Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 One problem with a constitutional amendment preventing "bundling" is that it can create all sorts of disputes over whether a bill is actually just one subject, or is really a bunch of different ones. For example, the defense department purchases hundreds of thousands of different items, from toiler paper, to post-it notes, to every different kind of ammunition, fuel, building a new little shed in some base, etc. Would each of those purchases require a separate bill, or not? I think it would be impossible to run even a normal sized-government that way. They could literally be voting constantly, and still not have enough time. I don't think that separate bills would need to be made for each expenditure, but restricting a bills to "the 2012 budget for the Department of Defense shall be $300 billion (HAHA)" and "The minimum wage shall be $9.00/hr" is pretty darn reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Re: GeneralSo what I am hearing is that we want to shift the emphasis from United in the United States to the States of United States. Might as well just come out and say you want to abolish the Federal government completely and rever to 12 regional states, like what happened to the former USSR.Not me. At least, not necessarily. I believe the threat of secession that would have the desired (from my perspective at least) effect of limiting the reach of the federal govenrment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slayer420 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 1. Give the federal government immediate veto-power over state/local officials and legislations (look at the clusterfuck that is arizone/alabama's racist laws and all the shitty local zoning laws).2. Get rid of popular referendums (people should learn from the lessons of california)3. Get rid of the electoral colleges (self-evident why that is disproportionally benefited rural states)thats all we need.... I would say more states rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 unless your cool with the "eastern way of life"What the hell does that mean? What is this "eastern way of life" that you speak of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerly Grumkin Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 What the hell does that mean? What is this "eastern way of life" that you speak of?china/russia/india Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 So what I am hearing is that we want to shift the emphasis from United in the United States to the States of United States. Might as well just come out and say you want to abolish the Federal government completely and rever to 12 regional states, like what happened to the former USSR. I'm pretty sure I did say that actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 1. Ditch the electoral college.2. Take a long, hard, look at the judiciary - right now it is more of a creature of statute than anyone wants to admit to themselves. Should it (and its powers) be set out in greater detail in a constitutional document (or are we happy with precedent, custom and tradition)?3. I'd keep a bicameral legislature. I'd find a way to fix districting though to get rid of gerrymandering shenanigans.4. Reconsider Senate approval of Presidential appointments. Should there be an override point? E.g., if a post has remained vacant for x so long or a certain number of nominees have been rejected, should the House get to step in, or something?5. Line item veto is probably a good idea, but I'd want to think about the veto override in this case and whether it should work any differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Not me. At least, not necessarily. I believe the threat of secession that would have the desired (from my perspective at least) effect of limiting the reach of the federal govenrment.That's totally the way it worked out in 1861. After the Civil War, the federal government grew ever smaller, and never tried to outlaw slavery or ensure that states respected the constitutional rights of freed slaves.What the hell does that mean? What is this "eastern way of life" that you speak of?Oh, you know. Meditation and noodles and martial arts...that sort of thing. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to return to my hairdressing salon to cue up my "Hello Dolly" soundtrack before deciding how much casual sex I'll have tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 Lev,If the Feds have that kind of veto power why not simply eleminate those State and local governments? Replace them with a unitary governement (end federalism) and adminiatrative districts of that government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Re: Ndrewchina/russia/indiaAnd how will the dissolution of the federal nature of the current U.S. mimic the politics of China, Russia, and India, which has not gone through the de-federalization process at all? At least, maybe you mean the former USSR, when you say Russia? But then, it's still only 1 out of 3 examples that fit. I don't know about India, but China is actually more a model of more centralized power and stronger federal power, not the other way around.Re: TrackerThat's totally the way it worked out in 1861. After the Civil War, the federal government grew ever smaller, and never tried to outlaw slavery or ensure that states respected the constitutional rights of freed slaves.You forgot that it should be the right of each state to decide if they want to hold other humans in chattel slavery. I mean, that right is not expressively granted to the Federal government, so it's reserved for the states. If South Carolina want to pass a state amendment to continue to enslave dark-skinned people, why, who are you, a resident on Pennsylvania, to naysay it?Oh, you know. Meditation and noodles and martial arts...that sort of thing. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to return to my hairdressing salon to cue up my "Hello Dolly" soundtrack before deciding how much casual sex I'll have tonight.Well, if you have to plan and decide, then it's not so casual, is it?I know this because I calculated the decision tree using my super-sciency brain and an abacus. An abacus made of bamboo. And chopsticks. And the little beads on the bamboo-chosptick abacus that go click-click-clack are made of dehydrated testicles of all the white men whose job we stole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerly Grumkin Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Im most def not in favor for astronomical state rightse.t.a Also Slavery is legal in the usa. Just look at the jails. the 18th (?) Amendment made it illigal for people to own slaves, not the gov't. (Which is totally wrong) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I know this because I calculated the decision tree using my super-sciency brain and an abacus. An abacus made of bamboo. And chopsticks. And the little beads on the bamboo-chosptick abacus that go click-click-clack are made of dehydrated testicles of all the white men whose job we stole.OK, I surrender. I have been out-snarked. :bowdown: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 You forgot that it should be the right of each state to decide if they want to hold other humans in chattel slavery. I mean, that right is not expressively granted to the Federal government, so it's reserved for the states. If South Carolina want to pass a state amendment to continue to enslave dark-skinned people, why, who are you, a resident on Pennsylvania, to naysay it?Do you think South Carolinians of 2012 would pass such a law? If not, then slavery is a red herring in terms of political realities today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kouran Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 1. Give the federal government immediate veto-power over state/local officials and legislations (look at the clusterfuck that is arizone/alabama's racist laws and all the shitty local zoning laws).2. Get rid of popular referendums (people should learn from the lessons of california)3. Get rid of the electoral colleges (self-evident why that is disproportionally benefited rural states)1. Madness and ruin, you might as well abolish the states and make all local officals appointments from Moscow, I mean DC. Because what you just suggested is what Putin did. Wait a second are you Putin?2. Obviously, the electorate by and large is too ill prepared to govern themselves let alone approve laws.3. NO FUCKING THANK YOU. I dont want a government of appease Texas, California and New York and let all those hill billy fuckers in the states that feed our worthless asses go fuck themselves. Yeah we want a system of government that doesnt represent the people in the least populous states, thats sure fair. Wait are you really sure you arent Putin?The single best change we could make in this country is getting all those corrupt ass mother fuckers on capitol hill to realize that just because you can pass a law doesnt mean you have to. There is way to god damn much superfluous legislation. I guess they think that they have to have done something. All those fucktards need to do is pass a budget and insure that the states take care of the rest. Letting those greedy fucktards near the purse strings is what screwed us over in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Do you think South Carolinians of 2012 would pass such a law? If not, then slavery is a red herring in terms of political realities today.Why do you bait me thus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerly Grumkin Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Well the fact is that 65% of Congress have over 7 figures and are over the age of 55. thats fucking insane! What do these old ass rich mother fuckers know about the life of an average Amerian (who has a serious addiction to ASOIAF) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Lev,If the Feds have that kind of veto power why not simply eleminate those State and local governments? Replace them with a unitary governement (end federalism) and adminiatrative districts of that government?Sounds good to me. "Laboratory of Democracy" sounds good and all in theory, but most of the stuff they cook up is pretty terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slayer420 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 how about we bring back the dual for congress. If you put up a bill and some other member of congress choses to dual you for the right to put it on the house floor. I think it would elimate superfluous legislation. If its not worth dieing over then its not a good law anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Do you think South Carolinians of 2012 would pass such a law? If not, then slavery is a red herring in terms of political realities today.Pass? No. Proposed? Yes. But then, it's so socially uncool now to be overtly racist. But how about them Muslims? Or gay people? Without the liberal balance from states like CA and NY, you think the Federal government would shy away from things like banning homosexuality? Already, we have DoMA in the books at a federal level. You think things will get better, over all, for the issue if we revert it to the state level? The smaller the functioning unit of voting electorate, the more homogenous it will get, and with increased homogeneity, the rejection and disenfranchisement of the outgroup people will become easier. Due to the numeric disadvantage of minorities, our rights are better protected and safeguarded when we are aggregated over larger areas of representation, such as federalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 Fez,Not big on limited government power, are you? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.