There is another factor - our 2 party political system (Jacksonian vs. anti Jacksonian which was a replay of Jefferson vs. Adams (a moderate Federalist)) which was in turn the direct result from the failure of the 1 Party Ideal that dominated from 1789 to 1818-1820... The Compromise of 1820 did it in -- regional differences were just to great... Now the 1 Party Ideal was the result the vicious Tory-Whig political wars of 1680 to 1715...
Those wars resulted in the 1 Party synthesis (Whig) where Parliament dominated the foreign Hanover Kings --- 1712 to ~1760... The Town Whigs (connected to the Bank of England's money) dominated of the County Whigs wing (Old Whigs) in England, but the Country Whigs dominated in the Colonies... Had George III let America have its own Parliament, we still would be British... In the end, the American revolted against the power of Parliament over the Colonies... On Aug 3, 3:34 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > jgg, > > Agreed, all branches should at times be in conflict. But I have to > wonder why Congress would have seemingly gladly given over their > exclusive power to declare and make war over to the Executive branch. > IMHO it could only be to avoid taking responsibility for making such a > decision. What happens when a given branch of govt. simply refuses to > do the job given to them as authorized by the Constituion? The checks > & balanced are there to assure that no one branch of govt. is able to > exercice TOO much power. > > "The accumlation of all power, legislative, executive and judicary, in > the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, > self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very > defination of tyranny". > James madison-The federalist Papers #47 > > On Aug 3, 2:22 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hollywood, Madison assumed folks would use their self interest in > > politics... That is why there are the checks and balances... The > > assumption of corruption was built into our political system was the > > reason to limit power of a given institution... Frankly that is why > > our system is NOT broken... The notion the all three branches should > > not be at conflict is contrary to its design... > > > On Aug 3, 11:17 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > dick, > > > > You are attempting to not understand that it is our political system > > > itself that is corrupt and broken. To not realize that for a long time > > > American voters only choice has been the fucking bum they thought > > > would to the least amount to damage. You feign shock and dismay at > > > finding out professional politicians exaggerate and even lie as if you > > > were a 6 year old being told Santa Claus is not real. Republicans are > > > not going to "fix" any problems "caused" by Democrats. They will just > > > replace them with "problems" for us all that THEY like. Same thing > > > goes for the Democrats. > > > And, trust me on this, CONGRESS is NOT going to reform CONGRESS. > > > Some of you guys want to pretend our political system was just > > > invented 6 months or so ago. ridiculous. I'll be deliriously happy if > > > this administration is just a TINY BIT more transparent that the past > > > one. > > > > On Aug 3, 9:50 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > For a change I can agree with you. However the devil is in the details > > > > with these people. Your last paragraph is why I look for some > > > > Cincinnatus to come on the scene and do the right thing. I certainly > > > > don't expect it from this crew. > > > > > I found it interesting that the congressman from upstate New York was > > > > quoted in the media lately that he would no longer hold town hall > > > > meetings since he could not get a good dialogue going - meaning that the > > > > people who showed up told him what he was supporting was not what they > > > > elected him to support. He did not like having to answer for what he > > > > was doing - and he was a Blue Dog Democrat. > > > > > Then there was the senator from Missouri who called the cops when the > > > > constituents got too rowdy in complaining about what she was doing in > > > > DC. Guess she couldn't handle the opposition of her own constituents. > > > > Another Democrat. > > > > > But we are having an administration and a congress dedicated to > > > > transparency, don'tcha know. Nothing hidden at all. No siree Bob, > > > > nothing hidden anywhere. Just czars and tiny little people who get so > > > > puffed up about how important they are. > > > > > Hollywood wrote: > > > > > dick, > > > > > > Hmmmm, don't let anyone with a degree in law be invilved in writing > > > > > ANY bill. Make it law that bills must be written using language an > > > > > average citizen with a public High School education can understand. > > > > > > I want that as well. But good luck getting those Republican AND > > > > > Democratic assholes to take any sort of responsibility for their > > > > > actions. Cinyers is right in his statement. Could YOU read and > > > > > understand a 1,000 page bill in 48 hours? I couldn't it. > > > > > Bills are all about keeping people from knowing what you're REALLY > > > > > doing, the REAL effect it will have on your life. You just give them > > > > > noble-sounding titles so people will be afraid to go on record as > > > > > having voted against them. > > > > > > On Aug 3, 8:49 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> What good would that do. All they would talk about was the high > > > > >> points > > > > >> that San Fran Nan and Waxman wanted - and even then it is the > > > > >> wording of > > > > >> the bill that causes the problems. You need to actually see how it > > > > >> is > > > > >> worded so you can tell what the real significance of the various > > > > >> parts > > > > >> of the bill are - and also whether you have one part canceling > > > > >> another. > > > > >> Why put it on PBS. I can just see the commentary from PBS on that > > > > >> one. > > > > >> Daniel Schorr telling yu what he wants you to hear. No, I want the > > > > >> congressman to actually read and understand what he is voting for. > > > > >> Another point is what good would the questioning be at the > > > > >> testimony. > > > > >> It would be like the priests in the Middle Ages reading to the > > > > >> peasants > > > > >> what the Bible said and they interpreted it in the way to make the > > > > >> most > > > > >> money for the Church. The questioning could only be based on what > > > > >> they > > > > >> were told and not on the tricky parts of the bill. > > > > > >> Hollywood wrote: > > > > > >>> dick, > > > > > >>> How about this? Someone wrote that bill, or it would not exist. Have > > > > >>> those people testify in public in front of an appropiate > > > > >>> Congressional > > > > >>> committee as to what is in that bill. The key it that the testimony > > > > >>> must be given UNDER OATH and put that testimoney on the internet and > > > > >>> on PBS. And then prosecute to the fullest any lies caught with no > > > > >>> statute of limitations. > > > > > >>> On Aug 2, 8:48 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >>>> Too Big to Pass > > > > >>>> <http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/08/024175.php> > > > > > >>>> <http://twitter.com/home?status=Reading:%20Too%20Big%20to%20Pass%20at%...> > > > > >>>> Share Post > > > > >>>> <http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/08/024175.php#> > > > > >>>> Print > > > > >>>> <http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/08/024175.php?format=print> > > > > >>>> August 1, 2009 Posted by John at 6:44 PM > > > > > >>>> One of the most notorious news stories of the past week was > > > > >>>> Democratic > > > > >>>> Congressman John Conyers' ridiculing > > > > >>>> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,535244,00.html> of the idea > > > > >>>> that he > > > > >>>> and his fellow legislators should actually read bills--here, the > > > > >>>> health > > > > >>>> care "reform" act--before voting on them: > > > > > >>>> I love these members that get up and say, Read the bill! Well, > > > > >>>> what > > > > >>>> good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you > > > > >>>> don't have > > > > >>>> two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after > > > > >>>> you've read > > > > >>>> the bill? > > > > > >>>> The version of the health care bill that passed the House's Energy > > > > >>>> and > > > > >>>> Commerce Committee on a 31-28 vote is here > > > > >>>> <http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf>. > > > > >>>> I've > > > > >>>> spent some time looking at it and, unlike most people, I am > > > > >>>> professionally qualified, in theory, to understand it. But, at over > > > > >>>> 1,000 pages, it's a pretty hopeless task. > > > > > >>>> So I would propose a simple, bright-line rule. In recent months > > > > >>>> many > > > > >>>> observers have said that if a company is too big to fail (i.e., in > > > > >>>> a > > > > >>>> pinch the government will bail it out), then it is too big to > > > > >>>> exist. I > > > > >>>> think there is a lot of merit to that idea. Here is my corollary: > > > > >>>> if a > > > > >>>> bill is too vast for a Congressman to read and understand, it is > > > > >>>> too big > > > > >>>> to pass. If a Congressman can't read the bill, he shouldn't vote > > > > >>>> for it. > > > > >>>> The appropriate response to any such legislation is: just vote > > > > >>>> "No." > > > > > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/08/024175.php-Hidequotedtext- > > > > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
