Posted on 12/05/2001 4:53:56 AM PST by Starmaker
She's on point with her observations, though. The republican party has historically been disrespectful to the Constitution since the days of their founding. She shouldn't be surprised that this disrespect is still a hallmark of the party. Neither of the two major parties regards the Constitution as having the status of law any more.
By the way, I don't disagree with that. My position on this thread has been limited to the premise of this article.
We can, and have, discussed the merits of trade agreements on other threads. Interesting arguments can be made on both sides.
Yes, if Congress agrees to those ground rules. If it doesn't, then Bush certainly can't do it on his own.
That would explain why Bush is asking for those ground rules now. For a more complete discussion of the Constitutional issues, read the entire thread.
How many times in history has the Senate been sent a treaty for a thumbs-up, thumbs-down vote?
At any rate, republicans do not care for the constitution in the slightest. Congress has on hundreds of occassions passed their responsibility to the executive branch in the form of "administrative law" which allows heads of the various cabinets to make their own laws.
Congress has never vested a single individual with paramaters and authority by which to negotiate trade deals. The Commerce Department promotes trade but it has never had specific congressional authority to negotiate trade deals such as NAFTA. That's why we're having the TPA debate. Your rebuttal is bogus.
Let us know how it turns out.
TJ, If there was any chance of that, I might go along with you. But, folks with money are able to use many of governments "services" that many of the poorer folks only dream about. Ranging from interstate highways, railways, stadia of all sorts, museums, orchestras, race tracks, airports, parks, recreation, and other and assorted "things" that the wealthy even ask the government to provide. Actually, we are both dreamers. Peace and love, George.
" (2) This whole discussion is a straw man issue. You oppose any trade agreement.
That's the real issue, and to use a phony issue about the Constitution is an insult to the Constitution itself."
DG, (1) Then Congress should do the same thing on the trade bills too. If they come out of committee then it is as they normally do. Though, I personally think the committee system sucks and that all bills should be debated and amended if necessary by each house of Congress. To have fifteen to twenty legislators placed in a position to dictate to the rest of the Representatives is another aspect of socialist governments.
(2) To place false attributes to a person's reasoning is as you mentioned earlier NOT a nice thing to do. AND, actually I think that it is yourself and politically appointed bureaucrats we call judges {"the court"} who are the disgrace in that they have and are "interpreting" the written words in the Constitution beyond all symblance of what they mean including your recent reversal of duties of Congress and the President are the disgraces. You KNOW better. And judges take an OATH to uphold the constitution, NOT to "interpret" it to what they might think, on any given day, What the founders "meant" to write when the Constitution was written. The Constitution was posted in its whole the other day, and took up MUCH less bandwidth than many posts to this forum. The written words are VERY understandable, and the document very concise in its meaning. It works WELL. LEAVE IT ALONE!!!! There are people like yourself {HIGHLY educated} who actually think{?} we should have a Constitutional Conventionnd rewrite the words to fit the day. People like Bill Clinton. Peace and love, George.
That's a very sad and telling statement. The myth we've been sold is that anything may be declared constitutional by the Supremes, whether or not there is any basis in the text of the document for it. Nowadays, the Supreme Court consists of 9 venal, self serving lawyers who don't care a whit for the country, the Constitution or the people.
Excuse me, but 'it delegates' what exactly? Do you mean that, having no constitutionally granted power to micromanage the affairs of the nation, Congress may then delegate their legislative powers to departments and agencies so that those agencies may issue regulations with the force of law which effectively micromanage everything the people may do? That's what Congress has done, to be sure, but there is no constitutionalgrant of power for any such thing.
One problem with lawyers is that you boys base everything on a pharasaical examination of two centuries of commentary on the law rather than on the text of the law itself. You ridicule anyone who dares to suggest that the text itself is the law. This is the main reason that your profession is universally despised and distrusted.
No offense intended to you personally, of course.
We were giving opinions of what the correct way to tax people is. Now your argument is that my idea has no chance, which is quite apart from the point. You didn't like the idea, in fact you termed it "one of the worst", but now you dismiss it as unworkable without addressing the question of why you opined that is "one of the worst". That is an evasion.
But, folks with money are able to use many of governments "services" that many of the poorer folks only dream about. Ranging from interstate highways, railways, stadia of all sorts, museums, orchestras, race tracks, airports, parks, recreation, and other and assorted "things" that the wealthy even ask the government to provide.
Now you are back to the envy/fairness issue. Very liberal George.
All of the "services" you described are outside the proper role of government, which is why I specifcally refered the rightful role of government, namely the defense of individual rights.
Actually, we are both dreamers.
That may indeed be true. We certainly have different dreams. I dream of being free and living in the constitutional America of the founder's dreams. I'm not entirely clear on what your dreams are other than your recurring theme that some people "owe" more for living in that constitutional republic than others.
I disagree with much of the Bush agenda as most of it resembles much of what Gore pushed as well just not as extreme. Conservatives in the GOP aren't even addressing conservative issues anymore much less constitutional ones. They instead address just how far left can they go to get a Dem vote from the other side and get away with it.
Conservatism and the call for pro-constitutional government in the GOP is dead. It died in 1995. Only a small fraction of conservatism remains and it's mostly in the way of monotary issues. Even then when up against the billfold or the constitution the billfold wins hands down. The RNC just doesn't want to tell the survivors the truth. It's afraid they might ask for their inheritance.
That does seem to be the prevailing attitude. The winds of change will have them howling about how corrupt and unconstitutional our governments actions are when their man is once again not in office. Just like today all is forgiven from the 1995 Congressional wholesale sellout. All is forgiven from the Senate trial. We must defend the seats of these upright party loyal chair warmers.
No not really but I think imports should bare the majority of the tax burden vs our domestic produced products. There is nothing that says we have to do otherwise Except for those corporations and individuals who buy congressional influence that make deals saying otherwise. Why should we support another nations economy and defense budgets {China comes to mind} when our own factories are closing? That's not protectism or isolationism that's just plain common sense. And BTW just what do they buy from us? Big Macs?
The sad fact is that there are only "conservatives" in the GOP because they have completely redefined the term.
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.