, Nazi Germany….
Just imagine what Imperator Georgius Bushius II could have done with such a government? Having considered this, are you still in favour?
“However, just as importantly ,so does the Party System.”
The party system is extra-constitutional, it was not engineered and was certainly not imposed. It was an organic outcome of the political process. What kind of totalitarian place do you come from where the parties can be banished or created and imposed on the citizens? As bad as it seems, it is reformable. It has happened many times, we started out with no parties, after about 5 minutes two poles formed, Democratic Republican vs. Federalists. But the citizens vote for whomever, and whichever party, they like.
“At the last Presidential Election Americans voted for much-needed Healthcare reform but this has been frustrated by a handful of Democrats in Congress who refuse to support their own Party's agenda. Could one imagine a major plank of any other democratic ruling party's policy being blocked in this way ?.America's Party System needs to be realigned to reflect the Left-Right axis that is normal in a democracy rather than the intersts of powerful lobbying groups.”
You don’t know the US very well. There is a definite “normal in a democracy” left-right divide [even though the two big parties look to Europeans center-right vs. far right]. How would you impose a Euro-normal party on Americans, drug them and “reeducate” them?
Opinion is really too divided and the process too corrupt to get a good national health system. It is called socialist [by people who don’t know what they are talking about] but is really a give away to the insurance lobby. Perhaps this should be scuppered, in which case the Senate performs its appointed duty of delay.
Obviously a Brussels/Bruxelles idea with all the latent totalitarianism of a system that denied their subjects [NOT free citizens] a straight up vote on the new constitution, and when 3 countries refused got it in by crooked and obviously undemocratic means.
RE #150. At 8:03pm on 08 Dec 2009, spanners71, to #134 Squirrellist.
Do people who like PR know what that does in Israel? The Knesset is composed of minor ultra religious parties that are necessary for the big parties to form a coalition government. Their price for coalitions is the Israeli policies toward the Palestinians that Europeans [who love PR] love to hate. In Italy it has produced a lot of instability. An unstable US might appeal to some, it doesn’t appeal to us.
Complain about this comment
JMM (#184), Jefferson Davis was a member of the US Senate before becoming President of the Confederacy. He was arrested at the end of the war, and indicted for treason by a grand jury, but was never prosecuted.
Complain about this comment
Mark, you are clearly not up to speed with things here in the States. The constructions that you and your family made from the precipitation are not called snowmen: they are persons of snow.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII (#183) "Rather remarkable that a company with the size and history of General Motors didn't have the experience or resources to simply buy an Opel car, disassemble the engine, study it, and copy it or even improve it, they had to buy the entire company to get at its secrets."
GM bought Opel in 1929 (80%) and 1931 (100%), long before the development of any engine in use today. The question should be considered in light of the facts, not on the basis of made-up hypotheticals. U-T1m's explanation makes sense. Whan an automotive company is divided, who owns the rights to which engines is certainly a matter of some importance.
Complain about this comment
Crataegus of the single wife -- (I have to say, that handle of yours doesn't exactly roll of the tongue -- I thought of using Lord Haw Haw, but, uh, no ...)
There is that big fusion reactor in the sky. Not to mention the wind and water it drives. Fuel cells, etc, are a way of making that energy portable. Bridge stuff, to get us off hydrocarbons.
But we will master fusion down here, hopefully sooner rather than later. I think our species depends upon it. If billions of us were to quickly perish in war and environmental catastrophe, the planet would be left in total ruin -- at least as far as civilization is concerned. Having hitched our wagon to the technological mule, we are pretty much stuck with the choice now -- big picture wise.
And there is that developmental effect -- material prosperity and education tend to reduce fertility rates ... gender equality being such a key part of this.
Conservation, technology, material and spiritual development -- a three pronged strategy to avert disaster?
Complain about this comment
G-1bberish;
"Whan an automotive company is divided, who owns the rights to which engines is certainly a matter of some importance."
Not really. There are few if any trade secrets in the automobile industry. Anyone in the world can take apart any car, any part of any car and figure out how it works. Then they can reverse engineer it and build the same thing, it's no big trick and certainly no big trick for a large automobile company that has been in the business for over 100 years. Do you think GM could not duplicate a car made by anyone else, any make, any model, any component or group of components including the entire car if it wanted to? At worst, if Opel had such important secrets, all GM would have to do is transfer its engineers to its Detroit engine development division at high paying salaries and other perks in offers they couldn't refuse to pick their brains. No need to though, it already knows everything Opel knows and a thousand times more. It kept Opel probably because of the brand name recognition and existing distribution channels in Germany with expectations that the car industry in Europe will eventually become profitable again. The car itself could be manufactured anywhere in the world by anyone, even under contract by one of GM's competitors. It could be built in China for example. Silly argument.
Here's another silly one;
Clock-hater;
"There is that big fusion reactor in the sky. Not to mention the wind and water it drives. Fuel cells, etc, are a way of making that energy portable. Bridge stuff, to get us off hydrocarbons."
If it was any closer, we'd all fry to a crisp. Scientists built one. It operates for three one millionths of a second on earth and leaves a city a smoldering ruin as a result. Fuel cells operate on hydrogen. To make hydrogen you have to electrically break down water. It takes more electrical energy to break down a given quantity of water to make a given quantity of hydrogen than you get back. That electrical energy is generated in the conventional way, usually by burning fossil fuels. When taken as a whole, technologies that rely on the chemical reactions of hydrogen for power generate as much or usually more CO2 than just burning the fossil fuel in the first place. The difference comes from the relative efficiency of the indirect conversion of carbon energy to hydrogen versus the direct combustion of carbon energy and the energy to refine and distribute carbon based fuels verses the energy to transport hydrogen based fuels and the carbon fuels needed to generate hydrogen. The problem is extremely complex to analyze, there are many variables, but there are only marginal gains at best. In most cases hydrogen will lose to carbon when it comes to total CO2 evolved for a given ultimate energy output. Only those who don't know how chemical and industrial processes work come up with these naive ideas and proclaim them the panacea for the world. You have to wonder what kind of science advisors American Presidents have working for them...President Bush for example in this case who absurdly talked about a hydrogen economy.
Complain about this comment
#196: "Do you think GM could not duplicate a car made by anyone else, any make, any model, any component or group of components including the entire car if it wanted to? "
They appear to have tried this already and failed rather badly.
You deliberately choose to miss the point that was being made. Never mind.
Complain about this comment
197. At 11:27am on 09 Dec 2009, pciii wrote:
"You [MAII] deliberately choose to miss the point that was being made. Never mind."
No, you've got the wrong end of the stake, I'm afraid. The point keeps missing him. . .
Complain about this comment
#191 JMM
Do people who like PR know what that does in Israel? The Knesset is composed of minor ultra religious parties that are necessary for the big parties to form a coalition government. Their price for coalitions is the Israeli policies toward the Palestinians that Europeans [who love PR] love to hate. In Italy it has produced a lot of instability. An unstable US might appeal to some, it doesn’t appeal to us.
But does Israel have a clear codified constitution where citizens rights and the role of the executive are written into law? Also isn't the party whip pretty weak in Congress anyway (or so I've been told)?
Complain about this comment
I thought Obama already reduced the greenhouse gas footprint by promoting unemployment and stifling the economy.
Have you given no consideration to the Olympic bid? The Big "O" took a 747 (Air Force 1) to Europe. Another commercial airliner was dedicated to taking his wife. Air Force 1 used 300,000 pounds of fuel each way. Figure about 1.1 million pounds of fuel for the pair of them to try to get the Olympics in Chicago.
No, no one seems to have given Obama's actions any consideration. It is only his rhetoric that is important.
Mr. Obama could not care less about CO2 emissions.
The EPA is as bad in suppressing scientific discussion on greenhouse gas as the farce revealed in the Climate Change email scandal.
Complain about this comment
69. At 06:46am on 08 Dec 2009, publiusdetroit wrote:
I am interested in your concept of the role our military plays in supporting the Constitution. You noted in Post #53, "The understanding is that the military accepts an elected civilian official as their Commander in Chief." Where does this "understanding" originate?
It isn't my concept, it's the way the document is viewed by graduates of the War College at West Point. How else do you create potential Napoleons while at the same time convincing them to remain subordinate to the civil power? You raise up the Constitution to the level of Holy Writ, marry it to the belief that it is the foundation of the nation which they are honor bound to defend to their last breath, and that they are equal partners in the relationship. It's what they teach the military elite, because contrary to popular opinion, the government does not restrain the military, the military restrains itself.
I have been looking for a charter, or some other document that defines this "understanding". If you could please direct me to source, I would be most appreciative.
The textbooks aren't available online, but you could contact West Point, or sit down with a graduate of the War College and discuss the subject. But be aware, this "understanding", or philosophy, in regards to the Constitution has existed since Sylvanus Thayer was appointed first Commandant of the Military Academy and no one is quite sure who actually came up with the idea. I suspect that it might have originated with the Society of Cincinnati, of which George Washington and James Madison were both founding members.
67. At 06:40am on 08 Dec 2009, David Cunard wrote:
On the contrary, it makes you appear to be a jill-of-all-trades. mistress of none.
Why darling, you make that sound like it's a bad thing. I assure you, it's not. I get invited to all the best parties, where the conversation is both lively and stimulating - and where the johnny-one-notes are ditched at the door.
Complain about this comment
Pinko,
So did I. ;-)
As to the technological cavalry to ride to our rescue, we must agree to differ.
As to birth rates falling as a result of 'development', please note that cultures panic as the birth rate falls below replacement level, as witness breeding encouragement programmes in a number of 'developed' countries right now. 'Development' also invariably involves a considerable increase in percapita ecological footprint long before the birthrate even begins to fall significantly.
Put your faith in the lasthalf of the last prong. We are up against the First Law of Thermodynamics. No matter how much 'free' energy and 'technology' and 'conservation' there is, there ain't enough Earth for the present population, never mind the coming billions.
The Law
Complain about this comment
Spanners,
No. Israel has no constitution. NONE.
And not all methods of Proportional Representation are the same. Scotland uses a system of PR mixed with first-past-the-post, and it has been quite a success, to my mind. Others may feel differently.
Complain about this comment
Gavriella, If I were to throw a party, you'd be most welcome
xxx
Complain about this comment
lol
TiM.
I was wondering;)
thought I saw sence that had been around here for some time.
to know that MA would grab so hard at the prod;)
"Is this silly discussion over yet or do we have to go through it again? "
MA you seem to have a lot to write on what you don't care.; )
still doesn't explain how a dream of a midsized airliner was so hard to get up in the air.
why they had to redesign the wings, on the boing after they had rolled out the model; ).
. Talk of basics
dream on dud.
198 shame them points can't be made to home in.
Listen Americans . does it really matter that the world is warming. You are capitalists. you provide what the world wants.
your capitalism will be dead if you do not. the world wants Green technology. Provide it or become insignificant.
Some companies realise this but average Joe or Lucy in america seems to think that they can wait.
Complain about this comment
"Naturally the technology was different but lift capacity, volume, range, size shape were all similar. "
TiM there was also the other point. that is MA is not so good at analysing as he claims.
the airbus had a range that was better (that's why they built it) carried more and with less fuel, used a revolutionary wing design made of composites and BTW had wings under the fuselage not over the top so looked NOTHING like the other.
that coupled with the disaster that proved to be the boings dream till now and we have ample evidence that MA is not very analytical. wing position is pretty easy to see.
Yet he wishes us to assume so regularly that he has great observation powers and can critically analyse situations and designs. That his spouting on the environment should be taken seriously etc.
Now most know he is a hearing but it does illustrate his foolishness when he starts on this oold HAt. Yet he rises to the occasion so easily.
;)
Complain about this comment
on to nuke fuel.
MA where do we get the majority of our Nuke fuel these days.?
Direct question.
Only one word needed.
Complain about this comment
"-Not knowing your opinions on abortion, "
you were conversing with a Brit. they generally make like 'gone with the wind' on that topic. they don't give a dam.
Complain about this comment
"In the long term, well, wasn't it Carl Sagan who said that all civilizations are eventually either space faring or extinct?"
yea but so what. he's a space junkie. trar trekker near enough.
Tech will save us to move on. the time frame of "the sun will burn out eventually so lets get ready to leave is part of the techno dream liner that has been pushed by so many.
They say tech will save us from the problems we are creating today.
sure it's possible,but not with uncontrolled tech dreaming.
Do you need a cell phone?
how much water goes into making the chips in the cell phone.
I would say that we have elevated the techno dreamers enough. that most today in the west think they need to have a cell phone. And we are beginning to create societies where you really do need one.
so we create or necessity dreaming of the stars till we really need to go cause we screwed this up So bad.
Complain about this comment
geo is great why have a turbine. Most energy used todayis used for heating and cooling.
why not just t use that het to heat.
Oregon is at 20 degrees this week. but the sun still shines. the colder it gets the less clouds we get.
all that is wasted, but that Geo thermal is there always.
until we act like some parasite and suck SO much out it cools the mantel.
but I suspect we will be looking for other planets before then.
Complain about this comment
184. At 01:01am on 09 Dec 2009, JMM wrote:
Our government is much closer to the Turkish model, with Praetorian Guards to enforce Constitutionality.
They aren't enforcing anything. That's the job of the Supreme Court.
This makes me think, very uncomfortably of the occasion when the president was disabled and a high ranking general said, on TV, “Don’t worry, I’m in charge!”
You're talking about Gen. Alexander Haig, who was Secretary of Defense at the time Reagan was shot. The Vice President was out of position, i.e. not in Washington, DC at the time, so technically he might have been in charge - at least according to the Constitution. That's a subject that was hotly debated at the time, though I'm not sure it was ever resolved.
With this in my mind, I will have trouble sleeping for some time.
Can't imagine why. The military has no desire to take over the country. They have a desire to see the country remain intact and safe from a bunch of greedy, barely useful, venal politicians, who'd make a mockery of our inalienable rights given half a chance. Remember, they have to live here too, as do their families.
1. A convention would not NECESSARILY extinguish the current document rather than amending it.
Once it's convened the validity of the Constitution has been called into question and all bets are off.
2. The original had stipulations as to ratification and coming into effect. A new constitution could be so written and with such stipulations that:
a. there would be no extinction of the old constitution [the new could be like the Bill of Rights, an omnibus amendment].
You don't need to hold a convention to amend the Constitution. You only need one to rewrite it.
b. The obligation of the military could be transferred or the officer corps could be ordered and required to order their troops to transfer their allegiance to the new document.
And how would you manage that? By dictatorial command? Get real.
3. Most importantly, your view is a Confederate interpretation of the constitution, not a Northern one, and as we [sorry] won the Civil War [sorry, not the War Between the Sovereign States], the treaty notion could be considered moot.
The concept existed for nearly a century before the Confederate states came into existence. And since many of our early leaders were Southerners - like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who were all from Virginia - I'm inclined to give them the credit.
I’m still going to have trouble sleeping, as the Civil War DID result in treason by Military officers who had sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies [Jeff Davis for No. 1] foreign and domestic.
It resulted in treason only because there is no mechanism for secession in the Constitution. There is also no mechanism for expelling a state, only for admitting one. It is a Treaty in Perpetuity - and don't imagine that the authors, including those from the Deep South, didn't know it. If they'd ever thought they might want to get out of it (or that their descendants should be able to get out of it), they'd have created just such a mechanism. The fact is, they didn't.
Complain about this comment
204. At 3:06pm on 09 Dec 2009, Crataegus Monogyna wrote:
Gavriella, If I were to throw a party, you'd be most welcome
xxx
And I should gladly accept, kind sir.
ooo
Complain about this comment
RE: 211
Oops! I meant to say Haig was Secretary of State at the time.
Complain about this comment
Yes, Al "I'm in charge" Haig was Secretary of State. He was trying to reassure everyone that things were under control, but he went wrong in saying also: "First you have the President, then the Vice President, then the Secretary of State," implying that he was in the line of succession. In fact, the Speaker of the House is next in line after the VP. It is statutory, not constitutional.
Complain about this comment
Gavrielle,
I don't see that this is necessarily so. After all, a convention might conceivably, in the end, decide to leave it un-changed. It might also be a condition of said convention that the status quo prevails until actively changed.
I'd be happy to discuss this while partaking of refreshments...
Complain about this comment
ann arbor (#200) "No, no one seems to have given Obama's actions any consideration."
In fact, a lot of people, including people who generally support Obama, thought his trip to lobby for the Olympics in person was foolishness.
Complain about this comment
MAII (#196) "At worst, if Opel had such important secrets, all GM would have to do ...."
It is you who is writing gibberish. There are no secrets. GM owns Opel. It is about rights, not knowlege.
Complain about this comment
Gavriella,
Didn't Paine, among others, have something to say about the impropriety of attempting to bind future generations?
The rights of men in society, are neither devisable or transferable, nor annihilable, but are descendable only, and it is not in the power of any generation to intercept finally, and cut off the descent. If the present generation, or any other, are disposed to be slaves, it does not lessen the right of the succeeding generation to be free. Wrongs cannot have a legal descent. When Mr. Burke attempts to maintain that the English nation did at the Revolution of 1688, most solemnly renounce and abdicate their rights for themselves, and for all their posterity for ever, he speaks a language that merits not reply, and which can only excite contempt for his prostitute principles, or pity for his ignorance."
Rights of Man
;-)
Complain about this comment
The manner in which hydrogen is produced for fuel cells on a small scale for experimental or specialized use is not important. Large-scale production intended to help transition from fossil fuels to sustainable resources will require new methods of production. Here is a link to a short discussion of the alternatives: http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html
Complain about this comment
"it's worth pointing out that the Senators who opposed abolition were doing what their constituents wanted and what they felt was in the interest of their states"
NO what SOME of their constituants wanted.
the black ones were not asked. and they were as the law of the land now sates equal. even before that was recognised by all.
as to why I mentioned the gun law.
cause it was as stupid as they get and the Brits probably find not taxing guns for any time to encourage sales is stupid considering their state in question has some of the worst schooling problems in the nation.
So why your fascination with minute details of my posts?
Carry on pretending you don't have an issue red herring.
Complain about this comment
217 yep gibberish it is.
Gav As I found out, again recently.
jmm is a rather circular conversationalist.
but don't worry in the end he will agree with you;)
Complain about this comment
219 Wll done Gary. that's more like it.
the world of architecture could really be the saviour we need.
keep looking, many of the problems are already solved. but not by enough people.
Complain about this comment
http://www.solarbuzz.com/News/NewsNAPR1796.htm
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/24357/?nlid=2490
Complain about this comment
#203 Crataegus
JMM was using Israel as an example against PR because of its 'smoke filled' rooms of coalition making and religious extremist groups getting into government. IMO that couldn't happen in the US, because it has a constitution that not only clearly defines citizens' rights, but how government and the legislature is run.
Agreed about the various forms of PR. You can have the single transferable vote at the very proportional end of the PR spectrum to the Additional Member System at the other (which I think Scotland's system is based on). FPTP is sooo nineteenth century!
I read in wikipedia that PR is not permitted in elections to the House of Reps. Is this true? I would have thought it was none of the federal govt's business in how a State runs its elections. Call me cynical, but is PR not permitted because a truly representative lower house would undermine the authority of the Senate?
Complain about this comment
Spanner,
I agree it should be a state's right to determine the conduct of elections (within human rights conditions). I suspect the reason it is resisted is thata it might have the same effect as 'term limits', and result in not only more diverse representation, but a higher turnover. As it is, although the entire House stands for election every two years, many serve for decades....(a consequence of 'pork')
On reflection, I think the |House may be in greater need of 'reform' than the Senate.
Complain about this comment
spanners71 (#224) "I read in wikipedia that PR is not permitted in elections to the House of Reps. Is this true? I would have thought it was none of the federal govt's business in how a State runs its elections."
The US Constitution gives Congress jurisdiction over the manner of election in Article 1, Section 4: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section4
Here is part of the US Code on the election of members of the House of Representatives: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/usc_sec_02_00000002---c000-.html
I recommend the use of the Cornell law website instead of Wikipedia for information on the Constitution and US Codes.
Discussion of Proportional Representation in the context of US elections is purely academic. It's not going to happen.
Complain about this comment
publiusdetroit #111. . .
The point I was trying to make in my post #93 was that the continent that houses our closest allies in this world is, I feel, rather unfairly harsh, not to mention woefully uninformed, in its criticism of a governmental institution of ours that has worked, all be it badly at times, all throughout its existance, and not to highlight the disgraceful voter turn out in many of our elections. Mr. Hill (and undoubtedly the thousands/millions of the "main political magazeen" in Brussels's readers) act as though we can, and should, merely snap our fingers, abolish the Senate, and start from scratch again. How long did it take for the Lisbon treaty to come into force? 10 years? And that was when all peaceful European countries had declared that they more or less wanted the same thing. 40%
of the American people at the time of our revolution, by contrast, were firm loyalists, another 40% firm independents, and still another 20% indifferent. It took us 9 years to fight and win the war, and then only afterward did the hard barganing begin toward developing a suitable government for all involved. Mr. Hill mentions that the Senate was created to keep the slave holding states in the union, yes that's true. But he also aught to know that the union itself wouldn't exist had our founders decided, as they came very close to doing, to strike slavery from the constitution. If they had, the slave holding states would have decided against declaring independence from Britain and probably would have fought along side them. I've got to tell you, in my opinion, its very worrying indeed to learn that our closest allies don't see any purpose in one of our major governmental institutions.
As regards voting, yes I agree that it is utterly pathetic that not nearly enough people turn out during elections. Even more embarrissing when apparently at least 70% of people in European countries constantly turn out every election; or so I've heard. But forgive me, but I think your expectations of nearly 100% of all registered voters turning out at elections in the future is a bit naive, if you don't mind my saying so. Its a miracle in and of itself just to get 60% to turn out at all elections, much less more than that.
"The best argument against democracy is a 5 minit conversation with the average voter."--Sir Winston Churchill.
Complain about this comment
227 PursuitOfLove--
Just as a matter of record, Steven Hill is probably an American. He's currently the director of the Political Reform Program at New America Foundation, which is based in Washington, D.C. and Sacramento.
Complain about this comment
@GH1618
Thanks for the clarification. And I rather liked Al Haig. Very handsome in his day. But then, I've only ever dated/married combat veterans.
# 215. At 4:30pm on 09 Dec 2009, Crataegus Monogyna wrote:
I don't see that this is necessarily so. After all, a convention might conceivably, in the end, decide to leave it un-changed. It might also be a condition of said convention that the status quo prevails until actively changed.
There is only one reason to have a second constitutional convention and that is to write a new one - no matter how you parse the language, or what any politician tells. And do you honestly believe they'd leave it unchanged if given even half the chance to alter it? I wouldn't trust most politicians to change a diaper, let alone the Constitution! These aren't statesmen, they're ciphers with overly inflated egos; addicted to power and the game of politics. I'd sooner send the Stay Puft Marshmallow man as a delegate to a second constitutional convention than most of those currently in office.
I'd be happy to discuss this while partaking of refreshments...
I just made a batch of spice cookies. Let me get my coffee...
Didn't Paine, among others, have something to say about the impropriety of attempting to bind future generations?
Paine was a useful tool as a propagandist in rousing populist sentiments, but the founding fathers didn't necessarily view all of his ideas as worthy to be set in stone. They were attempting to create a stable government, which is what most people want. The nod to Paine is in the ability to amend the Constitution, or else each generation would have to write it anew. Some people might enjoy anarchy, most don't. It's bad for business and America is all about commerce.
221. At 4:50pm on 09 Dec 2009, fluffytale wrote:
Gav As I found out, again recently.
jmm is a rather circular conversationalist.
but don't worry in the end he will agree with you;)
Thanks for the heads up. Although, he doesn't have to agree with me. My point is simply that what reality ought to be and what it actually is are two different things. And wishful thinking, or imagining that good will always triumph over evil is foolish. Evil may not always triumph, but it will make your life a living hell until it's beaten. We were lucky to get a Constitution that mostly works. I'm not about to advocate screwing that up just so a bunch of day-dreaming malcontents can feel all self-important.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
I know, busy man that you are, that you've already written two more posts on the strategy in Afghanistan. But if you get the time, I urge you to please read through these posts for your answer to what we think about Senate reform, as well as for our thoughts on a range of other constitutional issues. After you do, it would be wonderful if you could post your thoughts on our responses.
As regards an executive order being used to enact climate change legislation, I can certainly understand why that option might be tempting. No hasslesome congress to deal with etc. But executive orders can be very dangerous and unpredictable. Yes it is now largely accepted that an executive order passed by Roosevelt was the deciding factor in Britain's success in standing alone against the Nazis, and thus the ultimate victory of the allies against the axis powers in the war. But on the other side of that coin, executive orders were passed by Bush II after 9/11 which drasticly undermined our constitution and international law, ranging from Guantanamo Bay (after Congress had said no,) to the employment of torture, to the restriction of civil liberties, to a whole host of other things. So in my opinion executive orders should be employed by presidents with the greatest of discression.
Besides. Even if Obama does enact climate change legislation through an executive order, as post #38 has already pointed out, the next administration, if it so chooses, can simply repeal that order. So the only way to get real meaningful climate change legislation through, whether the world likes it or not, is through that damned Congress.
Complain about this comment
The possibility of a constitutional convention being called is frightening. There are several web sites which can easily be found on the subject. Here's a link to just one: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/1241
There is also a movement within California to rewrite the State Constitution. This has a greater chance of happening, I think. If it does, we'll see how it turns out.
Complain about this comment
201. At 2:39pm on 09 Dec 2009, Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote:
RE #69. At 06:46am on 08 Dec 2009, publiusdetroit
And 211
This clears up the problem I had with your previous post. You weren’t quoting political theory or constitutional law. You were quoting military doctrine and tradition. In this case, it might very well be a bulwark against military rebellion against the Constitution and the constitutionally established government. I am very certain the retelling of George Washington’s speech about growing old in service to his country and needing glasses to continue is as strong a motivator today as it was then. Military tradition is not to be despised or underrated.
I don’t doubt our military in the present. Truman fired a pushy MacArthur without any pushback, much less rebellion. Kent State was poorly trained guardsmen firing on civilians; I can’t imagine our professional military would do such a thing, much less rebel. The officers and the troops, whatever their personal political convictions, have received their new CIC warmly and loyally.
Your post at 211 also answered most of these points as well. It is the current polarization and the possibility that the military might at sometime in the future feel it necessary to intervene [as the praetorians took to doing, and done once it becomes easier] that is worrisome. As is the growing mutual alienation of important segments of the population.
The polarization of the US between groups who seemingly can’t even be civil to each other, much less compromise in the public interest, is worrisome. The Red vs. Blue States maps are upsettingly close to the Grey vs. Blue maps of long ago. At which time a very large number of military members treasonously violated the same oath. Some Southern officers did not, they maintained that their oath was unconditional and unbreakable despite their personal feelings [I hope that is also taught to the military]. There are those practicing divide & conquer against us these days, and some of us are aiding and abetting them. I hope they fail,.
RE 229. At 8:02pm on 09 Dec 2009, Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote to GH1618
Right on, I don’t trust either end of the corrupt corporatist Pushmepullyou [maybe Catdog would be better] that masquerades as the “2 major parties.” Diogenes would have failed here too.
Complain about this comment
The Senate does INDEED exist to stop BAD legislation. What you and the people at E-Sharp don't understand is just how contention legislation including anti-slavery was in America. Of course TODAY slavery and anti-slavery are taboo subjects. Slavery, like rape is regarded as "never acceptable". However, if you were to examine the Census for Washington DC just before the Civil War you would find that there were a vast number of black slaves in Washington itself serving the legislators from the Southern states. Slavery was the key to the Cotton economy and cotton was America's largest export!
You may be forgiven your ignorance of American history but NOT this ingenuous naivete that you are shamming! Shame on you!
Obama is working toward one-party government. He is leading the way to authoritarianism. This last election was a hideous sham...a popularity contest, a vote for SLOGANS not substance. One applauds all efforts by the Republicans to defeat, delay, and confound the present evil forces actively working to destroy the fabric of our nation! And here you are playing the giddy goat!
America has a form of government unique in all the world. NO ONE ELSE WANTS to pattern their government after ours and with good reason! We are stuck with these corrupt officials and cannot dismiss them. Yes, we are fully conscious of the shortcomings of our political system, especially now that there are only 2 parties and a definite move is on toward one-party rule. But the people are disenfranchised and the hideously corrupt power elite is in charge. THAT is the meaning of the flashing police lights whenever Obama goes to the hill to FORCE his will on the people. FREEDOM has been lost in America!
Complain about this comment
I just found this article and I had to comment. Obama should take action and change our enviromental policy. Our congress moves slowly and does seem to thwart positive actions by the president.
If Obama is hamprered in creating positive changes for our environment we may all look like Burnt Guy here in the next 10 years.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS