Sandy:

The challenge of our time is figuring out if effective government is possible given the social, political, cultural, and economic realities we live under.

If what you mean by "effective government" is the ability to enact laws supported by a majority of the voters, I would contend that we have that now with or without the filibuster. I cannot think of a single instance where legislation (not fantasy concepts like free medical care for all) supported by a majority of voters (not a plurality or minority) has not been substantially enacted by the government within five years. Can you?

If what you mean by effective government is being able to enact legislation you prefer but is not supported by a majority of voters by a bare majority of representatives, then your desire is contrary to the design of the Constitution, which set up the bicameral Congress and the President's veto to stop transient political majorities from changing policy. The Senate filibuster is simply more of the same.
 

Thanks for the Gordon Wood recommendation, I just ordered "Empire of Liberty".

PS: I can't believe you still allow comments - that "Bart DePalma" person has been barfing all over your posts for like, what, 5 years now?
 

Yodelim's concept of "effective government" seems to be no government. David Klinghoffer, a William Buckleyite, offers at the LATimes today (8/1/10) "From neocons to crazy-cons" that closes with this:

"When I became a conservative, that is what I signed up for: a profound vision granting transcendent significance to public life and hope in private life. The goal wasn't to defeat Democratic officeholders or humiliate left-wing activists. It was, and still is, with those who remember, to save civilization."

Let's see, who fits the description of a "crazy-con"?
 

"I cannot think of a single instance where legislation (not fantasy concepts like free medical care for all) supported by a majority of voters (not a plurality or minority) has not been substantially enacted by the government within five years. Can you?"

Border enforcement?

Term limits?

A balanced budget amendment?
 

As I read the US constitutional settlement, it provides for representative democracy. Therefore, as their title specifies, the members of the House are “representatives” not “delegates” and I suggest that the Founding Fathers were literate gentlemen who well knew the difference between the two words.

A “delegate” can be bound by the instructions he receives from those sending him, a “representative” cannot. The whole point is that the electors’ representatives are trusted to exercise their own judgment about draft legislation placed before them and to exercise that judgment after being informed by inquiry and debate.

Therefore, Bart’s proposition is simply wrong. Effective government requires the Congress to be able to pass laws supported by (i) a majority of the representatives in the House and (ii) a majority of the senators in the Senate. There is no requirement that the legislation should also or instead have the support of a majority of the electorate – either nationally or separately in the several states.

Indeed, representative democracy presupposes that at times the proper exercise of responsibility will require the legislators to do things which may be unpopular but necessary – for example to exercise the taxing power vested in them

The remedy of the electorate unhappy with the judgment of their representative or senator is exercisable periodically at the ballot box supposedly on the conduct of the representative or the senator over the term served and judged overall.

What the Founding Fathers, who knew their Horace, feared was not the proper exercise of their powers by the elected representatives, but the anarchy which they feared would be the result of direct rule by the ”profanum vulgus”.

The filibuster has nothing to do with the constitution and were the senate to change its rules then all that would happen would be that it would be rather easier for one congress to reverse the acts of its predecessor. That might make for the illusion of progress rather than gridlock and make for higher congressional approval ratings. Whether it would mean there was actually progress is quite another matter.

This NYT editorial What They’re Not Telling You and this NYT op-ed by Reagan’s OMB director Four Deformations of the Apocalypse suggest that the GOP is going to be living in interesting times when, in the next session, the expiring Bush tax cuts for the wealthy have to be considered.
 

Mourad:

I am pleased that you have read our Constitution. However, the issue we are discussing is what Sandy's idea of "effective government" means and whether the filibuster and/or our Constitution is preventing Sandy's goal.

When Sandy bemoans the inability to enact legislation like Cap & Tax, which only a minority of voters support, I strongly suspect that his idea of effective government has less to do with the democratic ideal of a government which carries out the will of the People and more that his favored policies are being thwarted.
 

The Dems had the power to do the same thing the Republicans are doing now during the Bush years, that is, vote as a bloc to try to block most significant legislation.

So, I don't think it's necessary for the Republicans to remove end the filibuster. If they do get power, I doubt they will have the votes anyways. They didn't last time.

The Dems did not do what Republicans are doing because that is not how they roll. They are not as united, for good or ill, and conservative Dems in particular supported various conservative policies or (along with others) tried to find a middle path.

The inability of Republicans to do this is but one reason I don't find them credible enough to be given the power to control Congress. I don't find this a good policy, but it is what the party wrought. Those wary of Democratic policies should be particularly upset at this reality.

As to Madison, I question that analysis. Political parties arose because of a natural division of governmental power, Madison working with Jefferson in that very direction out of fear of the governing Federalist faction. When elites governed, they had their own factions. It was not merely a matter of "the people" getting more control, though that did aggravate the situation.
 

If the Founding Fathers had wanted to establish a constitution whereby every decision of government would be put to a referendum of the people, they could have done so. They did not.

Perhaps they did not because many had received a classical education and well knew what a disaster direct democracy of that kind had proved to be in Athens (Greece, not Georgia).

It is a perfectly proper exercise of the constitutional powers vested in them for the legislators to enact legislation the people do not want at the time, but which the legislators consider necessary and beneficial. That is what they are sent to Washington to do.

Medical care for the whole population free at the point of delivery is not a fantasy. In the UK we have benefited form that since 1948. Something similar is available in many countries.

Bart asserts that only a minority of voters support climate change legislation. Reputable opinion polls, such as Pew, suggest that a majority of voters would like more climate change legislation, not less.

Professor Levinson is well able to speak for himself, but as I understand it, he has reservations about the Senate firstly because of the undemocratic provision which provides that different senators represent a differing number of electors (a constitutional problem) and secondly because senators use provisions like the filibuster to thwart the will of the majority or the individual hold to prevent confirmation of a nominee (procedural problems).

While the first problem will require a constitutional amendment to resolve, the issue of the misuse of the senate rules is less difficult to resolve and, I would add, should not be necessary to resolve.

There was and is a convention that legislators are “gentlemen” and “honourable”. Both concepts were inherited from colonial Britain and are preserved in the forms of address used in the chambers. In accordance with that convention, legislators should conduct themselves as gentlemen and reach accommodations which permit the majority to conduct the business of the state without undue obstruction.

Finally, I am pleased that dear Bart has noticed that I have a passing familiarity with the terms of the US Constitution. For my part I would wish that he had a better understanding of the true meaning of representative democracy.
 

Border enforcement?

Term limits?

A balanced budget amendment?

Seriously! I'd also add:

Edujobs?

Federal legislation against eminent domain?

Public option for health care?
 

Yodelim's concept of "effective government" seems to be no government.

That government is best which governs least.
 

Mourad:

1) Our Constitution was designed with multiple checks and balances to in order to make it harder for transient majorities of elected representatives to exercise government power over the People. Thus, only policies with majority voter support are likely to be enacted. This is how the Founders dealt with the transient passions of the polis.

2) The Constitution was most certainly not designed to send an elected aristocracy to Congress who will impose their will upon the people. Our revolutionary Founders would have been appalled by the idea. The purpose of representatives is to represent, not to rule.

3) You are confusing power with purpose. While a party of representatives has the power to enact laws against the wishes of the people, that is not their role under the Constitution. Thankfully, we have frequent elections to take anti-democratic governments to task. However, the epitome of a dysfunctional government is one where the People cannot depend upon their representatives to represent their will and must continuously remove them in angry elections.
 

However, the epitome of a dysfunctional government is one where the People cannot depend upon their representatives to represent their will and must continuously remove them in angry elections.

No, the epitome of a dysfunctional government is one where the People cannot depend upon their representatives to represent their will and, despite their anger, cannot remove them through elections.
 

Actually, I would say that a "dysfunctional government" is one that cannot act for the common good. Whether it represents the will of the people would depend on whether it was a democracy.

Of course, in the current circumstance, the filibuster simply represents an impediment to action. Whether action is needed for the common good will only be known at some point in the future, when we have the next corporation-sponsored catastrophe.
 

This would appear to be a good time to quote our founding document - the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that 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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
 

David Nieporent's:

"That government is best which governs least."

is so original, it is worthy of quoting with full credit to him for his immortality.

But does this mean that NO government is best, to say the least? And is No government equal to, or does it lead to, anarchy? At the time of the founding, perhaps David's quote had significance what with the population then. But now with well over 300 million in population in a much more crowded world with the technological changes that have taken place since the founding and continuing, how small can government be, what with the need for interdependence throughout not only America but the world? No need for a pure food law? Drill, baby, drill, any and every where?

David, I don't mean to take away from your creativity with words. Let's hear some more like that.
 

That government is best which governs least.
# posted by David Nieporent : 4:25 PM

You should join Brett in Somalia.
 

The latest yodelism on the introduction to the Declaration of Independence does not tell us just how it squares with the Constitution. It should be remembered that the Articles of Confederation that governed before the Constitution was recognized as inadequate. And the Constitution that supplanted the Articles also turned out to be inadequate for Americans who were not property owning males, women, or were slaves or native indians. It took a long time for the words of the Declaration to become more meaningful to ALL Americans.

It should be noted that in an earlier draft of the Declaration, Jefferson had chided King George with respect to the slave trade that England engaged in. This was deleted due to the interests of the slave states, of course, now known as Nixon's Southern Strategy.

For some innocents out there, of course the full Declaration went on to say quite a bit more than was disclosed by this yodelism.
 

Shag:

Are you actually arguing that the Constitution is contrary to the founding principle of this nation - that the government is the servant of the People?
 

Bart is confused in part because he has forgotten his history.

In 1776 the suffrage of the different colonies varies but in no state does a majority of the population have the right to vote. Females have no vote in any colony. The franchise is confined to property owning white males – generally less than half of the white male population. A number of states also impose a religious test.

So that this time, one can equate the “the people” to whom the legislatures are answerable with the US equivalent of the British “knights of the shires and the burgesses of the towns”. Indeed, in Virginia, the nomenclature remains. The lower house was and remains the House of Burgesses.

So, despite the lofty words of the Declaration of Independence (which is very much concerned to be a bill of particulars justifying the rescission of the social contract between monarch and people so as to justify action in breach of the Oath of allegiance), the American Revolution was not a revolution of ”the people” but of the landowners and the bourgeoisie.

If one looks at the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention, they are people who are well educated, immersed in the works of Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and Montesquieu and with political experience at the state and national level. They were the elite of the time and the Constitution devised by the Founding Fathers is still for governance by the great and the good chosen by and answerable only to the enfranchised citizens who, at the time, are very far from being a majority of the people.

Article 1 of the 1787 Constitution left franchise tests to the states. While Article 6 made a religious test for office unlawful (Madison had been concerned with the rights of Baptists in Virginia) it is worth noting that it took time for that to be applied by the states. I have a recollection (I may be wrong) that it took until the 1820’s for the eligibility of Jews to vote and be candidates in Maryland to be finally resolved. Property qualifications for white men are only abolished between 1812-1860. Black men are granted citizenship in 1868 (14th Amendment) and they get the vote (in theory only in some states) in 1870 (15th Amendment). Women have to wait until 1920 (19th Amendment). The poor (especially the non whites) have to wait in some states until poll taxes are removed for federal elections in 1964 (24th Amendment).

Since the Revolution, the Government of the United States has certainly been exercised in the name of the People, but the government has only ever been accountable to the enfranchised electorate and it cannot be contended that there was truly universal suffrage until the latter half of the 20th Century.

Accountability to all the people is a modern innovation. It is still exercised by the right of the people not to re-elect a legislator with whose performance they are unhappy. There is no federal provision for legislation by referendum whether occasional or on a continuing basis.
 

It strikes me that one of the present problems afflicting politics comes from a misconception as to the rights of corporations.

Corporations for commercial purposes have historically been granted legal personality by charter or by statute so as to enable them to sue and be sued in their own name and to have the privilege of limited liability (which citizens do not have).

Does it follow from that that corporations ought to have the right to participate in the electoral process by virtue of having a “legal personality”?

It has never been thought that a corporation should be able to vote in an election on such ground. Therefore should they have the right to influence the electoral process by campaign contributions in cash or in kind? I would argue that that the right to contribute to electoral or political campaigns should be limited to those on the electoral registers thus excluding both foreigners and corporations.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mourad, your point is irrelevant. Yes, the founders were wrong a\b whether or not to include the non-propertied, non-whites, and women. That said, the idea that the wisdom they put forth no longer applies because of this fact is ludicrous. They enfranchised only the white and propertied b\c they thought only they could bear the responsibility of self-government. Clearly, the groups then disenfranchised have proven they can in fact bear this responsibility too. Therefore, given that the founders operated on the assumption that their political thought applied to those who could responsibly exercise the rights of franchise, their wisdom still applies to the enlarged electorate.

Typical progressive garbage.
 

How serious can schmid215 be with this conclusion:

"Typical progressive garbage."

Apparently to schmid215 it wasn't progress that led to the rights of women, the unpropertied males, the slaves, etc. Perhaps its was the kindness and thoughtfulness of the propertied males, convinced that "they [the formerly disenfranchised] could bear the responsibility of self-government." The abolitionists, the suffragists, etc, really didn't have to do battle?

No, what Schmid215 espouses is typical reactionary crapola.
 

Shag: I agree.

One sees the agenda of people who want to reduce legislators from “representatives” to mere “delegates”.

The problem of such logic is that sometimes it is necessary for legislators to do what is unpopular and that is particularly true in relation to taxation.

I refer to David Stockman’s NYT piece which I linked to further up the thread. This gentleman is no bleeding heart liberal. He was Reagan’s OMB Director.

”If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation’s public debt — if honestly reckoned to include municipal bonds and the $7 trillion of new deficits baked into the cake through 2015 — will soon reach $18 trillion.
…
The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.”

Stockman sets out the wholly sorry mess in excruciating detail. In particular he points out what the consequence has been:

” It is not surprising, then, that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1 percent of Americans — paid mainly from the Wall Street casino — received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90 percent — mainly dependent on Main Street’s shrinking economy — got only 12 percent. This growing wealth gap is not the market’s fault. It’s the decaying fruit of bad economic policy.”

In other words, having turned several states into economic basket cases (California for example), these people want to re-write the constitution to make it possible for them to continue to do the same with the federal budget process.

The federal constitution as written gives the people ample opportunity to hold legislators to account. At the proper time – which is at elections. The Founding Fathers were wise in that regard.

Running day by day accountability with opinion polls already contributes mightily to short-termism. Anything which means that no legislator could ever dare vote for something unpopular but in the national interest could bring down the Republic and replace it - but with what?
 

Shag, don't put words in my mouth. I made it clear that I viewed the movements for expanded suffrage as a necessary towards a more just definition of "we the people". I was simply trying to dispel the notion that because the founders did not grant expanded suffrage rights, their political theory needs to be revised or shunned. The merits of their procedural theory bears no relation to their failure to grant universal suffrage.
 

Schmid215 used the word "garbage." But he doesn't admit that "progressive" was good when "We the People" long after the founding was more justly defined. It seems clear that the founders' political theory was indeed refined, after decades and decades of sufferings and deprivations, including a Civil War. The Declaration, even the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution were at the time giant strides forward that over time progressed, although at times slowly. But America is not locked in the founders' time warp. Progress is America's (not just GE's) most important product. Imagine what the founders would say about the election of an African American President in 2008.
 

For the last time, "trash" did not refer to the necessary and just expansion of suffrage rights that has occurred since founding. "Trash" was referring to the fantastically stupid notion that since the founders did not grant universal suffrage, their procedural theory of governance and opinions of the capability of ordinary citizens that formed its basis need to be revised FOR THAT REASON alone. The assumption they made about white propertied males, namely, that in the aggregate they were a rational thinking group with the ability to sift through the basic questions of policy and make good electoral choices, have been shown to apply equally to those groups initially disenfranchised. Therefore, the assumptions about human nature they grounded their theory on, in addition to the procedural theory of governance they formed the basis of, need not be revised strictly on the basis of their failure to grant universal suffrage. Now please, I'm getting tired of re-hashing. Put away the race-class-gender card, the final crutch of all crazy and confused liberals, and get over yourself.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

l
 

Mourad, I think it's clear that the best way to characterize a U.S. congressman, on the basis of common sense and historical facts, is as neither a pure delegate nor a pure trustee. Foremost, I agree, he/she should be a trustee, and proceed as such most of the time on the basis of having been popularly elected. That said, delaying or reconsidering legislation on the basis of change in public opinion cannot be counted out. The more public support dips below the 50% line, the more legislators should think twice or reconsider. 60% seems like a good place to start seriously thinking twice. Further justification for this line of reasoning would come from the Federalist Papers, in which the authors made it clear that the senate and checks and balances generally should stand as a bulwark against hastily and ill conceived legislation. What this acknowledges is the fact that popular legislatures will sometimes err, and it is necessary to take steps to account for this. In my opinion, though it could never be written formally into the constitution, popular opinion (especially if it is very much opposed to a bill) could and should have a place as a check, perhaps "auxiliary precaution" to use Madison's term, on the bills that are sometimes rammed through congress.
 

Schmid215 correctly agrees that the the expansion of the franchise over the years has meant that the people as a whole and not merely the enfranchised minority can hold legislators to account.

Where I disagreed with poor Bart was his novel proposition that legislators cannot properly legislate when the legislation is unpopular (i.e. that a bill should never pass if public opinion is against it).

A bill should pass if it has the votes in the legislature. The people if so minded can take their revenge at election time and then the next legislature can reverse if so minded.

My point was that the US Constitution provides for representative democracy, not government by referendum or plebiscite and that the Founding Fathers were wise in that regard.

I do not see how orthodox interpretation is progressive garbage"

BTW - Professor Bainbridge has a nice post about the present conservative scene: It's getting embarrassing to be a conservative.
[Hat Tip - Jonathan Adler on Volokh Conspiracy]
 

schmid215 now uses "trash" instead of "garbage" which suggests he/she doesn't remember his/her own verbiage.

And with this, schmid215:

"Now please, I'm getting tired of re-hashing. Put away the race-class-gender card, the final crutch of all crazy and confused liberals, and get over yourself."

suggests that she/he hasn't gotten over Brown v. Board of Education, and relies upon the crutch of the good old days, including the limited "We the People" of the founders, CJ Taney's Dred Scott decision, pre-Civil War Amendments, Plessy, etc, and Nixon's post-Brown Southern Strategy.

Perhaps schmid215 should crawl into him/herself. .
 

Schmid215: We do therefore agree on the fundamentals.

A good member of a legislature keeps in touch with his electorate and takes soundings. Part of the give and take in debate includes the balancing of infinitely competing interests (eg rural against urban). A good member should be prepared to explain to his constituency just why he supports or opposes a particular measure (otherwise he’s at risk at the next election). Where necessary, he is prepared to defy the party whips. It’s his conscience and judgment that the electors rely on for the period of his mandate.

I agree that checks and balances are built into constitutions to prove time for reflection and debate - and yes – negotiation and amendment. I deal with the product of our legislature in the courts and I think there are few bills that do not get improved in the course of their passage – rushed legislation is nearly always flawed.

I personally would be cautious about “public opinion” because (i) it is fickle and (ii) it is difficult to measure. Also there are dangers in responding too quickly to the popular cry that ”something must be done”.

I would say that it would sometimes be appropriate to ask a majority for matters to be put on hold until after a recess so that legislators could go back to see their electors. In a civilised legislature that kind of compromise should be capable of being worked out between gentlemen.

But equally, I do not think it is responsible for a minority to block legislation ad infinitum. A majority ultimately has the right to its programme - at its own electoral risk.
 

Mourad:

Shag suggested in a previous post that the Constitution was somehow contrary to the principle upon which this country was founded - the government is the servant to the People.

As to your points concerning universal suffrage, our constitution did not set suffrage standards. Your point that our statutory suffrage standards did not fully advance our founding standard is correct, for what it is worth.

Your distinction between delegates and representatives is confusing because these are synonyms. Indeed, the representatives of a Territory in the U.S. House of Representatives used to be known as delegates. In fact, you are making a distinction between representatives of the people and your preferred role of Congress as rulers of the people.

Your citation to taxes as a reason we need rulers to impose policy against the will of the people is nonsense. The people have no problem with a reasonable level of taxation to pay for services they support. Indeed, the explosion of taxes in the United States over its history pretty much puts the lie to your thesis.
 

The Blankster said to Mourad:

"Shag suggested in a previous post that the Constitution was somehow contrary to the principle upon which this country was founded - the government is the servant to the People."

Here's what I said earlier:

"The latest yodelism on the introduction to the Declaration of Independence does not tell us just how it squares with the Constitution."

How did the Constitution address the Declaration's:

" ... all men are created equal ...."?

Can this be squared? More to come.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

shag:

Why do you ask questions you know the answer to?

At the time of the founding, men literally meant men, slaves were not considered to be men and indians were not part of the people.

Why does the left take such joy in looking for discrepancies between the founding principles and founding governance?

Is it because you are trying to discredit our founding principles or just like making fun of the shortcomings of folks who lived in a very different society over two centuries ago?
 

Bart now reasserts his real gripe:-

Your citation to taxes as a reason we need rulers to impose policy against the will of the people is nonsense. The people have no problem with a reasonable level of taxation to pay for services they support.

There will always be some people (usually conservatives) who think that the level of taxation is too high. The problem is that the decision as to what is “reasonable” is not for Bart and his friends to decide. The decision in the first instance is vested in the Congress.

That is precisely the problem which once occurred in the UK and which led to the Parliament Act 1911. The unelected House of Lords bocked a budget providing for old age pensions to be paid from taxation. The Conservatives, who had a large majority in the unelected House of Lords, objected to this attempt to redistribute wealth and blocked the bill.

The Liberals acted to reduce the powers of the Lords with the Parliament Bill. The Lords were no longer allowed to prevent the passage of 'money bills' and it also restricted their ability to delay other legislation to three sessions of parliament. When the House of Lords attempted to stop this bill's passage, the Prime Minister, Henry Asquith, appealed to King George V for help. The King agreed that if necessary he would create 250 new Liberal peers to remove the Conservative majority in the Lords. Faced with the prospect of a House of Lords with a permanent Liberal majority, the Conservatives agreed to let the 1911 Parliament Bill become law. The budget was then duly voted.

Under the US Constitution the taxing power is entrusted to the Congress. It is for the Congress to decide what levels of taxation are appropriate. If a majority of the people think that Congress has got it wrong, the majority have their remedy at the ballot box. If the people then change the majority in the Congress, the law will doubtless be changed.

What would be undemocratic would be for a minority of the population to be able to veto tax bills, or for a minority of legislators to withhold supply for the business of the government as determined by the majority. Delay and debate and even amendment, yes. Obstruction and gridlock, no. And in that regard the filibuster is not a procedure mandated by the Constitution but a mere procedural rule.

The super rich should always be wary of pushing this kind of conflict to a showdown. Voters usually approach this on a cost-benefit basis. Obduracy gives an incentive to legislators to make the proposed taxation more sharply progressive so that the majority obtains net benefit and the super-rich minority pays through the nose.
 

"I would argue that that the right to contribute to electoral or political campaigns should be limited to those on the electoral registers thus excluding both foreigners and corporations."

I wonder about this given the number of flesh and blood people now and in the past (think women, blacks, the poor) who are not "on the electoral registers" now. Minors, felons who are out but still unable to vote, legal residents here for years or decades, etc.

[It's a question of scope too. Let's say some immigration matter is on the ballot. If a legal resident provides a disclosed $25 to a non-profit group on one or the other side, is it a problem?]

Citizen's United was not an all/nothing affair. The dissent did not think corporations lacked any rights to contribute -- including via ads -- to campaigns. 1A precedent did not allow that either.

If a ballot measure respecting a business matter is on the ballot, can a corporation run an ad about it at all?
 

Mourad said...

BD: Your citation to taxes as a reason we need rulers to impose policy against the will of the people is nonsense. The people have no problem with a reasonable level of taxation to pay for services they support.

There will always be some people (usually conservatives) who think that the level of taxation is too high. The problem is that the decision as to what is “reasonable” is not for Bart and his friends to decide. The decision in the first instance is vested in the Congress.

You confuse duty with power. While Congress has the power to enact what it wishes, it has a duty to implement the will of the people. If by "Bart and his friends" you mean a majority of the voters, then Congress' duty is to implement our will.

That is precisely the problem which once occurred in the UK and which led to the Parliament Act 1911. The unelected House of Lords bocked a budget...

Actually, your repeated call for Congress to ignore the will of the people for the common good describes a Congress very much analogous to your non-democratic House of Lords. Do not foist your fixture of English aristocracy upon American libertarians and conservatives. We are the folks calling for our anti-democratic Democratic "House of Lords" to implement the will of the people.
 

You confuse duty with power. While Congress has the power to enact what it wishes, it has a duty to implement the will of the people. If by "Bart and his friends" you mean a majority of the voters, then Congress' duty is to implement our will.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 11:50 AM

Blankshot, you and your friends LOST the last 2 elections. You're NOT the majority.
 

This yodelism:

"At the time of the founding, men literally meant men, slaves were not considered to be men and indians were not part of the people."

fails to mention that the Constitution back then made no references to slaves or slavery in direct language while specific references were indeed included regarding indians. As to the reference to "people" in the Declaration, our Blankster leaps to exclude from "people" women, children, slaves and free blacks. The Declaration, as I recall, does not make even indirect references to slaves, slavery or the slave trade in the "subtle" manner of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration but had very little input with the Constitution. So perhaps there are nuances between the Declaration and the Constitution that should be examined with greater care. Consider Lysander Spooner's 1845 essay on the unconstitutionality of slavery; Spooner was not alone in using the Declaration to prove his point.

But I'm pleased to see that the Blankster recognizes the progress made since the founding days, especially with the election of the first African American President in 2008. Of course, there's room for more improvement, i.e., progress, building upon the founders' foundations.
 

and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

"Safety and happiness"? Where do you get this stuff?

Typical progressive garbage. If people were more concerned with keeping gays from being married and preventing abortions than seeking "safety and happiness," we might actually balance a budget or two. This Novemeber, we need to elect people who are willing to do four simple things: 1)repeal health care, 2)defund education, 3)abolish income tax, and 4)invade Iran.

To hell with "safety" and "happiness" and your touchy-feely "representative government." If 48% of my neighbors disapprove, why should I sleep any worse? Do you really think liberals have guns? Even if they do, do you think they'll disengage the "safeties" they love so much?
 

Bart said:-

You confuse duty with power. While Congress has the power to enact what it wishes, it has a duty to implement the will of the people. If by "Bart and his friends" you mean a majority of the voters, then Congress' duty is to implement our will.

Actually, it is Bart who is confused. Having at long last come round to admitting that taxation is in the first instance a matter for the Congress he asserts that Congress has a duty to implement "the will of the people". I agree.

But the the "will of the people" is ascertained by the electoral process, not by reading Bart's posts,or in any other way. If a majority prepared to vote a tax increase is returned, then that is the "will of the people" for this purpose.

And that is precisely what the Parliament Act 1911 was all about.

I begin to wonder whether Bart has reading difficulties, or merely monomania.
 

Joe:-

Thanks for your thoughts. We allow political donations from individuals, UK corporations and UK unions and all donations have to be reported publicly. But you'd laugh at the amounts - The total for all parties for the last general election period was just £13.5 million!. But then we have no political TV advertising other than a regulated number for each party - they get the airtime free. Otherwise TV advertising is banned. Individual candidates are allowed to spend £7,500 + 5p per elector in the election campaign period and £25,000 +5p in the per election year. Not much.
 

Mourad:

[Bart] asserts that Congress has a duty to implement "the will of the people". I agree. But the the "will of the people" is ascertained by the electoral process, not by reading Bart's posts,or in any other way. If a majority prepared to vote a tax increase is returned, then that is the "will of the people" for this purpose.

Huh?

Let me see if I understand your argument correctly. The will of Congress is the will of the people, even when it conflicts with the will of the people. Said another way, you are contending that Congress was implementing the will of the people by enacting Obamacare, even though the bill was only supported by a minority of voters.

When you agree that it is Congress' duty to implement the will of the people, you acknowledge that the will of the people is distinct from the will of Congress and that the Congress has a duty to subordinate its wishes to those of the people. The Congress you are actually calling for implements its own will over that of the people.
 

even though the bill was only supported by a minority of voters.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 1:14 PM

Blankshot, the healthcare bill was never on a ballot, so there is no way you can know whether it was supported by the voters.

Like I said, your side LOST the last 2 elections. You are NOT the majority.
 

Blankshot, why weren't you talking about "the will of the people" when the Iraq Disaster was polling in the 30s?
 

Bart babbles:-

Let me see if I understand your argument correctly. The will of Congress is the will of the people, even when it conflicts with the will of the people...

No, Bart doesn’t understand. In all probability because he does not want to.

There is no separate provision in the US Constitution for ascertaining what is the “will of the people” on any specific issue.

In other jurisdictions, there is provision for so doing. I believe there are such provisions in the Colorado Constitution among other state constitutions.

In the UK there can be a referendum. The government formulates a question which can be answered “yes” or “no” and on the appointed day people go to their polling stations exactly as on a general election day and they complete the paper by answering the question. The results are then tallied as for an election. The answer represents “the will of the people” on that day.

So, in the absence of such a specific ascertainment provision in the US Constitution, the “will of the people” is ascertained by having the peoples’ duly elected representatives vote on the question. If they vote for the question in both the House and the Senate that is deemed to be the “will of the people” acting by their duly elected representatives and senators.

So if something is enacted into law, that represents the “will of the people” for all purposes.

If the people, who are sovereign, want a change, on the proper day they elect other representatives and senators and the new differently composed legislature is entirely free to repeal the previous law. That is also deemed to be “the will of the people” acting by their duly elected representatives and senators.

It does not matter one iota what dear Bart, Gallup, Pew, Fox News, or even Rush Limbaugh say the will of people is or was. The legislature makes that determination for all purposes.

Simple.
 

Mourad:

I understand your contention perfectly: Because the people elected a set of representatives, whatever the representatives enact is by definition the will of the people. (This is similar to the Nixon comment: "If the President does it, it is legal.") If the enactments were not the will of the people, the voters are free to throw the bums out during the next election.

The proposition is logically inconsistent, but I do understand it.
 

(This is similar to the Nixon comment: "If the President does it, it is legal.")
# posted by Bart DePalma : 6:04 PM

Blankster, do you really not understand how laws are passed in our system of government?
 

HD kaliteli porno izle ve boşal.
Bayan porno izleme sitesi.
Bedava ve ücretsiz porno izle size gelsin.
Liseli kızların Bedava Porno ve Türbanlı ateşli hatunların sikiş filmlerini izle.
Siyah karanlık odada porno yapan evli çift.
harika Duvar Kağıtları bunlar
tamamen ithal duvar kağıdı olanlar var
 

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`