Hey! The system works yet again!
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Thursday, July 6, 2006 13:49
VIEWED: 3845
PAGE 7 of 8
I agree with what Rue says.
In addition, there are issues that the FFs addressed but nobody has looked at since. For example, the role of national versus local authority. It was Adams, to the best of my recollection, that pressed very strongly for national decision-making. In his view parochial, narrow, prejudicial interests could only be cancelled by tossing decisions to the nation as a whole.
The concentration of attention on a singular person (the President). I don't think it's a coincidence that people lose sight of the House. With its many members, power is so unfocused that the impression is that "nothing gets done there". It seems to me that power and money - unlike energy- inevitably concentrates instead of dissipates. Special attention needs to be paid to keep that from happening.
But I'm too tired right now to make a cognet case for anything, so I'll have to get back to this later.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Corporations currently have the same constitutional protections as individuals, including free speech. What I mean is - just remove those protections by removing corporate 'personhood'.
I agree, at least inasmuch as it would remove corporate influence from the political sphere. I'd need more detail on other impacts, but since we're talking government here, let's leave that for later.
Quote:
Mixed governments (PMs plus presidents) don't fare very well. And though Tony 'Poodle' Blair is not on my "good guys" list, he his, by all accounts, overall preferred to anyone else. To some extent this is due to the weakness of the opposition AND the weakness of challengers from his own party. But overall, the best thing about parliamentary systems is the ability to vote the government out between elections. I am still convinced it helps keep the system honest.
I must admit one of the things I like best about our system is the possibility of having a President from the minority party. This almost guarantees that nothing too partisan gets done. I do like the concept of a vote of "no confidence" though. Details would have to be worked out. And a PM's question time analogue would sure liven things up.
Quote:
I mean run the campaigns as a public service with public money. Debates, Q & A sessions, position statements. Require that media give free equal air time/ column space to all candidates and forbid campaign advertising. (Gives a new take on the notion of 'free' speech, eh?) In case you are wondering, the private use of public airwaves requires that the companies operate in the public interest.
"...forbid campaign advertising."
I guess my feling about this depends on how you define "campaign advertising". A strict interpretation pretty much takes the people out of the campaign process in any role but voter. No bumper stickers, no 'vote for' signs in the front yard, no political rallies, no grassroots organizing. Seems to cut out the "bitching and moaning"
part of the people's involvement in the political process.Equal time I have no problem with, to a point. There should probably be some requirement, number of signatures on a petition or some such, for inclusion, or we'd get hundreds of PNs blanketing the airwaves.
Quote:
Paper ballots, all publicly hand counted, overnight.
No particular problem with this, but I suspect that any system can be gamed or corrupted. This might make it harder, or might just let someone find a new weakness.
Quote:
Plenty of 'foreign' media report on the US for home consumption. These reports could and should be broadcast to the US to break the stranglehold of toady journalism. And broadcast media is probably the easiest entry due to the 'public interest' requirement.
If foreign media want to do this, that's fine with me. There's plenty of foreign news to be found on cable now, but in foreign languages. If they want to provide English language service, cool. I still don't see any way to compel foreign media to report on US news, in English. Incentives might be provided, but it would still be their choice.
BTW, I suspect that the "stranglehold of toady journalism" is a transient thing anyway. There's more potential outlets and forms of media out there every day, and pretty soon most anyone will be able to find the journalistic ideology they desire. If journalism isn't free to decide it's own policy, then who does; the government, a board of journalistic ethics? I'm afraid a free and sometimes 'toady' press is one of the costs of freedom.
Quote:
I'm curious what you have to say.
Well, there it is. Looks like we actually agree on a number of points, I need clarification on others, and most disagreement is about ways and means, not basic philosophy. I find this much more pleasant than some past 'discussions' we've had. Can we maintain our civility when it gets down to the nitty gritty? Be sure to tune in for our next episode.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There's more than ONE PIRATENEWS?!?!?!
Originally posted by Geezer:
Equal time I have no problem with, to a point. There should probably be some requirement, number of signatures on a petition or some such, for inclusion, or we'd get hundreds of PNs blanketing the airwaves.
Okay, I would take 'advertising' to mean that of the candidates, and primarily on the boob tube. Bumper stickers and such I don't see being regulated. Or articles in papers or magazines, as long as they are balanced, and not really a hidden 'ad' for one in particular...how to manage that?
Rue, HELP!
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Do you include SCOTUS in your list of pansy-assed appeasers?
I phrased my comment specifically so that those who think this ruling was a good thing fit my description.
Can you perhaps tell us all how you linked one attribute (agreeing with the Supreme Court ruling) with the other (pansy-ass appeasers)? I just can't seem to make that leap. Be explicit. Make sure you go step by step... inch by inch... millimeter by millimeter...I don't want to get lost again.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
5 members of the USSC, to be sure. They completely ignored prior Supreme Court rulings.
Others include Nancy Pelosi, who was as giddy as a school girl that the President was dealt a blow ( allegedly ) by the Court on this matter. She's so entrenched in her hatred for Bush that she'd vilify him for doing something right, no matter what it is. SHe puts party over national security, because she and the other Lib Dems know they can't win on this issue.
It is what it is.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ChrisIsAll,
got your msg. came as soon as I found out. uhhhhhh - whatcha need help with ????
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Unwrapped - which prior rulings? Links or exact case name would be helpful.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer,
I'm too tired for a thoughtful response.
Later.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dunno if you meant me or not, but here's a few items of interest.
Quote:
5 wrong justices
Updated 6/29/2006 11:25 PM ET
By John Woo
By putting on hold military commissions to try terrorists for war crimes, five Supreme Court justices have made the legal system part of the problem, rather than part of the solution to the challenges of the war on terrorism. They tossed aside centuries of American history, judicial decisions of long standing, and a December 2005 law ordering them not to interfere with the military trials.
OUR VIEW:Suspects deserve fair trials
As commander in chief, President Bush has the authority to decide on wartime tactics and strategies. Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln and FDR settled on military commissions, sometimes with congressional approval and sometimes without, as the best tool to punish and deter enemy war crimes. Bush used them to solve a difficult tension: how to try terrorists fairly without blowing intelligence sources and methods.
The circus that was the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui shows the dangers in trying to use normal courtroom rules to prosecute terrorists intent on harming the USA. Bush's decision was supported by Congress, which authorized the president to use force in response to the Sept. 11 attacks. Earlier, Congress had recognized commissions in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and last year it created an appeals process for them.
What the justices did would have been unthinkable in prior military conflicts: Judicial intervention in the decisions of the president and Congress on how best to wage war. They replaced his wartime judgment and Congress' support with their own speculation that open trials would not run intelligence risks. Their decision to impose specific rules and override political judgments about military necessity mistakes war — inherently unpredictable, and where our government must act quickly and sometimes secretly to protect national security — for the familiarity of the criminal justice system.
Two years ago, the same justices declared they would review the military's detention of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Congress and the president expended time and energy to overrule them. Hamdan will force our elected leaders to go through the same exercise again, effort better spent preventing the next terrorist attack.
John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, served in the Justice Department in 2001-03. [link] http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-06-29-oppose_x.ht
m]
And also , there's this...
Quote:
The merits portion of the Court’s holding is even more troubling, as Justice Stevens and the Court majority seem bent not only on ignoring congressional mandates but on assuming to themselves the powers of the office of president as well. Article II of the Constitution makes absolutely clear that the president, not the courts, is commander-in-chief. His power in this arena is particularly strong when Congress has lent its own support, as it did with the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, enacted shortly after September 11, 2001. That Act of Congress authorized the president to use all necessary and proper force to capture or kill those who had a hand in the attacks on the United States and to prevent similar attacks in the future. The power to detain enemy combatants has always been considered as incident to the war-making power, as a matter of both domestic and international law. That power has also included the power to try detainees for violations of the laws of war, without having to submit to the oversight of civilian courts in the process. The Constitution even permits trials of our own servicemen in military rather than civilian courts, yet Justice Stevens and the Court majority seem intent on extending greater protections to our terrorist enemies than the Constitution affords to our own men in uniform .
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZmOTBhMzFlY2VlMzI5NjYyNzMzZWVlN
TAwNzZhMWM=
Quote:
There is little or no quNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor- One of the things that the Administratin has been doing all along has been to use his so-called War Powers to excuse everything he does, from snooping on people's phone and finance records to arbitrarily classifying and declassifying information. But if this GWOT is truly a war, then we need to follow the treaties that we've signed in our conduct of such war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BTW- this is what the President was authorized to do:
Quote:It's pretty narrowly focused on the perpetrators of Sept 11.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States
www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/sjres23_eb.htm www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME