John Adams Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Has anyone read this book? book I heard the author, a Republican judge, interviewed on local talk radio (one of my cars doesn't have satellite dang it). He makes a great case for the fact that the Republicans, in particular the new breed of Bush/Ashcroft types, don't give a whit about the Constitution and are overstepping their Constitutional authority with great regularity. Of course, I agree. Has anyone read this? Or in general, based on the premises, how do those of you who claim to support limited government but keep voting Republican, respond to his criticisms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Has anyone read this book? book I heard the author, a Republican judge, interviewed on local talk radio (one of my cars doesn't have satellite dang it). He makes a great case for the fact that the Republicans, in particular the new breed of Bush/Ashcroft types, don't give a whit about the Constitution and are overstepping their Constitutional authority with great regularity. Of course, I agree. Has anyone read this? Or in general, based on the premises, how do those of you who claim to support limited government but keep voting Republican, respond to his criticisms? 119400[/snapback] I haven't read the book... I have been buried in 19th century Europe and pre-Revolutionary War history books! Personally, I am not suprised that this is coming out... moderates always seem to come out and speak when the pendulum of government swings too far one way. For me, limited government means limited government in ALL areas, not just picking and choosing to suit an agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 For me, limited government means limited government in ALL areas, not just picking and choosing to suit an agenda. 119917[/snapback] And yet you voted for John Kerry. Hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 I haven't read the book... I have been buried in 19th century Europe and pre-Revolutionary War history books! Personally, I am not suprised that this is coming out... moderates always seem to come out and speak when the pendulum of government swings too far one way. For me, limited government means limited government in ALL areas, not just picking and choosing to suit an agenda. 119917[/snapback] I take a more pragmatic approach. There are situations where government involvment is not only useless but worse, counterproductive. However, there are situations where government involvment is a necessity. Take air traffic control for example. Can you imagine trying to divide air space up by state lines? The Constitution is not a set of iron shackles. It just isn't that clearly defined. There is a lot of room for experimentation and choosing between alternative policies before you start bumping into constitutional prohibitions. Most policy decisions do not implicate the constitution but instead rise or fall based on their efficacy or lack thereof. Of course, sometimes even if they are effective they fall if a constituency with enough political clout sees it as goring it's ox. Can you imagine a surgeon making an important medical judgment based on some philosophy rather than on the basis of the health of the patient? Sure, there are extremes where limits have to be respected but within those limits, decisions should be made based on pragmatism, not philosophy or ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Has anyone read this book? book I heard the author, a Republican judge, interviewed on local talk radio (one of my cars doesn't have satellite dang it). He makes a great case for the fact that the Republicans, in particular the new breed of Bush/Ashcroft types, don't give a whit about the Constitution and are overstepping their Constitutional authority with great regularity. Of course, I agree. Has anyone read this? Or in general, based on the premises, how do those of you who claim to support limited government but keep voting Republican, respond to his criticisms? 119400[/snapback] Not surprising. The frequency with which they threaten to amend the constitution or alter some other set of fundamental rules is indicative of the much larger problem: power corrupts. This gang finds defeat so intolerable that when it can't win by the rules, it is willing to try and change the rules. Traditionally, redistricting is done every 10 years following the census cycle. That didn't set well with Delay and the Texas republicans. They violated tradition and instead forced a redistricting plan in a non-census year. They essentially gerrymandered their way into I don't know how many additional seats. If others were to follow that folly, you could have redistricting going on every year there is a change in control of a state house rather than once every 10 years based on the census. Republicans have threatened changing the rules of the Senate to emascualte the minority party. They call it the "nuclear option". Basically, if they don't get their way, they are willing to "go nuclear". They have threatened to tamper with the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court to insure they get the results they want with regard to the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act". That makes sense, huh? Mess with the fundamental balance of power just to win one lousy case. If that isn't exchanging expediency for principle, I don't know what is. Add in threatened constitutional amendments on gay marriage, abortion and whatever else is their latest cause (term limits? campaign funding?) and a clear picture emerges of a party willing to change the rules to win. It is not so much that they are overstepping constitutional limits, they are seeking to selectively vaporize them. That is of course unless you are talking about the constitutional right to own a rocket propelled grenade launcher. There are limits after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Not surprising. The frequency with which they threaten to amend the constitution or alter some other set of fundamental rules is indicative of the much larger problem: power corrupts. This gang finds defeat so intolerable that when it can't win by the rules, it is willing to try and change the rules. 119993[/snapback] It's kind of like "All the President's Men," except for there is no cover-up (everything being done is transparent), no reporting on these issues (yawn, Survivor's on, *click*), no consequences and hence no public outrage. Anyone who's a real conservative should be screaming for Tom Delay's resignation. The guy is a cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Republicans have threatened changing the rules of the Senate to emascualte the minority party. They call it the "nuclear option". Basically, if they don't get their way, they are willing to "go nuclear". They have threatened to tamper with the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court to insure they get the results they want with regard to the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act". That makes sense, huh? Mess with the fundamental balance of power just to win one lousy case. If that isn't exchanging expediency for principle, I don't know what is. Add in threatened constitutional amendments on gay marriage, abortion and whatever else is their latest cause (term limits? campaign funding?) and a clear picture emerges of a party willing to change the rules to win. 119993[/snapback] Just a couple questions for you Mickey. Since you seem to be very knowledgeable on the Constitution, what is your opinion of the following quote from Bill Frist on the filibuster problem: I think the important thing for the American people is to understand that never in over 200 years of Senate history has a minority, using a procedural tool, the filibuster, denied the majority the opportunity of giving advice and consent. And that's our only responsibility. It's the president of the United States who makes these appointments. Our constitutional responsibility is to advise and consent. The only way we can do that is vote yes or vote no. But just allow us to vote. What it basically — it's called the nuclear option. It's really a constitutional option. And what that means is that the Constitution says you, as a Senate, give advice and consent, and that is a majority vote. And then you vote on that, and that takes 50 votes to pass. And I think it clearly becomes a viable, viable option if we see a minority denying the majority the opportunity to express advice and consent. Also, what do you think are the options when we have individual judges overruling the people? I'm speaking of gay marriage, where states are passing gay marriage amendments left and right, but several are being shot down by judges. I can't name all the cases, but I know in Louisiana the voters approved the constitutional amendment with almost an 80% majority vote but then a district judge ruled it null and void based on opinion. What options are left for voters other than a constitutional amendment? I'm just asking for opinions, I'm by no means an expert in this area. I don't necessarily see these two cases as big government, etc. when it seems to me that the constitutional rights are currently being withheld and republicans are looking for solutions to the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 16, 2004 Author Share Posted November 16, 2004 Just a couple questions for you Mickey. Since you seem to be very knowledgeable on the Constitution, what is your opinion of the following quote from Bill Frist on the filibuster problem: I think the important thing for the American people is to understand that never in over 200 years of Senate history has a minority, using a procedural tool, the filibuster, denied the majority the opportunity of giving advice and consent. And that's our only responsibility. It's the president of the United States who makes these appointments. Our constitutional responsibility is to advise and consent. The only way we can do that is vote yes or vote no. But just allow us to vote. What it basically — it's called the nuclear option. It's really a constitutional option. And what that means is that the Constitution says you, as a Senate, give advice and consent, and that is a majority vote. And then you vote on that, and that takes 50 votes to pass. And I think it clearly becomes a viable, viable option if we see a minority denying the majority the opportunity to express advice and consent. Also, what do you think are the options when we have individual judges overruling the people? I'm speaking of gay marriage, where states are passing gay marriage amendments left and right, but several are being shot down by judges. I can't name all the cases, but I know in Louisiana the voters approved the constitutional amendment with almost an 80% majority vote but then a district judge ruled it null and void based on opinion. What options are left for voters other than a constitutional amendment? I'm just asking for opinions, I'm by no means an expert in this area. I don't necessarily see these two cases as big government, etc. when it seems to me that the constitutional rights are currently being withheld and republicans are looking for solutions to the problem. 120228[/snapback] Do you think the federal government should be in the business of defining marriage? Is that limited government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Do you think the federal government should be in the business of defining marriage? Is that limited government? 120268[/snapback] Nope, but who really cares about the Constitution or the idea of America anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 16, 2004 Author Share Posted November 16, 2004 Nope, but who really cares about the Constitution or the idea of America anymore? 120337[/snapback] A small portion of the less than 1% of voters who didn't vote for Kerry or Bush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Nope, but who really cares about the Constitution or the idea of America anymore? 120337[/snapback] This is a guess, but, wasn't there at least another 100 million people that could have voted in the election? Apathy at its finest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Just a couple questions for you Mickey. Since you seem to be very knowledgeable on the Constitution, what is your opinion of the following quote from Bill Frist on the filibuster problem: I think the important thing for the American people is to understand that never in over 200 years of Senate history has a minority, using a procedural tool, the filibuster, denied the majority the opportunity of giving advice and consent. And that's our only responsibility. It's the president of the United States who makes these appointments. Our constitutional responsibility is to advise and consent. The only way we can do that is vote yes or vote no. But just allow us to vote. What it basically — it's called the nuclear option. It's really a constitutional option. And what that means is that the Constitution says you, as a Senate, give advice and consent, and that is a majority vote. And then you vote on that, and that takes 50 votes to pass. And I think it clearly becomes a viable, viable option if we see a minority denying the majority the opportunity to express advice and consent. Also, what do you think are the options when we have individual judges overruling the people? I'm speaking of gay marriage, where states are passing gay marriage amendments left and right, but several are being shot down by judges. I can't name all the cases, but I know in Louisiana the voters approved the constitutional amendment with almost an 80% majority vote but then a district judge ruled it null and void based on opinion. What options are left for voters other than a constitutional amendment? I'm just asking for opinions, I'm by no means an expert in this area. I don't necessarily see these two cases as big government, etc. when it seems to me that the constitutional rights are currently being withheld and republicans are looking for solutions to the problem. 120228[/snapback] Frist is not a very good historian. Johnsons nomination of Abe Fortas was filibustered in 1968. Filibusters have been used and used and used by the Senate for many, many years. I see no reason to exempt nominations from filibusters. The President signs treaties, not congress. Even so, congressional approval is required for the treaty to be valid and such votes are subject to filibuster. Congress's power to ratify treaties is no different that its power to advice and consent to nominations. Originally, any single senator could filibuster whenever he wanted. There was no way to stop debate so a single senator could frustrate legislation, nominees and treties. That forced a great deal of moderation on law makers knowing that just one guy could stop a bill in its tracks. In 1917 they changed the Senate rules to permit cloture, cutting off debate, by two-thirds vote. In 1975 that was reduced to three-fifths. The nuclear option now threatened would end filibusters period, on all matters, not just nominations. The first cloture motion wouldn ned 60 votes, the second, only 57, the third 54 and the fourth, only 51. Since there is no limit to the number of cloture motions that can be made, there is nothing to stop all such motions from being made repeatedly until a simple majority is all that is needed. I think they do that 3 by 3, step by step thing to make it look as if they aren't elimenating filibusters all together. If that is not the case, why bother with the 3 by 3 baloney? Who do they think they are fooling? The framers could have easily expemted advice and consent votes from filibusters but they didn't. Listening to Frist's obfuscation, you would think that it is those seeking to end filibusters for all time that are the ones fighting to keep our constitutional heritage. Bull. If they change that cloture rule they will have fundamentally weakened one branch of government to the benefit of the executive branch. It might not be the Reichstag fire but it is too close to that for my comfort. Getting rid of the filibuster will be a mistake that is with us long after abortion disappears as an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Getting rid of the filibuster will be a mistake that is with us long after abortion disappears as an issue. 120393[/snapback] I agree. Oh, and I think those who are anti-abortion should be forced to take in all of the unwanted children we have now and raise them as their own. Buck up, folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Frist is not a very good historian. Johnsons nomination of Abe Fortas was filibustered in 1968. Filibusters have been used and used and used by the Senate for many, many years. I see no reason to exempt nominations from filibusters. The President signs treaties, not congress. Even so, congressional approval is required for the treaty to be valid and such votes are subject to filibuster. Congress's power to ratify treaties is no different that its power to advice and consent to nominations. Originally, any single senator could filibuster whenever he wanted. There was no way to stop debate so a single senator could frustrate legislation, nominees and treties. That forced a great deal of moderation on law makers knowing that just one guy could stop a bill in its tracks. In 1917 they changed the Senate rules to permit cloture, cutting off debate, by two-thirds vote. In 1975 that was reduced to three-fifths. The nuclear option now threatened would end filibusters period, on all matters, not just nominations. The first cloture motion wouldn ned 60 votes, the second, only 57, the third 54 and the fourth, only 51. Since there is no limit to the number of cloture motions that can be made, there is nothing to stop all such motions from being made repeatedly until a simple majority is all that is needed. I think they do that 3 by 3, step by step thing to make it look as if they aren't elimenating filibusters all together. If that is not the case, why bother with the 3 by 3 baloney? Who do they think they are fooling? The framers could have easily expemted advice and consent votes from filibusters but they didn't. Listening to Frist's obfuscation, you would think that it is those seeking to end filibusters for all time that are the ones fighting to keep our constitutional heritage. Bull. If they change that cloture rule they will have fundamentally weakened one branch of government to the benefit of the executive branch. It might not be the Reichstag fire but it is too close to that for my comfort. Getting rid of the filibuster will be a mistake that is with us long after abortion disappears as an issue. 120393[/snapback] Thanks - I figured you could give some more detail and I didn't feel like doing a ton of research on my own. My question/concern is when this is going to end. If the democrats filibuster any judicial nominee that is pro-life, you know that in the future Republicans will remember that and do the exact same to the Democrats. Regardless of whether Frist is right or wrong on his facts, I can't help but think he has a point in that it does not seem right that the senate, representatives elected by the people, are unable to even vote on the judges. I realize some may think I am taking this stance because I am a Republican and I am pro-life, but the implications extend far beyond the abortion issue. I just see no end to this filibuster strategy. I also don't see how this allows for proper representation of the people. After all, we vote for senators based on who we support and believe in, and we then expect them to be able to be an extension of our vote in the government. If they are not being allowed to even vote, how is this right? With the current situation, in effect the Democrats are using the filibuster to act as the majority and I just don't see how that can be right. I'm not sure I believe in completely eliminating the filibuster, but it seems to me that something needs to be done. Otherwise, big issues like abortion and gay marriage will continue to divide Republicans and Democrats unless one side gains a 60 vote majority. Any suggestions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Do you think the federal government should be in the business of defining marriage? Is that limited government? 120268[/snapback] Why don't you ask Clinton that since he signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which explicitly recognizes for purposes of federal law that marriage as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" and by stating that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Don't pin this just on Republicans. In the mean time, ask the 38+ states that have passed gay marriage amendments. That is hard to ignore and that is not just the evangelical Christians passing those votes as many have won by huge majorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Oh, and I think those who are anti-abortion should be forced to take in all of the unwanted children we have now and raise them as their own. Buck up, folks. 120404[/snapback] So then who is going to take in all the "unwanted" homeless people and care for them? Who is going to take in all of the "unwanted" elderly that are piling up huge medical bills? Who is going to take in all the "unwanted" prisoners maxing out our prisons? Who is going to take in all of the "unwanted" foster children who were born to loving parents that made some bad choices? The argument for abortion just because some of those children born will be unwanted is garbage. If we define the value of people based on whether they are wanted or not then we should round up every homeless person and kill them; we should kill every elderly person who has no family and is simply costing the healthcare system money; we should kill every criminal if they show no signs of rehabilitation; we should kill every foster child regardless of their circumstances. I'll start sending the homeless, elderly, etc. to your house since you seem willing to "buck up" and abide by this policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Why don't you ask Clinton that since he signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which explicitly recognizes for purposes of federal law that marriage as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" and by stating that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Don't pin this just on Republicans. In the mean time, ask the 38+ states that have passed gay marriage amendments. That is hard to ignore and that is not just the evangelical Christians passing those votes as many have won by huge majorities. 120464[/snapback] I don't think J.A.'s question mentioned anything about Democrats or Republicans. You're evading it by employing the "Democrats do it, too, tactic." The point you are making is hypocritical. You can't claim that government is too intrusive into personal life and then push for legislation that encourages more of the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 So then who is going to take in all the "unwanted" homeless people and care for them? Who is going to take in all of the "unwanted" elderly that are piling up huge medical bills? Who is going to take in all the "unwanted" prisoners maxing out our prisons? Who is going to take in all of the "unwanted" foster children who were born to loving parents that made some bad choices? The argument for abortion just because some of those children born will be unwanted is garbage. If we define the value of people based on whether they are wanted or not then we should round up every homeless person and kill them; we should kill every elderly person who has no family and is simply costing the healthcare system money; we should kill every criminal if they show no signs of rehabilitation; we should kill every foster child regardless of their circumstances. I'll start sending the homeless, elderly, etc. to your house since you seem willing to "buck up" and abide by this policy. 120485[/snapback] Except I'm not. See that's the difference. Consistancy. You want it to be illegal because of your ideology - which is no more valid than those you are arguing with. I'm vehemently anti-abortion but I'm also a pragmatist who is unwilling to pay the societal consequences associated with having the government involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 I don't think J.A.'s question mentioned anything about Democrats or Republicans. You're evading it by employing the "Democrats do it, too, tactic." The point you are making is hypocritical. You can't claim that government is too intrusive into personal life and then push for legislation that encourages more of the same. 120495[/snapback] I'm not evading or being hypocritical. Here is the thought behind my post. The initial point of this thread was a discussion of a book that states that republicans are overstepping the constitution and using big-government ideas, which would go against the usual republican platform. Then I was asked by J.A. if the government should be in the business of defining marriage and whether that is limited government. J.A. started this thread and stated he agreed that republicans are overstepping their boundaries; therefore, I implied from this question that he was stating that by expecting the government to define marriage, republicans are not preaching a limited government. SO, my point was not to simply say the democrats do it too. My point was that J.A. is implicating only republicans in the fight against gay marriage - I was simply pointing out that this battle initially started under Clinton, a democrat. I also pointed out that if you consider this to be overstepping the boundaries of the republican party, you would also have to face the facts that a large majority of the country supports this strategy as evidenced by 38+ states the have passed marriage amendments, many by an overwhelming majority. You can't attribute general claims made by people to me - find me in this thread where I claimed "that government is too intrusive into personal life". Big and small government is not always black and white. You'll find different opinions of that between republicans and democrats and between fellow republicans. Until I state my exact beliefs, you can't pull something out of space and call me hypocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Except I'm not. See that's the difference. Consistancy. You want it to be illegal because of your ideology - which is no more valid than those you are arguing with. I'm vehemently anti-abortion but I'm also a pragmatist who is unwilling to pay the societal consequences associated with having the government involved. 120498[/snapback] But you can't use an argument and a line of reason that has no basis in reality. You can't use the "unwanted" argument if it is not a consistent argument. I would think that if you are really vehemently anti-abortion then you would rather save the lives of 1.3 million children every year and deal with the social consequences rather than just let the status quo continue. You can't say that I am not consistent either. I realize there will be issues if abortion is legalized, but I am fully willing to do my part to address those issues. As I said above, I would rather save the lives of millions of innocent babies and deal with social consequence as opposed to sitting back and letting all those babies die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts