PDA

View Full Version : What purpose does our congress serve?



donttread
10-06-2014, 02:33 AM
Think about it. Most of the necessary laws are already written and most of the necessary wars have already been fought.
We pay congress to come up with new bullshit laws and imperialistic attacks on other countries . Why ? So they can hide the fact that our economy is based upon incarceration and war and that it is their fault. Then the bastards take a two month vaca while we are at war!

Peter1469
10-06-2014, 04:55 AM
We probably should dissolve the Senate. It lost its legitimate purpose with the ratification of the 17th Amendment.

Cigar
10-06-2014, 06:01 AM
Ok ... now it's time to wakeup

First ... wishing the part of Government you don't like goes away, isn't going to happen

Second ... you're not going to win all the elections you want to win

Third ... in your Adult Life you have to make some compromises, you can't always get your way

Lastly ... Government stops working when we elect children you take their ball home everything they lose a decision

It's time to grow the fuck up and stop acting like children, everyone loses sometimes

hanger4
10-06-2014, 06:30 AM
Ok ... now it's time to wakeup

First ... wishing the part of Government you don't like goes away, isn't going to happen

Second ... you're not going to win all the elections you want to win

Third ... in your Adult Life you have to make some compromises, you can't always get your way

Lastly ... Government stops working when we elect children you take their ball home everything they lose a decision

It's time to grow the $#@! up and stop acting like children, everyone loses sometimes

First- Nobody said anything about a branch of gov gping away. Second - Hope you remember in the future. Third - Be so kind and inform Harry Ried. Thankyou
Lastly - Please refer to number 3.

hanger4
10-06-2014, 06:36 AM
We probably should dissolve the Senate. It lost its legitimate purpose with the ratification of the 17th Amendment.
Why not repeal the 17th ??

Cigar
10-06-2014, 06:40 AM
First- Nobody said anything about a branch of gov gping away. Second - Hope you remember in the future. Third - Be so kind and inform Harry Ried. Thankyou
Lastly - Please refer to number 3.


Obviously is isn't and obviously you didn't READ the second post :laugh:

Cigar
10-06-2014, 06:43 AM
Why not repeal the 17th ??


It won't change the obvious demographics changes ...

You can only delay the inevitable for a short time ...

hanger4
10-06-2014, 06:59 AM
Obviously is isn't and obviously you didn't READ the second post :laugh:

Yeah, missed that. Wanna disciss #3 ??

hanger4
10-06-2014, 07:00 AM
It won't change the obvious demographics changes ...

You can only delay the inevitable for a short time ...
Do you even know what the 17th changed ??

Cigar
10-06-2014, 07:04 AM
Do you even know what the 17th changed ??


Changing the Rules just because you keep losing the Game isn't a sustainable plan

hanger4
10-06-2014, 07:37 AM
Changing the Rules just because you keep losing the Game isn't a sustainable plan

You meen changing the rules back to original intent ??

Captain Obvious
10-06-2014, 07:42 AM
I was going to comment but I see trolls and hacks have already wrecked the thread.

Cigar
10-06-2014, 07:49 AM
I was going to comment but I see trolls and hacks have already wrecked the thread.


Maybe the Nanny Forum needs a BS Filter

Mister D
10-06-2014, 07:50 AM
Maybe the Nanny Forum needs a BS Filter

It's easier putting you on ignore. lol

Captain Obvious
10-06-2014, 07:52 AM
It's easier putting you on ignore. lol

Not really because posts still show up on the forum as "new posts" and since Cigar has nothing better to do than to reply to every thread with his constant barrage of heckling, most of the forum activity winds up being avoiding this shit manually anyway.

I wish the forum had an ignore feature like Facebook has where the person is basically wiped out of existence for all intents and purposes for users ignoring them.

Cigar
10-06-2014, 08:30 AM
It's easier putting you on ignore. lol

Then just do it and stop your whining :rollseyes:

texan
10-06-2014, 08:34 AM
We probably should dissolve the Senate. It lost its legitimate purpose with the ratification of the 17th Amendment.

I am gonna say we should probably dissolve Harry Reid first and see if it can work again. HE is the most offensive and the absolute worst leader in the history of that body. He is nothing but Valarie Jarrett's puppet. 300 bills sent over no votes and some have bi-partisan agreement.

Chris
10-06-2014, 08:41 AM
Think about it. Most of the necessary laws are already written and most of the necessary wars have already been fought.
We pay congress to come up with new bull$#@! laws and imperialistic attacks on other countries . Why ? So they can hide the fact that our economy is based upon incarceration and war and that it is their fault. Then the bastards take a two month vaca while we are at war!


<thread reboot>

The legitimate purpose of Congress is stated in the Preamble to the Constitution, the legitimate means are stated in Article 1.

Anything outside those granted powers ought to be tossed.

Cigar
10-06-2014, 08:43 AM
<thread reboot>

The legitimate purpose of Congress is stated in the Preamble to the Constitution, the legitimate means are stated in Article 1.

Anything outside those granted powers ought to be tossed.


Should Congress have a say on if America goes to WAR?

Or should they hide at home for because of Election Fears?

Mister D
10-06-2014, 08:57 AM
Not really because posts still show up on the forum as "new posts" and since Cigar has nothing better to do than to reply to every thread with his constant barrage of heckling, most of the forum activity winds up being avoiding this $#@! manually anyway.

I wish the forum had an ignore feature like Facebook has where the person is basically wiped out of existence for all intents and purposes for users ignoring them.

Interesting idea.

Chris
10-06-2014, 09:12 AM
Should Congress have a say on if America goes to WAR?

Or should they hide at home for because of Election Fears?


See US Constitution Article 1 Section 8. Only Congress is so empowered.

Congressional sessions are also defined in the Constitution.

texan
10-06-2014, 09:16 AM
Should Congress have a say on if America goes to WAR?

Or should they hide at home for because of Election Fears?

How many times do you have to hear the truth?

Obama and the dems don't want a vote. The republicans are fine with that as well. Obama is using the original (LOL Illegal) Iraq War Bill passed by congress in loop hole fashion. So What? Who do you think would get hurt more? Not republicans, especially since the press will spin it positively because they believe its necessary.

Get a friggin clue.

nic34
10-06-2014, 09:25 AM
Do you even know what the 17th changed ??

Repeal of the 17th Amendment would once again hand the Senate over to the moneyed interests and insiders.

Mister D
10-06-2014, 09:26 AM
Repeal of the 17th Amendment would once again hand the Senate over to the moneyed interests and insiders.

Pssst...nic...don't look now but "moneyed interests" are in power now.

hanger4
10-06-2014, 10:34 AM
Pssst...nic...don't look now but "moneyed interests" are in power now.

sssssshhhhhh

Peter1469
10-06-2014, 02:46 PM
Repeal of the 17th Amendment would once again hand the Senate over to the moneyed interests and insiders.

It would also empower the states. The entire point of the Senate in the first place.

nic34
10-06-2014, 02:49 PM
Pssst...nic...don't look now but "moneyed interests" are in power now.

So you are for making it even easier for them?

nic34
10-06-2014, 02:51 PM
It would also empower the states. The entire point of the Senate in the first place.

Yeah right, like any citizen would have any say in what the state did.... big state, little state, still clubs for the wealthy.

Chris
10-06-2014, 03:04 PM
Yeah right, like any citizen would have any say in what the state did.... big state, little state, still clubs for the wealthy.

Probably more say.

You must've missed the earlier comments about how the federal government is already a club for the wealthy.

Peter1469
10-06-2014, 04:40 PM
Yeah right, like any citizen would have any say in what the state did.... big state, little state, still clubs for the wealthy.

The Senate represented the state governments, not the citizens. That is what the House of Representatives did. Oddly enough, state politicians are elected by the citizens....

del
10-06-2014, 04:49 PM
i'd rather take my chances with direct election of the senate than let whoever throws the most money at the state house have the job.

i'm funny that way

Peter1469
10-06-2014, 05:40 PM
i'd rather take my chances with direct election of the senate than let whoever throws the most money at the state house have the job.

i'm funny that way

My original point in the thread is that we have the House for that. Just scrap the Senate in your scenario.

Mister D
10-06-2014, 06:19 PM
So you are for making it even easier for them?

Me? I'm the one who believes both parties are bought and paid for often by the same interests. You think otherwise.

Bob
10-06-2014, 06:23 PM
i'd rather take my chances with direct election of the senate than let whoever throws the most money at the state house have the job.

i'm funny that way

Any system of voting will get the people who have the most to lose, involved in voting.

The Senate should represent states.

As such, the states should pick those who serve them in DC.

It was a mistake to change the function of the Senate in 1913.

iustitia
10-06-2014, 08:48 PM
Before the 17th Amendment Senators could be crooked but they were accountable to the state legislatures they were appointed by. They were a counter to the popular will of directly elected House congressmen and a check on the President. Now Senators are not accountable to their state legislatures, and like directly elected congressmen they need only get in bed with special interests to win a seat rather than have their people's interests at heart.

Sure politicians were crooked before. They're worse now. Direct election of Senators lets it happen more often because they're not accountable to anyone other than those that paid for their election results. Democracy isn't a virtue, but it was the justification progressives gave for the 17th. Fighting corruption wasn't the reason, but rather voiding the Senate of responsibility and purpose.

And here's the big deal. In our federal union - a union of sovereign republics, the Senate was meant to represent the individual states in the councils of governance. Why would we have two directly elected legislative branches? The only distinctions now are the age requirements and term lengths. Who represents the interests of the states in the national government now? No-fucking-one. All the states have are governors, their own legislatures, and that's it. The two houses of Congress aren't accountable to the people of their states but rather their financiers. What this means is federalism is dead. It started dying gradually in the 1800's, but the era of progressive amendments put the nail in the coffin. Now we're essentially a unitary nation, not a federal republic. Had Americans known that this would be our fate, the Constitution would have never been ratified even with the Bill of Rights and other compromises made.

Yay progress.

rembrant
10-06-2014, 11:40 PM
Think about it. Most of the necessary laws are already written and most of the necessary wars have already been fought.
We pay congress to come up with new bull$#@! laws and imperialistic attacks on other countries . Why ? So they can hide the fact that our economy is based upon incarceration and war and that it is their fault. Then the bastards take a two month vaca while we are at war!

I DO share your frustration, irritationds. Of course Congress has a job. If they spend a few YEARS avoiding doing anything but bitch and moan.. a few silly sideshows.. then you get an "approval" of maybe 8%...and several AWFUL things actually get that. The thing.. everyone HATES 98% of Congress.. but not the jerk THEY elected.

rembrant
10-07-2014, 12:02 AM
See US Constitution Article 1 Section 8. Only Congress is so empowered.

Congressional sessions are also defined in the Constitution. The Constitution is complex. Declare war? We had a dozen wars since WWII.. the last full "DECLARED" war. Congress... had the power to say yes or no.. and chose to say NEITHER. When Congress avoids responsibility.. the EXECUTIVE branch can step in, take care of business. Congress.. CAN step in.. say, no, stop, and the Court likely enforces that... but.. notice how that has not happened? What's it mean? It means it's legal till in ain't.

As is said.. the US Constitution is a Living Document. Otherwise.. we'd have replaced it several times. Instead...it sort of evolves. It is 100 times more complex than the basic text you all read in High school......there's a couple hundred YEARS of court cases, legislation..and just customs. That's why Constitutional Lawyers don't grow on trees.

Peter1469
10-07-2014, 04:43 AM
The Constitution is complex. Declare war? We had a dozen wars since WWII.. the last full "DECLARED" war. Congress... had the power to say yes or no.. and chose to say NEITHER. When Congress avoids responsibility.. the EXECUTIVE branch can step in, take care of business. Congress.. CAN step in.. say, no, stop, and the Court likely enforces that... but.. notice how that has not happened? What's it mean? It means it's legal till in ain't.

As is said.. the US Constitution is a Living Document. Otherwise.. we'd have replaced it several times. Instead...it sort of evolves. It is 100 times more complex than the basic text you all read in High school......there's a couple hundred YEARS of court cases, legislation..and just customs. That's why Constitutional Lawyers don't grow on trees.

Are the Amendment process and Convention process in the Constitution mistakes? Why have them if the Constitution is a "living document?"

donttread
10-07-2014, 06:17 AM
Ok ... now it's time to wakeup

First ... wishing the part of Government you don't like goes away, isn't going to happen

Second ... you're not going to win all the elections you want to win

Third ... in your Adult Life you have to make some compromises, you can't always get your way

Lastly ... Government stops working when we elect children you take their ball home everything they lose a decision

It's time to grow the fuck up and stop acting like children, everyone loses sometimes

So what purpose does congress serve, Cigar? And is that a lesser role than it used to be? And are they pretty much bored so they are making up laws to write?

iustitia
10-07-2014, 03:54 PM
The Constitution is a social contract. Contracts aren't "living and breathing", they only change in meaning when the parties involved agree to it, and in our case that's called an amendment. Otherwise you stick the original intent of the writing. The Constitution was intended to change with the people and times, but not without formal revisions. There's a process, long and arduous, but legal way to change the Constitution and it was designed to be hard because it wasn't supposed to be a casual thing to overhaul the mechanisms of what was once a limited government.

If the Constitution doesn't have a true meaning then it has no meaning.

Chris
10-07-2014, 04:15 PM
To me the moral social contract is actually expressed in the Declaration, the legal contract is the Constitution.

nic34
10-07-2014, 04:59 PM
The Constitution is a social contract. Contracts aren't "living and breathing", they only change in meaning when the parties involved agree to it, and in our case that's called an amendment. Otherwise you stick the original intent of the writing. The Constitution was intended to change with the people and times, but not without formal revisions. There's a process, long and arduous, but legal way to change the Constitution and it was designed to be hard because it wasn't supposed to be a casual thing to overhaul the mechanisms of what was once a limited government.

If the Constitution doesn't have a true meaning then it has no meaning.

Don't forget, its also about who interprets the Constitution.


Marbury v. Madison established a very important precedent. A precedent is a legal decision that serves as an example in later court cases. Chief Justice Marshall's ruling interpreted the Constitution to mean that the Supreme Court had the power of judicial review. That is, the Court had the right to review acts of Congress and, by extension, actions of the President. If the Court found that a law was unconstitutional, it could overrule the law. Marshall argued that the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” and that the Supreme Court has the final say over the meaning of the Constitution. He wrote, “lt is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

Marbury v. Madison (1803) (http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar20.html#ixzz3FUz1HKaZ) http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar20.html#ixzz3FUz1HKaZ

iustitia
10-07-2014, 07:36 PM
The law is not written by lawyers in robes but by the elected/representative branch of government.

donttread
10-11-2014, 07:49 AM
I had to bring this one back. What I was originally looking for was a discussion something to the effect of:
"Is congressional pathetic failure based upon a situation where there isn't much for them to do except get in trouble"

Peter1469
10-11-2014, 08:37 AM
I don't think so. There are structural flaws that have created ultra partisanship.

donttread
10-11-2014, 08:46 AM
I don't think so. There are structural flaws that have created ultra partisanship.

True. Maybe the real question is : What is congresse's job these days? Keeping in mind that most of the necessary laws already exist, they rarely get rid of old laws when they write new ones and there has been one semi-justified war since WW2 . Also we can apparently enter into and conduct war without them even being in session. Besides chasing interns, turning simple bills into complex 1,000 pagers and being wined and dined by K Street : What is their actual daily contribution? What are they supposed to be doing?