DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on December 28, 2010, 04:31:00 PM
-
Political End Runs
The Constitution of the United States begins with the words "We the people." But neither the Constitution nor "we the people" will mean anything if politicians and judges can continue to do end runs around both.
Bills passed too fast for anyone to read them are blatant examples of these end runs.
But last week, another of these end runs appeared in a different institution when the medical "end of life consultations" rejected by Congress were quietly enacted through bureaucratic fiat by administrators of Medicare.
Although Congressman Earl Blumenauer and Senator Jay Rockefeller had led an effort by a group of fellow Democrats in Congress to pass Section 1233 of pending Medicare legislation, which would have paid doctors to include "end of life" counselling in their patients' physical checkups, the Congress as a whole voted to delete that provision.
Republican Congressman John Boehner, soon to become Speaker of the House, objected to this provision in 2009, saying: "This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."
Whatever the merits or demerits of the proposed provision in Medicare legislation, the Constitution of the United States makes the elected representatives of "we the people" the ones authorized to make such decisions. But when proposals explicitly rejected by a vote in Congress are resurrected and stealthily made the law of the land by bureaucratic fiat, there has been an end run around both the people and the Constitution.
Congressman Blumenauer's office praised the Medicare bureaucracy's action but warned: "While we are very happy with the result, we won't be shouting it from the rooftops because we are not out of the woods yet."
In other words, don't let the masses know about it.
It is not only members of Congress or the administration who treat "we the people" and the Constitution as nuisances to do an end run around. Judges, including Justices of the Supreme Court, have been doing this increasingly over the past hundred years.
During the Progressive era of the early 20th century, the denigration of the Constitution began, led by such luminaries as Princeton scholar and future President of the United States Woodrow Wilson, future Harvard Law School Dean Roscoe Pound and future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.
As a Professor at Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson wrote condescendingly of "the simple days of 1787" when the Constitution was written and how, in our presumably more complex times, "each generation of statesmen looks to the Supreme Court to supply the interpretation which will serve the needs of the day."
This kind of argument would be repeated for generations, with no more evidence that 1787 was any less complicated than later years than Woodrow Wilson presented-- which was none-- and with no more reasons why the need for "change" meant that unelected judges should be the ones making those changes, as if there were no elected representatives of the people.
Professor Roscoe Pound likewise referred to the need for "a living constitution by judicial interpretation," in order to "respond to the vital needs of present-day life." He rejected the idea of law as "a body of rules."
But if law is not a body of rules, what is it?
A set of arbitrary fiats by judges, imposing their own vision of "the needs of the times"?
Or
a set of arbitrary regulations stealthily emerging from within the bowels of a bureaucracy?
Louis Brandeis was another leader of this Progressive era chorus of demands for moving beyond law as rules. He cited "newly arisen social needs" and "a shifting of our longing from legal justice to social justice."
In other words, judges were encouraged to do an end run around rules, such as those set forth in the Constitution, and around the elected representatives of "we the people." As Roscoe Pound put it, law should be "in the hands of a progressive and enlightened caste whose conceptions are in advance of the public."
That is still the vision of the left a hundred years later.
The Constitution cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution, by voting out those who promote end runs around it (http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/12/28/political_end_runs).
-
The Constitution cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution, by voting out those who promote end runs around it.
How would you phrase the litmus test so that the average joe understands the implications of voting for a liberal senator or president.
Do you think the good people of California understand that when they vote for Boxer or Feinstein that they are voting for them to confirm judicial nominations that think the constitution is not worth the weight of the paper it is written upon?
Do you think the good people of California, when they elect their school boards that they are electing people who will set curriculum that deempasizes the role of Senators and Presidents in the interpretation process of the Constitution?
Do you think the good people of California as a whole believe the constitution is flexible enough to reflect changing circumstances and changing times, or do they believe that the constitution is the "bible" of the founders and that those words should be interpreted literally.
-
The Constitution cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution, by voting out those who promote end runs around it.
How would you phrase the litmus test so that the average joe understands the implications of voting for a liberal senator or president.
The "Average Joe" is more likely the average Joey in elementary school, where U.S. History, and in particular the Constitution are likely either glossed over (minimizing its importance), or just as bad, if not worse, educated that the Constitution is indeed a "living document", left to dangle at the whims of whatever party is in power of the Government at the time, including the Judiciary
With that taken care of, Legislators, Judges, and Presidents are then allowed to ride rough shot, or as Sowell phrases it, able to do all-too-frequent end arounds of the clear wording and intent of the Constitution. There really is no litmus test. It's going to have to take a grassroots-like movement to educate the children. That way, later on, when Average Joe is shown what the latest pork his Senator has bestowed upon him, can then ask....Where in the Constitution, do you have that authority, Mr Senator? Where in the Constitution do you have the authority to be running x, Miss Congresswoman?
Which also explains why the Teachers unions, and the Dems they support, will potentially fight to their political deaths to maintain the status quo. At least until their power of incumbancy is dissolving. If/when the Dems see that eroding to a perpetual minority status, you'll see a flip so fast for charter schools and vouchers, it'll take an orthopedic surgeon to repair it
-
Then i guess the salvation for California and the nation involves taking back the schools.
Maybe they can do it smarter this time.
-
One can hope. Until folks start grasping that the role of Government is not simply to supply you with every basic thing you need at tax payer's expense, and that the Constitution is not a "living document" but literally a legal blueprint of how the Government is to function, complete with the mechanisms to change it, if there's some perceived "evolving" of the country, we're going to get the current state of CA, and likely of the U.S.
-
One can hope. Until folks start grasping that the role of Government is not simply to supply you with every basic thing you need at tax payer's expense, and that the Constitution is not a "living document" but literally a legal blueprint of how the Government is to function, complete with the mechanisms to change it, if there's some perceived "evolving" of the country, we're going to get the current state of CA, and likely of the U.S.
It's more than that. The citizens need to be informed and it is the citizens responsibility to make sure that they are. The government should be a reflection of us, and if it isn't then, whose fault is it really?
-
As I said, hard to be "informed", when at the earliest ages the "information" you're being provided is educating you as to a flawed premice of both the Government's functions, and of the importance of the Constitution
So, you can "blame" the individual "Average Joe" all you want, when its likely a much more insidious problem that's effectively educating Average Joey. Why would it then be a surprise for Average Joe to think that the government is anything to everyone, with the preconditioned ...and what have you done for me lately? mindset
-
As I said, hard to be "informed", when at the earliest ages the "information" you're being provided is educating you as to a flawed premice of both the Government's functions, and of the importance of the Constitution
SO your position is the american people are victims of themselves? That the wounds are self inflicted?
-
The government being in charge of education ought to be understood as a conflict of intrest problem, all the government wants the child to become is another brick in the wall.
-
The government being in charge of education ought to be understood as a conflict of intrest problem, all the government wants the child to become is another brick in the wall.
That presumes that the government is not of the people. So pray tell, how does the government and its composition of elected officials gain power, if not through the ballot box.
It's not like these people are transported in from another dimension.
-
Like Govenor Barnes many politicians deserve the "profiles in courage " award , proud that they lead the people away from their mistakes.
The lame duck congress has just received a lot of congradulations on how productive it was , I don't think that they are getting congradulated for doing the peoples business in the way the people would have guided them.
-
The lame duck congress has just received a lot of congradulations on how productive it was , I don't think that they are getting congradulated for doing the peoples business in the way the people would have guided them.
They were sent to DC by the plurality of votes by the people of their district or state. Some won't be going back, because they no longer had the peoples support. What they did up there will be dealt with at home, if they go back home. Whether they are shamed or honored really depends on their circle of friends.
-
The lame duck congress has just received a lot of congradulations on how productive it was , I don't think that they are getting congradulated for doing the peoples business in the way the people would have guided them.
They were sent to DC by the plurality of votes by the people of their district or state. Some won't be going back, because they no longer had the peoples support. What they did up there will be dealt with at home, if they go back home. Whether they are shamed or honored really depends on their circle of friends.
Getting a lot done as a lame duck ought to be a shame, as lame ducks the presumption that they represent their people is over. Getting a lot done as lame ducks that they were afaraid to do as representatives is getting dome what they are aware was voted against . Should there be presumption that the government is not of the people?
-
Getting a lot done as lame ducks that they were afaraid to do as representatives is getting dome what they are aware was voted against .
Do you think the majority who sent them there think that way, or do you think they consider it unfinished business, even as the majority who recalled them wish the term ended at the election instead of the start of the new congress.
Isn't it really just a matter of perspective.
-
As I said, hard to be "informed", when at the earliest ages the "information" you're being provided is educating you as to a flawed premise of both the Government's functions, and of the importance of the Constitution
SO your position is the American people are victims of themselves? That the wounds are self inflicted?
Ummm, you must have completely missed the post you responded to, even though you left it in the response above. That's impressive. Self inflicted and "victims of themselves" would have not had any Government involvement. Government's self interest in keeping themselves in power, with folks like the Teachers' Unions dictating curriculum, would be the targets of your blame game. If you wish to attach some snippet of victimhood upon the populace, it would be in the form of gross naivete, and the perpetuation of the ignorant
-
Members of teachers unions do not dictate curriculum anywhere I have been. Curriculum decisions come from the accreditation bodies and state legislatures as interpreted by administrators. There are good administrators and lame administrators, the lame ones being those who wish to "dumb down" the curriculum in order to pass more incompetent students through the system.
I recall one Dept. Head I had briefly that told me, "Your problem is that you are trying to teach them Spanish."
I said, "Of course, that is my job: I am being paid to teach them Spanish: what do you think I am supposed to do?"
He thought for a while and told me, "Your job is to get them ready to learn Spanish."
I said, "well, if you think that is my job, get the VP for Academic Affairs to tell me that in writing,and I will do just that."
Which of course, he could not do, and did not do. The VP was very supportive of those of us who tried to raise standards, and was far too smart to put something like that in writing.
There may be some incompetent teachers in teachers' unions. My experience in the high schools where there were unions was that the best teachers belonged to the unions, and the poorest ones (who were always making sure they used up all their 'sick days' by the end of the year) did not bother to pay their union dues, mostly because they did nothing that was not absolutely required.
I suggest that education in the US will never be accomplished by declaring war on teachers or their organizations. Nor will the right wingers spring for the cost of educating better teachers that agree with them.
We have all the resources in this country to have a first class educational system. But the culture is opposed to it, and a lot of people won't support it with the money or encouragement needed.
The last president of my university, a Jamaican-American with a Jamaican/Panamanian wife wanted desperately to improve the academic reputation of the university. His last plan was to import students from China to add more of an international character to the
student body. He made a trip to various cities in the interior of China that were holding education fairs to recruit students with a good friend of mine, a Taiwanese education professor who spoke Mandarin. They distributed a thousand pamphlets and got maybe 70 replies from interested Chinese students. When he returned, he presented a rather elaborate plan to the Board of Trustees, who thought that he had wasted too much money, and they fired him. No Chinese students were enrolled as a result: the entire plan was abandoned. The same Board also hired some 'image consultants' to 'rebrand' the university. They charged a bunch of money, and presented their gung-ho preliminary plans to the assembled faculty once. But none of what they proposed was implemented, because the Board decided that it wouldn't work. That seemed pretty obvious from the start to me and many of the faculty, but we were willing to cooperate and go along with whatever was required.
The thing is that a university gets a good reputation because it has a lot of really good students, who inspire the rest of the student body as much as or more than a good faculty. This attracts more studious students, and that attracts more money in grants and such. The thing is that the money is needed to attract the good students FIRST, and they won't give it to you until you have already attained the reputation sought. It is a vicious circle.
-
Members of teachers unions do not dictate curriculum anywhere I have been.
Nor have I ever specified "rank and file" members. I have ALWAYS referenced Union Leadership as the cancer. But thank you for helping to make my point, that the curriculum is largely handed down by Government
-
As I said, hard to be "informed", when at the earliest ages the "information" you're being provided is educating you as to a flawed premise of both the Government's functions, and of the importance of the Constitution
SO your position is the American people are victims of themselves? That the wounds are self inflicted?
Ummm, you must have completely missed the post you responded to, even though you left it in the response above. That's impressive. Self inflicted and "victims of themselves" would have not had any Government involvement. Government's self interest in keeping themselves in power, with folks like the Teachers' Unions dictating curriculum, would be the targets of your blame game. If you wish to attach some snippet of victimhood upon the populace, it would be in the form of gross naivete, and the perpetuation of the ignorant
And the constitution says:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Which to me means that all the power of the government, comes from the people.
Of course that interpretation may be to constructionist for you.
So yes, if the government is truly an entity, separate from the people and not comprised of the people, then the people are not to blame. But that is not the case. So yes, the people are victims of their own making.
-
Nice try, but I'm not buying it, outside of my above reference to the ignorance of the Average Joe, facilitated precisely by the education of Average Joey, at the hands of Government and in recent years, that of the teachers' unions. And hint, constructionist has nothing to do with it. If it did, there'd be no federal Dept of Education or the exponential spending provided for Public Education
-
Nice try, but I'm not buying it, outside of my above reference to the ignorance of the Average Joe, facilitated precisely by the education of Average Joey, at the hands of Government and in recent years, that of the teachers' unions. And hint, constructionist has nothing to do with it. If it did, there'd be no federal Dept of Education or the exponential spending provided for Public Education
So we the people does not mean we the people?
Gotcha
-
I was being a twit with this last response. I've retracted it, and will preface the position that we're just going to have to agree to disagree. My apologies
-
I was being a twit with this last response. I've retracted it, and will preface the position that we're just going to have to agree to disagree. My apologies
I have no idea what you are talking about. i am guessing that you posted something then thought better of it.
But what is it that you want to agree to disagree about?
What the phrase "we the people" means?
-
I was being a twit with this last response. I've retracted it, and will preface the position that we're just going to have to agree to disagree. My apologies
i am guessing that you posted something then thought better of it.
Yes
But what is it that you want to agree to disagree about?
The idea that "the people" are the ones I blame, apparently because the Government is a representation of "the people" who elected them, I suppose. The only thing we're gonna come close to agreeing on is the self inflicted wounds, by electing the same elitists into office. But I already addressed that in my reference to the perpetual ignorance being bestowed upon our multitude of Average Joeys, which is where I place the blame
What the phrase "we the people" means?
no. The dig about constructionist was also duely noted
-
So the agreement is that the people ( you, me and anyone else who takes the time to vote ) are ultimately responsible for the direction this country has taken?
-
Yea, that's pretty close to the only thing we're gonna come close to agreeing on is the self inflicted wounds, by electing the same elitists into office. But I already addressed that in my reference to the perpetual ignorance being bestowed upon our multitude of Average Joeys, which is where I truely place the blame
-
So are you saying we the people have no input into what is taught at schools?
-
Nope, didn't say that either. We have lots of potential for "input". Actual follow-thru with that input is what's largely absent
-
Actual follow-thru with that input is what's largely absent
So the schools do not follow through with the directives from elected school boards?
-
"Directives" from local school boards are more than likely 95+% handed down from Fed/State/Local Government and Union run school boards, while 5%, if that, can be considered "input" from "we the people"
-
"Directives" from local school boards are more than likely 95+% handed down from Fed/State/Local Government and Union run school boards, while 5%, if that, can be considered "input" from "we the people"
But we elect the school boards and in some states elect the state school superintendent, if not we elect the governor and or the legislatures that appoint the superintendent.
So how is it that the people are not responsible for the results of their votes? And how is it that these officials doing the peoples business are not held accountable?
-
I realize you keep wanting to go back to "we the people", which is why I keep going back to Average Joey, who then becomes a large chunk of "we the people" after having been properly "educated", to help perpetuate the relection of the status quo. Who wants to be not for "helping the children"?
-
So the average joey who is a large chunk of we the people is a victim?
-
School boards are NOT run by unions. They are not run by union "bosses", who are elected by teachers. School boards are elected by the citizens, and the citizens are then told by state legislatures (here in Florida dominated by idiotic Republicans). If the teachers tell the people (usually fellow teachers elected by the teachers) that they want to change or affect the curriculum in a negotiated contract, that is what the bargaining committee will do.
Only on Planet Sirs do evil union thug bosses descend from on high and screw up curricula and ruin the public schools.
-
Getting a lot done as lame ducks that they were afaraid to do as representatives is getting dome what they are aware was voted against .
Do you think the majority who sent them there think that way, or do you think they consider it unfinished business, even as the majority who recalled them wish the term ended at the election instead of the start of the new congress.
Isn't it really just a matter of perspective.
They got busy after the majority expressed disaproval, don't loose the timeline.
Did the majority express random disaproval or did they disaprove of what the Congress has been doing lately? This is an embarrasment to the principal of the government being of and by the people, the congress proves that many of its members want to do what is right in spite of the will of the people.
This isn't right , because it isn't the will of the people.
-
Only on Planet Sirs do evil union thug bosses descend from on high and screw up curricula and ruin the public schools.
Here in Planet CA, reality rules
-
The main problem in California schools was not caused by teachers unions and cannot be solved by school boards. The main problem is that there are too many students whose native language is something other than English, and they are here because of lax immigration policies, which can only be changed by the national government. School boards and unions cannot build a fence around the entire state and station snipers along every shore. Nor can they expel anyone who has the legal right to be in school.
-
The main problem in CA schools is PRECISELY caused by the Teachers' unions, along with our piss poor enforcement of Immigration laws by the Government. Notice the theme once again?....Unions and Government. Using their influence on the Democrats they've bought, they block every rational legislative effort to reform the system, including moving bad teachers out and even blocking trial efforts at giving parents choice in where to send their own children. Instead, they've pushed, and have gotten passed, just about every tax possible for "the children" of course, with the budget constitutionally fixed to provide a massive chunk directly to schools. 1 entity, Public Schools being provided a huge % of the CA state budget, compared to any other 1 entity. Not to mention their support of providing education to all "the children" who don't speak English. All the while, bad teachers continue to teach, with nothing short of an act of congress to fire a CA teacher. and even that's not likely to be enough
-
So the average joey who is a large chunk of we the people is a victim?
Average Joey, the ones who can't vote, yes
-
So the average joey who is a large chunk of we the people is a victim?
Average Joey, the ones who can't vote, yes
Why can't the average joey vote, because he is still in school?
And when he is of age and can vote, is he not a victim then?
-
So the average joey who is a large chunk of we the people is a victim?
Average Joey, the ones who can't vote, yes
Why can't the average joey vote, because he is still in school?
Thus my differentiating your Average Joe from my Average Joey
And when he is of age and can vote, is he not a victim then?
You could make that arguement, but at that point, the education is largely complete......"Mr Senator, what pork can you provide for us now?" "Miss Congresswoman, who else can you tax, and not me of course, for my little Joey's 'education'?"
-
You could make that arguement, but at that point, the education is largely complete......"Mr Senator, what pork can you provide for us now?" "Miss Congresswoman, who else can you tax, and not me of course, for my little Joey's 'education'?"
So resistance is futile.
The libs outsmarted the conservatives, because the libs took the longview and built a farm system that can go on for decades.
-
You could make that arguement, but at that point, the education is largely complete......"Mr Senator, what pork can you provide for us now?" "Miss Congresswoman, who else can you tax, and not me of course, for my little Joey's 'education'?"
So resistance is futile.
I don't think I ever said that. But it wouldn't be the 1st time your conclusions on my position were grossly in error. I'm merely providing you a status report
The libs outsmarted the conservatives, because the libs took the longview and built a farm system that can go on for decades.
That's likely the goal, and just as likely, well established. I don't see it as concrete however, but fixing it is going to require major reformation in our education system.....and time. Fiscally however, the state may not have much time left
-
But it wouldn't be the 1st time your conclusions on my position were grossly in error.
I don't believe I stated that was your position, though you have stated that in between the education system brainwashing the masses and the dems controlling the redistricting process the outlook is grim.
I admire your fortitude for not accepting the things that seemingly can not be changed.
-
But it wouldn't be the 1st time your conclusions on my position were grossly in error.
I don't believe I stated that was your position
So your conclusion to my response that "resistance is futile" was........Plane's position?
you have stated that in between the education system brainwashing the masses and the dems controlling the redistricting process the outlook is grim.
Yea.....and?
-
So your conclusion to my response that "resistance is futile" was........Plane's position?
Did you say resistance was futile, or did I?
-
Not sure where you're trying to take this now. Anyone can scroll up and see the whom, and to whom, it was in response to. (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/let's-just-throw-the-rule-book-away/30/?action=post;quote=115830;num_replies=44;sesc=3e6969ecd3f68f98498111fec0b4011a)
-
But it wouldn't be the 1st time your conclusions on my position were grossly in error.
I don't believe I stated that was your position
So your conclusion to my response that "resistance is futile" was........Plane's position?
you have stated that in between the education system brainwashing the masses and the dems controlling the redistricting process the outlook is grim.
Yea.....and?
Hey!Normally I have to come up with these things myself, perhaps ya'll know me so well now that I can be anticipated , ....
This could save a lot of work.
-
;)
-
your link didn't work.
this is what i said:
So resistance is futile.
The libs outsmarted the conservatives, because the libs took the longview and built a farm system that can go on for decades.
That was my conclusion derived from your saga about poor little average joey.
-
your link didn't work.
this is what i said:
So resistance is futile.
The libs outsmarted the conservatives, because the libs took the longview and built a farm system that can go on for decades.
That was my conclusion derived from your saga about poor little average joey.
If sirs doesn't want that position , can I have it?
-
Sirs is free to take any position he likes, so are you . Where sirs erred is saying i applied a position to him that i didn't. I simply staked out my own position. Hopefully other states can learn from California's mistakes.
-
I hope that Georgia remains a state friendly to homeschoolers.
I don't think we need to get the government entirely out of the education game , but I think that some real competition is good medicine for the monopoly.
-
I hope that Georgia remains a state friendly to homeschoolers.
I don't think we need to get the government entirely out of the education game , but I think that some real competition is good medicine for the monopoly.
Agreed
-
Sirs is free to take any position he likes, so are you . Where sirs erred is saying i applied a position to him that i didn't. I simply staked out my own position.
Why didn't you make that clear in the first place? 1 line, in the very next post would have sufficed. sheeeesh
-
I did. In the very next post after you made your accusation.
I don't believe I stated that was your position
-
and then left it hanging, so it wasn't clear at all, since I obviously inferred you were referring to me.
-
and then left it hanging, so it wasn't clear at all, since I obviously inferred you were referring to me.
Your erroneous conclusions are not my responsibility, especially after they have been pointed out.
-
Your lack of clarification is neither mine, especially when the issue was still in question
-
Your lack of clarification is neither mine, especially when the issue was still in question
Let's review:
You accuse me of assigning you a position.
I say i didn't.
You continue the accusation.
And that is on me?
I think not.
-
Yea, let's review:
I preface a position of how bad this state is
You RESPOND with a ... so resistance is futile.
No, NOT "I guess resistance is futile",
no, NOT "I suppose that means resistance if futile",
no, NOT "it would appear resistance is futile (from my vantage point)". No, none of those that would make that clear or clarify your statement, that it was a position you were taking. No, you left it dangling that could make the conclusion you were prefacing a position I was taking
You then merely say you didn't, and left it. Actually you didn't, you even added to it "though you have stated that in between the education system brainwashing the masses and the dems controlling the redistricting process the outlook is grim", making it appear even more so that it was the position I was taking.
Apparently clarification is not only a challenge you have when taking it from others, but a challenge when you're so lacking in it yourself
-
And yet when i told you your conclusions were wrong, you persist with your accusations.
I'm sure, in your mind, your conclusions were justified. Unfortunately you concluded wrong, and that is OK, it happens to the best of us. No one will think less of you because of your error.
-
And yet when i told you your conclusions were wrong, you persist with your accusations.
Already addressed that. You merely said, I was wrong. You left your claim wide open, and even reinforced the notion it was my position with the added comments about how grim I was making things appear, and never once, until here (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/let's-just-throw-the-rule-book-away/msg115850/#msg115850), a whopping 7 posts later reference that it was YOUR position. Not 1 post or even 3 posts later
In most rationally minded folks minds, one could have concluded as I did. Context actually matters. Stating I was wrong wasn't good enough. You needed to indicate how so, by merely saying it was your position. Why it took you so long to clarify yourself is.......your cross to bare
-
I find it odd that you just can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong. It's always someone else's fault.
-
And AGAIN in error. Wow. I made a completely valid & rational conclusion, based on the vagueness of your initial response, and instead of you clarifying yourself, right from the beginning, you've perpetuated this line of dialog adnauseum. My being "wrong" was faciltiated by your acute lack of clarification on your part, simple as that.
I don't read minds Bt. Your simple say so no longer has the same street cred it once had, either. You needed to clarify why I was wrong
-
Let's review again:
BT says:
So resistance is futile.
The libs outsmarted the conservatives, because the libs took the longview and built a farm system that can go on for decades.
sirs fires back:
I don't think I ever said that. But it wouldn't be the 1st time your conclusions on my position were grossly in error. I'm merely providing you a status report
BT clarifies:
I don't believe I stated that was your position, though you have stated that in between the education system brainwashing the masses and the dems controlling the redistricting process the outlook is grim.
I admire your fortitude for not accepting the things that seemingly can not be changed.
That should have been the end of it. Unless:
1. You are calling me a liar
or
2. You got it wrong but can't bring yourself to admit it.
Hopefully it is the latter.
-
Let's review again:
BT says:
So resistance is futile.
The libs outsmarted the conservatives, because the libs took the longview and built a farm system that can go on for decades.
sirs fires back:
I don't think I ever said that. But it wouldn't be the 1st time your conclusions on my position were grossly in error. I'm merely providing you a status report
BT (psuedo)clarifies:
I don't believe I stated that was your position, though you have stated that in between the education system brainwashing the masses and the dems controlling the redistricting process the outlook is grim.
Context is everything. You realize when a person makes an apology for x, but then follows it up with a "but.....", it pretty much negates the apology, right? Your "though...." did largely the same thing. If you had simply clarified with I don't believe I stated that was your position, I was stating mine, we wouldn't be having this conversation
Yes, I thank you again for this review
-
I didn't apologize for your mistake. Why should I?
-
Wasn't asking you to. My "mistake" was facilitated by your lack of clarity. I'm merely demonstrating how you could have saved the saloon from alot of extraneous non-relevent bandwith.
-
You realize when a person makes an apology for x, but then follows it up with a "but.....", it pretty much negates the apology, right? Your "though...." did largely the same thing. If you had simply clarified with I don't believe I stated that was your position, I was stating mine, we wouldn't be having this conversation
So who was making the apology?
If i wasn't stating your position, and I immediately clarified that i wasn't stating your position, it would follow that i was stating mine. Why you took the leap and assume i was stating Plane's position, if i wasn't stating your position, I don't know.
-
You realize when a person makes an apology for x, but then follows it up with a "but.....", it pretty much negates the apology, right? Your "though...." did largely the same thing. If you had simply clarified with I don't believe I stated that was your position, I was stating mine, we wouldn't be having this conversation
So who was making the apology?
That was an example, nothing more. sorry for any confusion. It was used to explain how your "though...." was like an apology's "but". It pretty much negated any attempt to make it a position you were taking. I demonstrated precisely how you could have clearly made it your position, and been done with it
If i wasn't stating your position, and I immediately clarified that i wasn't stating your position, it would follow that i was stating mine. Why you took the leap and assume i was stating Plane's position, if i wasn't stating your position, I don't know.
Explained and shown for all to see already, with the "though.....". We're done
-
I'm pretty sure those who have followed this thread can see the pathetic attempts you have made to avoid admitting you were wrong. And I guess you are saying you are done because you have run out of excuses.
-
And I'm pretty sure those who have followed this ridiculous tangent can see the same pathetic attempts you've made you to wiggle out of your acute lack of clarity, which facilitated how I was "wrong".
Examples:
Vague; I don't believe I stated that was your position, though you have stated that in between the education system brainwashing the masses and the dems controlling the redistricting process the outlook is grim
Crystal clear; I wasn't stating that was your position, I was stating it was mine
Yes, we are indeed done
-
For those of whom English is not their second language:
I don't believe I stated that was your position, though you have stated that in between the education system brainwashing the masses and the dems controlling the redistricting process the outlook is grim
Mean that I did not state that resistance was futile was your position.
What I did state was that your position on the situation in California painted a pretty grim position.
But i certainly did not imply that you had given up, as noted in my post here:
I admire your fortitude for not accepting the things that seemingly can not be changed.
-
Context, also noted for those who's English is their primary laguage....... "though......." painted a position that was contrary to your "belief" Clarity on your part would have been helpful, in the subsequent post(s). We finally got that clarity 7 posts later
-
Clarity on your part would have been helpful, in the subsequent post(s).
And if clarity was your quest you could have asked for it without the accusations.
But you didn't.
-
Ahhhh.....so finally. The beef is with the "accusation", which I must assume is the reference to I don't think I ever said that. But it wouldn't be the 1st time your conclusions on my position were grossly in error. Unless there's some other accusationS, Bt "believes" sirs was using
So, clarity was being sought after, since I rationlly believed it to be a position you were applying to me, based on the "though......." reference, but now we learn you apparently concluded it wasn't a serious request (quest) because it had the tail of grossly in error
How ironic that this is yet another erroenous assumption and dare I say, grossly in error. And again, if provided, we wouldn't have be having this conversation. So much for the lack of quest tactic
-
Unfortunately right out the gate you assumed i was assigning you a position. You didn't ask if i was doing that, you didn't seek clarity, you accused me of doing it. Right out of the gate. And you were wrong. And now you seem to be having a huge problem admitting it.
That's fine. You are consistent in refusing to acknowledge when your kneejerk reactions lead you astray.
-
Unfortunately right out the gate you assumed i was assigning you a position.
based on your recent track record with yours posts directed at me, why wouldn't I. You even added the qualifying "though......." reference, which merely reinforced the initial assumption
You didn't ask if i was doing that, you didn't seek clarity, you accused me of doing it. Right out of the gate.
Yep
And you were wrong.
Facilitated by your lack of providing the clarity being sought after. Again, yep
And now you seem to be having a huge problem admitting it.
Nope. Just redressing an issue that would have been put to rest in response number 1 or 2 to this ridicuous tangent, and highlighthing once again, the grossly in error part, you've adopted with so many of my posts, as of late. Now with the latest being I wasn't seriously looking for clarity oy
-
Facilitated by your lack of providing the clarity being sought after. Again, yep
You didn't ask for clarity prior to accusing, did you?
Nope.
-
Yea, that has to be it. Just ignore what I've said, that'll work
-
Yea, that has to be it. Just ignore what I've said, that'll work
You didn't. You just accused.
-
Yea, that has to be it. Just ignore what I've said, that'll work
-
Yea, that has to be it.
It is what it is. Read your post where you made the accusation. Show me where you seek clarity. You didn't.
-
Yea, especially read the why I made the assumption/accusation I made. You know...for clarity. As soon as you noted it was the wrong assumption, you could have clearly corrected it. Could have put this to bed, in response #2. You didn't. But at least we now know why. It was based on yet another erroneous assumption. Surprise ;)
-
Yea, especially read the why I made the assumption/accusation I made. You know...for clarity.
Please show me the relationship between an accusation and a request for clarity.
Seems like you have the order backwards. It should be ask, process, decide.
You decided.
Apparently you had all the information necessary to reach your conclusion.
Unfortunately it was wrong, probably because you didn't ask for clarity.
-
No, the order is quite simple
Sirs' Comment on CA
Bt's vague response about futile resistance
Sirs' assumption that it was sirs' position, given Bt's recent track record with sirs' posts
Bt's 1st opportunity for clarity, and provides a vague response that it was his, though.......
Sirs' assumption made all the more solid as a result of "though.....
Bt's 2nd opportunity to clearly say it was his, and his alone......not to be seen until post#7. I wonder what # post we're on now
-
Sirs' assumption that it was sirs' position, given Bt's recent track record with sirs' posts
So your claims to soliciting clarity is a lie because your mind was already made up?
Justifying your false conclusion is one thing, saying it was an effort to seek clarity is quite another.
-
Since you wish to continue to ignore what I've actually said, along with the timeline of events, and the context they've been made in, and now with the last vestage of desperation, throwing out the lying card, you are indeed done
-
you are indeed done
LOL Like you have that power.
-
Whatever that's supposed to mean
-
How would you phrase the litmus test so that the average joe understands the implications of voting for a liberal senator or president.
The "Average Joe" is more likely the average Joey in elementary school, where U.S. History, and in particular the Constitution are likely either glossed over (minimizing its importance), or just as bad, if not worse, educated that the Constitution is indeed a "living document", left to dangle at the whims of whatever party is in power of the Government at the time, including the Judiciary
With that taken care of, Legislators, Judges, and Presidents are then allowed to ride rough shot, or as Sowell phrases it, able to do all-too-frequent end arounds of the clear wording and intent of the Constitution. There really is no litmus test.
The congressional Republicans' decision to read the Constitution aloud on the floor of Congress has forced some Constitution-contemptuous liberals further out of the closet, which is an instructive development to behold.
Blogger Ezra Klein of The Washington Post told MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell that the constitutional reading is "a gimmick," and "the issue of the Constitution is not that people don't read the text and think they're following; the issue with the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done."
Columnist E.J. Dionne, also with The Washington Post, expressed similar irreverence for our founding document. Dionne lamented that the tea party movement has treated the Constitution "as the equivalent of sacred scripture. Yet as Gordon Wood, the widely admired historian of the Revolutionary era has noted, we 'can recognize the extraordinary character of the Founding Fathers while also knowing that those 18th-century political leaders were not outside history. ... They were as enmeshed in historical circumstances as we are, they had no special divine insight into politics, and their thinking was certainly not free of passion, ignorance, and foolishness.'"
Dionne's (and Wood's) assessment is quite a far cry from that of former British Prime Minister William Gladstone, who observed, "The American Constitution is, so far as I can see, the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man."
Though no one should argue that we should turn our respect for the Constitution into idolatry, there is every reason to believe that our Constitution is indeed unique, both in the brilliant structure of limited government it established and in its practical effect of creating the freest, strongest and most prosperous nation in history.
One doesn't have to believe America was directly established by God to recognize that the Framers were largely animated by a Christian worldview and generally shared the biblical "insight" concerning man's fallen nature -- an insight that contributed as much as anything else to their blueprint for government.
As if choreographed to coincide with the liberals' dissing of the Constitution, ex-boxer turned Senate majority leader Harry Reid has threatened to amend long-established Senate Rule 22, which requires 60 votes to invoke cloture on a bill. Reid's scheme is to pretend that the Senate is not a continuous body whose rules remain in force unless changed by a supermajority of senators, but a body that requires that rules be approved every two years when a new Congress convenes.
Common sense alone exposes Reid's malignant stunt for what it is, as incoming senators historically have not ratified Senate rules because it would have been a superfluous act. As others have noted, the Senate's official website expressly affirms that the Senate is a continuous body: "the business of the Senate would continue from Congress to Congress without interruption." Indeed, a Senate rule change as recently as 2007 followed the traditional Senate procedure.
The practical effect of Reid's cynical ploy would be that rules could be changed at the start of any session with a simple majority vote, which would be a convenient result for Senate Democrats, who are none too pleased with the "shellacking" their party received in the November congressional elections.
But there is a method to the Democrats' mad consistency. The relative disrespect liberals Klein and Dionne demonstrate follows from the liberal view of the Constitution as "a living document," whose provisions the courts can rewrite at will.
- It is compatible with Barack Obama's obvious belief that the document is powerless to prevent the federal government from engaging in activities it prohibits, such as requiring people to purchase health insurance.
- It aligns with Obama's belief that the courts can manipulate the Constitution to adjudicate "economic justice" -- a euphemism for abject court-ordered income redistribution.
- It squares with Obama's systematic usurpation of congressional authority in his appointment of unaccountable czars, his executive order frenzy, his administrative law end runs, his de facto moratorium on offshore drilling, and his conspiracy with legislators to corrupt the legislative process (as he did with Obamacare).
The common thread running through all of these examples is the liberals' end-justifies-the-means mentality, which, as we are witnessing, is a green light for tyranny and a smothering of liberty and democratic principles in the name of promoting them.
Liberals will mock conservatives for their stodgy nationalism and their fealty to a document that is more than 200 years old. But their arrogance and mockery just serve to confirm their disrespect for our founding institutions. More importantly, they underscore the enormity of the stakes involved and strengthen our resolve to politically defeat liberals and crush their systematic assault on our liberties.
Is the Constitution Senile? (http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2011/01/04/is_the_constitution_senile)
-
The constitutional provision under which only one-third of the Senate membership is changed by election in each Congress can only be construed to indicate the intent of the framers that the Senate should be a continuing parliamentary body for at least some purposes. By practice for 167 years the rules of the Senate have been continued from one Congress to another.
The Constitution also provides that "each House may determine the rules of its proceedings." This constitutional right is lodged in the membership of the Senate and it may be exercised by a majority of the Senate at any time. When the membership of the Senate changes, as it does upon the election of each Congress, it is the Chair's opinion that there can be no question that the majority of the new existing membership of the Senate, under the Constitution, have the power to determine the rules under which the Senate will proceed.
The question, therefore, is, "How can these two constitutional mandates be reconciled?"
It is the opinion of the Chair that while the rules of the Senate have been continued from one Congress to another, the right of a current majority of the Senate at the beginning of a new Congress to adopt its own rules, stemming as it does from the Constitution itself, cannot be restricted or limited by rules adopted by a majority of the Senate in a previous Congress.
Any provision of Senate rules adopted in a previous Congress which has the expressed or practical effect of denying the majority of the Senate in a new Congress the right to adopt the rules under which it desires to proceed is, in the opinion of the Chair, unconstitutional. It is also the opinion of the Chair that Section 3 of Rule 22 in practice has such an effect.
The Chair emphasizes that this is only his own opinion, because under Senate precedents, a question of constitutionality can only be decided by the Senate itself, and not by the Chair.
At the beginning of a session in a newly elected Congress, the Senate can indicate its will in regard to its rules in one of three ways:
First. It can proceed to conduct its business under the Senate rules which were in effect in the previous Congress and thereby indicate by acquiescence that those rules continue in effect. This has been the practice in the past.
Second. It can vote negatively when a motion is made to adopt new rules and by such action indicate approval of the previous rule.
Third. It can vote affirmatively to proceed with the adoption of new rules.
Turning to the parliamentary situation in which the Senate now finds itself, if the motion to table should prevail, a majority of the Senate by such action would have indicated its approval of the previous rules of the Senate, and those rules would be binding on the Senate for the remainder of this Congress unless subsequently changed under those rules.
If, on the other hand, the motion to lay on the table shall fail, the Senate can proceed with the adoption of rules under whatever procedures the majority of the Senate approves.
In summary, until the Senate at the initiation of a new Congress expresses its will otherwise, the rules in effect in the previous Congress in the opinion of the Chair remain in effect, with the exception that the Senate should not be bound by any provision in those previous rules which denies the membership of the Senate the power to exercise its constitutional right to make its own rules. (Congressional Record, 85th Congress, 1st Session, January 4, 1957, pp. 178-179.)
-
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0104cd20110103075956.jpg)