Posted on 03/07/2010 3:44:03 PM PST by Para-Ord.45
Today's Washington Post Outlook section gives featured lefty blogger Ezra Klein another shot at the supposedly dysfunctional workings of the Senate. "As the minority becomes less responsible with the filibuster (and oh boy, have minority Republicans become less responsible with the filibuster), the majority needs to use reconciliation more often," Klein writes.
The article begins:
"Ask a kid who just took civics how a bill becomes a law and she'll explain that Congress takes a vote and, if a majority supports the bill, the bill goes to the president. That's what we teach in textbooks, but it's not what we practice in Washington."
Now, if you did in fact ask a kid who just took a civics class, she -- could be he! -- might explain that the House and Senate pass bills, and if there are differences between them, the bills usually go to a House/Senate conference committee, where lawmakers appointed by the leaders of both parties resolve the differences between the bills and come up with one final bill, which the House and Senate pass and which then goes to the president's desk for signature into law. (Wasn't that the method used for the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, the 1996 welfare reform bill and other legislation often cited by Klein and his allies today?) Isn't that what a kid who just took a civics class would say? Isn't that what we teach in textbooks? And is that what's being practiced in the case of the national health care bills?
The answer, of course, is no, because Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid, who in the past have been strong advocates of conference committees, decided to skip conference for the health care bill. Why? Because it might be troublesome -- and public. Better to bypass it altogether, assured that Klein and others will devote their energies to attacking Republican irresponsibility.
On a completely separate note, I hit the link you provided and it referenced several laws passed regulating the Jews, which reminded me of some lines in the Magna Carta. Same sort of contentious issues, 700 years earlier! See points 10 and 11.
on point 6, I was referring more to the leftist tendency to reduce US national sovereignty in obeisance to the United Nations. EG, foreigners making laws we have to abide by.
Fair enough, but this is because of the supposed movement of the center of this country to the left. Up until 40-50 years ago, this was definitely a center-of-road issue.
The problem as I see it, it is not the victors who write the history, it is the victors' educated class that write the history. And, unfortunately, our educated class hates what we were.
This is yet another reason why FR love. I mean, why else would I be reading Mussolini, Hitler and the National Socialist Manifesto on a Sunday night? Most educational!
The problem as I see it, it is not the victors who write the history, it is the victors' educated class that write the history. And, unfortunately, our educated class hates what we were.
Agreed!
Thanks for the discussion. It started out a little rocky, but we kept it civil. You had me searching as well.
Well, it is late here, so I'm signing off for the night.
Until later,
K51
PS: I still think you should read Goldberg's book. :-)
Good Evening!
As a matter of form, it came from the House in the first place. There are two things that augur in favor of the bill being in conformity with the Origination Clause of the constitution. First, that the bill did originate in the House (even though it was basically gutted to a shell and stuffed with Senate language); and second, that unless it is literally a "direct tax" bill, the Supreme Court finds the Constitutional prescription to be unoffended even if the bill is Senate-originated.
See Q126 on Answers From the FAQ, Page 7 - The U.S. Constitution Online for a brief answer, which includes cites to two on-point Supreme Court cases.
US v Munoz-Flores, 495 US 385 (1990)
Twin City v Nebeker, 176 US 196 (1897)
... revenue bills are those that levy taxes, in the strict sense of the word
A set of state law case cites can be found at Origination Clause: Bills to Raise Revenues Must Originate in the House - House Research.
Communist, Socialist, Democrat, Center, Republican, Nationalist (aka Nazi), Fascist”
jimmyray,
This is incorrect propaganda fostered by socialist, progressives and Presstitutes.
The actual rating from right to left pertains to the amount of government size and control. At the far right is no government(anarchy).
Then their is limited government such as we had under the articles of confederation(too limited for the time).
At the far-left are the various “isms” which are all about government control. Including Communism, Marxism, totalitarianism, Socialism, and National Socialism(Nazi). The Nazi's formed a sort of “partnership” with business and that was called fascism.
It is of little use to argue which one is further to the left, because they are all so far to the left of our Republic at it's founding that they are unacceptable to our ideals of individual freedom and responsibility.
While you could make some generalizations to the effect that Libertarians are usually to the right of Republicans, and Democrats are to the left of Republicans. Even that is not 100% true. For example we could say that Stupak is to the right of Romney on the issue of abortion etc. etc.
Each of the major parties are actually coalitions. The Republicans do have several common themes, and it appears to me the Democrats are a more disparate group, which includes some former communists and socialists.
In addition, the Democrats have been listing further and further left especially since FDR, and LBJ. As a result, Democrats such as Ronald Reagan(to name one) have deserted the party to become independents or Republicans.
Other Democrats such as Zell Miller remained with their party, even though he was disenchanted.
Anyway, just remember, the spectrum is from zero government control, to absolute government control.
The debate has always been how much government control should freedom loving people have. I say the time is overdue for a swing towards freedom, and downsizing of government.
However, the explanation would make even that moot.
All arguments over semantics aside, I absolutely agree with your last statement!
Thanks. I thought you might agree. LOL.
“appealing to the traditional “Right” values of God, Guns and Country”
Actually, the National Socialists were very anti-right to bear arms.
They were also very anti-capitalist. To quote Herr Schicklgruber himself:
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
-— Adolf Hitler
“In fact, Hitler stated ““I absolutely insist on protecting private property ... we must encourage private initiative””
In name only. Actually, it was pure socialism, with nominal private ownership:
Business Under Nazis
by Ralph R. Reiland
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=54&sortorder=articledate
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.