DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on January 20, 2010, 01:04:47 PM
-
<<. . . why Scott Brown can be elected with just 52% of the Massachusetts vote, but we can't pass universal health care with 52% of the Senate vote.>>
www.juancole.com (http://www.juancole.com)
-
Simple. Passing health care reform with 52% of the vote in Congress requires compromise. Democrats do not want to compromise (evidenced by closed door sessions and disallowing any changes by Republicans) so they need a supermajority instead.
If they were willing to compromise, then they would get it.
-
Does Jaun Cole also not understand that GREATER than 52% of the U.S. citizenry does NOT want Obamacare passed??
-
<<Passing health care reform with 52% of the vote in Congress requires compromise. Democrats do not want to compromise (evidenced by closed door sessions and disallowing any changes by Republicans) so they need a supermajority instead.
<<If they were willing to compromise, then they would get it.>>
Why? Do the citizens of Massachusetts compromise on some third candidate just because neither Brown nor Coakley got all the votes? In a REAL democracy, 52% is more than sufficient to decide any non-constitutional issue. This filibuster shit is pure nonsense. THAT was what Prof. Cole really couldn't understand. There is nothing democratic about it. It is the deliberate frustration of the will of the majority by a minority of one.
-
So entertaining to see Tee highlight the "will of the majority", while IGNORING the will of the majority of the electorate & american people.
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/1-20-09peoplesseatRGB20100120110818.jpg)
-
Why? Do the citizens of Massachusetts compromise on some third candidate just because neither Brown nor Coakley got all the votes? In a REAL democracy, 52% is more than sufficient to decide any non-constitutional issue. This filibuster shit is pure nonsense. THAT was what Prof. Cole really couldn't understand. There is nothing democratic about it. It is the deliberate frustration of the will of the majority by a minority of one.
A minority of one cannot filibuster by himself. Even if the Democrats do not have 60 votes, they can compromise with enough Republicans to get the cloture vote and avoid the filibuster. A filibuster threat only works if you've closed off negotiations to enough people that you cannot get cloture.
-
<<A minority of one cannot filibuster by himself. Even if the Democrats do not have 60 votes, they can compromise with enough Republicans to get the cloture vote and avoid the filibuster. A filibuster threat only works if you've closed off negotiations to enough people that you cannot get cloture.>>
The Republicans will vote en bloc against Obama's health care bill. There was some hope that Olympia Snowe would support the bill, but that's now gone. If one single Republican filibusters, he's one man from a minority contingent and he is holding up the passage of the bill, whereas there is no one man representative of any minority faction who can swing the election to Coakley's side if a bare majority favours Brown.
What you have in the filibuster is a mechanism whereby one man (perhaps it was inaccurate to call him a minority of one) representing a minority view in the Senate can block a vote that the majority wishes to hold.
-
<<A minority of one cannot filibuster by himself. Even if the Democrats do not have 60 votes, they can compromise with enough Republicans to get the cloture vote and avoid the filibuster. A filibuster threat only works if you've closed off negotiations to enough people that you cannot get cloture.>>
The Republicans will vote en bloc against Obama's health care bill.
And the Democrats will vote en block for it
There was some hope that Olympia Snowe would support the bill, but that's now gone.
And there is some hope that Nelson, Lieberman, or a hanful of other Democrats will support the notion that the people (their constituents) DON'T WANT IT, and decide they can no longer support such an abysmal bill, simply to pass it
If one single Republican filibusters, he's one man from a minority contingent and he is holding up the passage of the bill, ...
..THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT. (Like trying to debate with a block of wood ::) )
-
The Republicans will vote en bloc against Obama's health care bill.
This bill, of course. Because it was written without any input from Republicans and behind closed doors. Had they involved Republicans in the crafting of the bill, it would have a higher chance of getting past a cloture vote. The point of filibusters is to prevent the ramming of partisan bills through congress without input from the minority party or independents.
There's this concept of "burning bridges" that Democrats can't seem to understand.
-
<<The point of filibusters is to prevent the ramming of partisan bills through congress without input from the minority party or independents.>>
Yes, which by definition is the profoundly anti-democratic undermining of the democratic principle of majority rule, as exemplified in Brown's "victory" over Coakley with a margin of only 52%.
<<There's this concept of "burning bridges" that Democrats can't seem to understand.>>
And then there's this concept of majority rule which the current GOP leadership is fully prepared to sabotage.
-
>>Yes, which by definition is the profoundly anti-democratic undermining of the democratic principle of majority rule,<<
America isn't a democracy. It's Republic. I'll understand if you, being Canadian, don't understand the difference.
-
And then there's this concept of majority rule which the current GOP leadership is fully prepared to sabotage.
So, if the majority voted to reinstate slavery by a simple 51%, you'd be good with that?
-
>>So, if the majority voted to reinstate slavery by a simple 51%, you'd be good with that?<<
<chuckle>
I'm sure that would me certain liquidation.
-
<<So, if the majority voted to reinstate slavery by a simple 51%, you'd be good with that?>>
Nope. Not even by a 100% majority. Clearcut violation of constitutional human rights. Certain basic rights are immune to majority rule.
-
Depends of course if that position is contrary to the majority view. You may be a minority of 1, in fact
-
<<America isn't a democracy. It's Republic. I'll understand if you, being Canadian, don't understand the difference.>>
No, of course not. A dumb Canuck like me wouldn't understand. Such words are not used in playing hockey or chopping wood.
Why don't you explain it for me?
What is a Republic exactly? What is a democracy? And where is it written that a Republic cannot be a democracy?
-
Ask your boyfriend.
-
The statement "The USA is a Republic, not a democracy" is typical of the John Birch Society and the ultra rightwing. What they mean by this is that no one has a right to tax them for anything they do not like, like flouride in the municipal water supply or equal rights for colored people, both clearly a Communist plots.
Rich was in a wealthy neighborhood and some Fascist must have sneezed on him. This is a contagious belief, easily contracted by the gullible.
Republic means that the leader is not a monarch, like Elizabeth II.
Democracy means that the people choose the government.
In actuality, the US is a pluralistic representative democracy, at least ideally. But money is allowed the freedom of speech, so it is often more of an oligarchy.
-
who the hell is Juan Cole and why should I care what he thinks?
-
<<who the hell is Juan Cole and why should I care what he thinks?>>
from the Wikipedia article, Juan Cole:
<<John Ricardo I. "Juan" Cole (born October 1952) is an American scholar, public intellectual, and historian of the modern Middle East and South Asia.[1][2][3] He is Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan. As a commentator on Middle Eastern affairs, he has appeared in print and on television, and testified before the United States Senate. He has published several peer-reviewed books on the modern Middle East and is a translator of both Arabic and Persian. Since 2002, he has written a weblog, Informed Comment. >>
Although he doesn't usually comment on domestic American politics unless it's in the context of some Middle East issue, this one comment seemed interesting to me, and I thought it would be interesting to the group.
It seemed strange to Juan Cole - - and it certainly seems strange to me - - that the Senator from Mass can be determined by a voting margin of only 52% but that when the health care of all America comes up for a Senate vote, its proponents need to assemble a 60% majority to be sure of its passage. That was an interesting idea, didn't matter to me who it came from, but I attributed the source in order to avoid looking like I was claiming the credit for it.
Anyway, I wasn't telling anyone they should care what Juan Cole thinks - - just throwing out an idea I saw that happened to come from him. Woulda been just as interesting, IMHO, if it had come from Bugs Bunny. Doesn't really matter who the idea came from, if it's interesting to think about.
-
<<Ask your boyfriend.>>
Just as I thought, you just parrot right-wing catch phrases automatically without having the faintest idea WTF they actually mean.
well, no surprises there.
-
<<So, if the majority voted to reinstate slavery by a simple 51%, you'd be good with that?>>
Nope. Not even by a 100% majority. Clearcut violation of constitutional human rights. Certain basic rights are immune to majority rule.
So is the Constitution "dead" on that point? Or is it a "liveing" document adaptable to the moods of the day?
-
Just as I thought, you just parrot right-wing catch phrases automatically without having the faintest idea WTF they actually mean.
well, no surprises there.
======================================
You can say that again.
But I just did so you would not have to.
-
<<So is the Constitution "dead" on that point? Or is it a "liveing" document adaptable to the moods of the day?>>
Why ask me, what would I know? Is the "mood of the day" in the State of Georgia a pro-slavery one? In that case, why don't you enslave somebody and challenge the constitutionality of the 14th in Court? Then you could get a more authoritative view on how adaptable the 14th Amendment is to the moods of the day.
-
In that case, why don't you enslave somebody and challenge the constitutionality of the 14th in Court? Then you could get a more authoritative view on how adaptable the 14th Amendment is to the moods of the day.
What has slavery got to do with the definition of citizenship?
-
<<So is the Constitution "dead" on that point? Or is it a "liveing" document adaptable to the moods of the day?>>
Why ask me, what would I know? Is the "mood of the day" in the State of Georgia a pro-slavery one? In that case, why don't you enslave somebody and challenge the constitutionality of the 14th in Court? Then you could get a more authoritative view on how adaptable the 14th Amendment is to the moods of the day.
You cant sue to prove the constitution unconstitional.
-
<<What has slavery got to do with the definition of citizenship?>>
You were the one who introduced slavery into this thread:
<<So, if the majority voted to reinstate slavery by a simple 51%, you'd be good with that?>>
So maybe you can tell me what it has to do with the definition of citizenship.
-
Here's what you asked me, plane:
<<So is the Constitution "dead" on that point? ["That point" being the legality of slavery] Or is it a "liveing" document adaptable to the moods of the day?>>
And I suggested that you try to find out by enslaving someone and fighting the legality of it out in court.
<<You cant sue to prove the constitution unconstitional.>>
I didn't say you should sue, but somebody else would sue to protest the enslavement on the part of your newly enslaved, at which point you could bring any challenge you liked to the 14th Amendment and find out from the court itself how adaptable it (the amendment) was to the moods of the day.
-
So maybe you can tell me what it has to do with the definition of citizenship.
You're the one who introduced the 14th Amendment, which defines citizenship.
-
<<You're the one who introduced the 14th Amendment, which defines citizenship.>>
No, I don't think so. As far as I can see, it was your post (Reply #11) which first mentioned either slavery or the 14th in this thread.
-
No, I don't think so. As far as I can see, it was your post (Reply #11) which first mentioned either slavery or the 14th in this thread.
My post (Reply #11) says, in it's entirety:
And then there's this concept of majority rule which the current GOP leadership is fully prepared to sabotage.
So, if the majority voted to reinstate slavery by a simple 51%, you'd be good with that?
No mention of the 14th Amendment in there at all. First mention of the 14th Amendment is Reply #23:
<<So is the Constitution "dead" on that point? Or is it a "liveing" document adaptable to the moods of the day?>>
Why ask me, what would I know? Is the "mood of the day" in the State of Georgia a pro-slavery one? In that case, why don't you enslave somebody and challenge the constitutionality of the 14th in Court? Then you could get a more authoritative view on how adaptable the 14th Amendment is to the moods of the day.
So, you brought it into the argument. Care to enlighten us as to what the 14th Amendment has to do with slavery?
-
Ooops, my mistake. I thought it was the 14th that abolished slavery, but it was actually the 13th.
So my references to the 14th should have been to the 13th.
-
Here's what you asked me, plane:
<<So is the Constitution "dead" on that point? ["That point" being the legality of slavery] Or is it a "liveing" document adaptable to the moods of the day?>>
And I suggested that you try to find out by enslaving someone and fighting the legality of it out in court.
<<You cant sue to prove the constitution unconstitional.>>
I didn't say you should sue, but somebody else would sue to protest the enslavement on the part of your newly enslaved, at which point you could bring any challenge you liked to the 14th Amendment and find out from the court itself how adaptable it (the amendment) was to the moods of the day.
And I could conceiveably take advantage of the flexability of the language to prevail , because the Constitution is a liveing document ?
-
<<And I could conceiveably take advantage of the flexability of the language to prevail , because the Constitution is a liveing document ?>>
Within reason, you could, although probably not to endorse your enslavement of another person. "Living document" does not mean that it can be twisted into whatever anyone wants it to be.
-
Sure it does.
-
<<And I could conceiveably take advantage of the flexability of the language to prevail , because the Constitution is a liveing document ?>>
Within reason, you could, although probably not to endorse your enslavement of another person. "Living document" does not mean that it can be twisted into whatever anyone wants it to be.
That is exactly what I am afraid it does mean.
Somethings yo want to be flexable , like your knee joints , some things you want to be stiff like the foundations of a large building.
Which quality do we want for the constitution?
-
<<Somethings yo want to be flexable , like your knee joints , some things you want to be stiff like the foundations of a large building.>>
Your metaphor sucks. The Constitution is neither a knee joint nor a large building. If your knee joint were totally flexible, BTW, your legs probably would not be able to bear your full body weight. Similarly with building foundations - - make them too rigid and they are less able to withstand seismic shocks.
<<Which quality do we want for the constitution?>>
I would say, unless you have figured out a way to return modern society to an exact replica of 18th century America and keep it there, you definitely would want a reasonably flexible Constitution.
-
<<Somethings yo want to be flexable , like your knee joints , some things you want to be stiff like the foundations of a large building.>>
Your metaphor sucks. The Constitution is neither a knee joint nor a large building. If your knee joint were totally flexible, BTW, your legs probably would not be able to bear your full body weight. Similarly with building foundations - - make them too rigid and they are less able to withstand seismic shocks.
<<Which quality do we want for the constitution?>>
I would say, unless you have figured out a way to return modern society to an exact replica of 18th century America and keep it there, you definitely would want a reasonably flexible Constitution.
This is probly the reason that the Founders wrote in some purposefull ambiguitys , even more the reason that they reserved some functions to the states and the people.
But where it is firmest is where it limits the ability of the governmental parts and provided for frequent elections ,so that the people won't have to overthrow the government just to get some change.
-
<<This is probly the reason that the Founders wrote in some purposefull ambiguitys . . . >>
They may indeed have done so, but can you provide any specific examples?
<<But where it is firmest is where it limits the ability of the governmental parts and provided for frequent elections ,so that the people won't have to overthrow the government just to get some change.>>
Do you ever get the feeling that the system has been "gamed" so that the Framers' original intentions regarding frequent elections have been thwarted?
-
<<This is probly the reason that the Founders wrote in some purposefull ambiguitys . . . >>
They may indeed have done so, but can you provide any specific examples?
The right to privacy is implied rather than stated , the powers and functions not directly claimed by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.
<<But where it is firmest is where it limits the ability of the governmental parts and provided for frequent elections ,so that the people won't have to overthrow the government just to get some change.>>
Do you ever get the feeling that the system has been "gamed" so that the Framers' original intentions regarding frequent elections have been thwarted?
No, Not really ,origionally the Senate was appointed rather than elected, after "The Treason of the Senate" was published, elected Senators were introduced as a reform measure, so we have more election than origionally. The most flexable part of the Constitution is the unlimited ability to add admendments , but with a process so difficult that admendments are not added frequently or capriciously.
-
<<The right to privacy is implied rather than stated >>
Well, strictly speaking, that is not an ambiguity. An ambiguity is a sentence or phrase or even a single word that is capable of two or more different meanings.
<< the powers and functions not directly claimed by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.>>
That's also not an ambiguity.
-
<<The right to privacy is implied rather than stated >>
Well, strictly speaking, that is not an ambiguity. An ambiguity is a sentence or phrase or even a single word that is capable of two or more different meanings.
<< the powers and functions not directly claimed by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.>>
That's also not an ambiguity.
I seem top have chosen the wrong word then.
What is a better word for refuseing to be specific?
Such as not defineing the requirements of citizenship?
The Constitution is full of this sort of thing.
-
I can't think of a single word. You could just say that the Constitution leaves a certain issue unaddressed, or is silent on it.
-
I can't think of a single word. You could just say that the Constitution leaves a certain issue unaddressed, or is silent on it.
There are lacuna of this sort on several subjects , some that we have record of being discussed in the first Congress.
Most of these guys were already experienced leaders in the British tradition, includeing flexability on purpose was not beyond them.
-
I don't think they were intentionally ambiguous on issues which were apparent at the time. Ambiguity would make no sense, certainly there would be some issues that were difficult to resolve but what was the point of all the congresses, caucuses, meetings, debates etc. if not to resolve or compromise thorny issues? (I stand to be corrected with regard to issues which you claim were publicly debated but never addressed in the final draft.) I think flexibility comes into the picture mainly if not exclusively in cases which could not be foreseen in the 18th century but resulted from the centuries of progress thereafter in society and human knowledge and capabilities.
-
"Flexibility", at least for the fringes of ideology, come in to play when one needs to mutate the clear meaning of the Constitution to fit an agenda & programs, that largely runs counter to the clear intentions of the founders, the Constitution, and the crystal clear limitations that were to be placed on Government
-
I don't think they were intentionally ambiguous on issues which were apparent at the time. Ambiguity would make no sense, certainly there would be some issues that were difficult to resolve but what was the point of all the congresses, caucuses, meetings, debates etc. if not to resolve or compromise thorny issues? (I stand to be corrected with regard to issues which you claim were publicly debated but never addressed in the final draft.) I think flexibility comes into the picture mainly if not exclusively in cases which could not be foreseen in the 18th century but resulted from the centuries of progress thereafter in society and human knowledge and capabilities.
Those guys were way smarter than you think .
-
<<Those guys were way smarter than you think .>>
Hey as far as I'm concerned, they were the best political scientists the world has ever seen. They certainly were not "way smarter" than I think.
-
<<Those guys were way smarter than you think .>>
Hey as far as I'm concerned, they were the best political scientists the world has ever seen. They certainly were not "way smarter" than I think.
The composition began years before the actual convention at which it was written.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers)