Do they VOTE? With passion and enthusiasm?

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Some myths about Congress are again circulating. The Founding Fathers created a Federal system that split power between the states and the people. The Senate was the house in the legislature that represented the states, with each Senator appointed by and answering to his respective state legislature. The House of Representatives was to represent the people in his district, who elected him. Senators and Representatives were both expected to use their own discretion and judgement, since there would always be issues that arose after elections and that constituents couldn't comment on in time. However, they were also elected based on their stated opinions of what they stood for, so that when voting for a Representative, one should have a fairly good idea of how he'd exercise his judgement.

That system lasted until almost 1796, when political parties arose. The British parliamentary system of ministers following their party's leadership is a natural state for elective legislative bodies. Conflicts can only be resolved through negotiation and compromise, and that requires some degree of coordination and leadership.

Let's see.... the Constitution was adopted in 1789 and it lasted until almost 1796! We had a seven-year heritage that suddenly got flushed.

Historians continue to fit pieces together about that era. I listened to a presentation by one who has written a book that at first glance "seems a bit OUT there!" But then ALL the sources from that era.... taken by themselves tend to be a little bit out there. The premise of this historian: It took a lot of compromises to get the colonies all in one basket. The Southern colonies held out for two controversial things: Slavery and guns. No slavery... we're going home. King George will have you Northern boys hanging from the tower of Old North Church very quickly without us. So the anti-slavery people swalled hard, bit their tongues and agreed to the deal..... for now.

The second issue is one of the hottest in our political scene today. Guns. What are militias? This author said that ONLY Southern states had militias as they were understood in that era. And the purpose of the militia was to make sure that slaves did not get guns and did not over-throw the plantation owners and the state government. According to this author (who may be a flake and who may be genuine. Maybe in our life time additional historical research will tell us.) guns were not a big deal to the Northern states. According to this author a study of old literature and probate court records, probably on one in four homes in the Northern states even owned a gun. So the theory of this guy is: The South got their slaves, and the South got their guns to keep slaves in check.

If there is any truth at all to this picture... then the idea that from the day of our Constitution forward we had a fully mature, fully developed perfect governmental system in place is maybe a bit imaginitive. The idea that after 10 or 20 years we took The Perfect Governmental System and screwed it up with political parties has about as much credibility as the author I reference had with his story about State Militias.

So what has this got to do with Talk Radio? Talk Radio seems to side with the people who say we created the perfect government on July 4th, 1776 and any changes made since then are blasphemy and heresy. Talk Radio needs to bring in people with other theories on how we got to where we are and hear their presentations also. Talk Radio needs to give more coverage to the times in our history when we were incredibly lucky and were able to survive in spite of some less than perfect travels down the road of history. A perfect constitution that people cannot understand and interpret may be a useless tool.

In time of war we tend to expect all able bodied men to show up for battle. Sometimes we grant excused absence from the battle to some people for health reasons, family hardship, etc. Why do we grant Talk Radio an excused absence from the battle to understand the Constitution and the events since 1789? Let Talk Radio show up and share the heavy lifting with the rest of us. As it is, Talk Radio shows up in a band uniform and prisses around the parade ground like a high school drum major.

 

[Silkie]

The Constitution remains the law of the land. Don't like it? There are amending provisions. Nevertheless it is the law of the land - like it or not.

 

[Silkie]

So, do people with their very own first nom de plume vote under all of their very own pen names with passion and enthusiasm? And do they do it in the nonexistent shadows, or just show up and vote? Last I checked I had not waived any of the provisions of the United States Constitution. But enough about our United States Marine who sits in a filthy Mexican prison for no valid reason. Oh, wait, they haven't changed their laws, even for accidental visitors.

Just repeating the question from the previous page reply to your lengthy post.

 

[Small Market Guy]

But if you ever went to a Town Hall Meeting with me, you might be mystified that when the meeting is over, I head right for the 'ornery' bull, offer him a hand shake and a smile, and we have a constructive conversation from which we both walk away from a bit happier and a bit smarter.

Do you call him names, too?

 

[Silkie]

No, just watch him tell the sad, heart warming story about how the illegal migrants in the field gave him his very own first nom de plume.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Show me where in the Constitution is says that's their job. Show me.

Article One Section One.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

That means the president can't just tell the EPA to shut down coal plants. He can't just tell the IRS to punish his enemies. He can't just tell the State and Defense departments to broker a deal for a POW without Congress's approval. And finally, the president can't just arbitrarily make changes to a massive health care law that Congress passed.

It's the VERY FIRST THING MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

 

[Small Market Guy]

No, just watch him tell the sad, heart warming story about how the illegal migrants in the field gave him his very own first nom de plume.

You forgot long winded and probably involving a church.

 

[Small Market Guy]

But here we are in the 21st Century and look: Its the REPUBLICANS who want emasculated Representatives and Senators who are nothing more than an appliciance at the Washington end of a bunch of mouse-clicks back home.

Now you're just making stuff up. If anything Republicans are the ones DEFENDING the original voting methods. Voter ID anyone?

 

[TheBigA]

Article One Section One.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

That means the president can't just tell the EPA to shut down coal plants. He can't just tell the IRS to punish his enemies. He can't just tell the State and Defense departments to broker a deal for a POW without Congress's approval. And finally, the president can't just arbitrarily make changes to a massive health care law that Congress passed.

What does any of this have to do with the Congress ignoring their responsibilities? Congress has a job to do. It's clearly stated in the Constitution. It's childish to say, when that's pointed out, 'Hey what about him?" That isn't answering the question.

 

[Small Market Guy]

What does any of this have to do with the Congress ignoring their responsibilities? Congress has a job to do. It's clearly stated in the Constitution. It's childish to say, when that's pointed out, 'Hey what about him?" That isn't answering the question.

You seem stuck on this idea that because they're not rubber stamping everything the president wants they're not doing their job. Get off that notion.

 

[TheBigA]

You seem stuck on this idea that because they're not rubber stamping everything the president wants they're not doing their job. Get off that notion.

They're not doing ANYTHING either. They're not doing what their own leaders want. They're not passing budgets, they're not writing legislation, they're not changing agency responsibilities. No one's asking for a rubber stamp. Just show up, and do your job. It's not too much to ask. If the President is going too far, there are provisions in the Constitution for that. So do something. If an agency is screwing up, call some hearings. If the health care law is messed up, write a new one. I don't care what the result is. Just do something. There is no excuse for this. The Constitution gives them the power.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

So, do people with their very own first nom de plume vote under all of their very own pen names with passion and enthusiasm? And do they do it in the nonexistent shadows, or just show up and vote? Last I checked I had not waived any of the provisions of the United States Constitution.

In my case, it depends on what and who is on the ballot. There are some elections where I show up with great enthusiasm because there are choices that matter, people on the ballot that I know, issues that I care about. Then there are some elections where there are no choices to be made. There are no opposing candidates. There are no bond issues. There are no state-wide referendums on topics like abortion, gay marriage, or school choice. But you show up and vote, with the only reason for enthusiasm is to be able to remind people: "I never miss an election." (It is getting to where it is less and less likely that you will have an election in the South with none of the HOT-BUTTON issues as part of the package.)

But enough about our United States Marine who sits in a filthy Mexican prison for no valid reason. Oh, wait, they haven't changed their laws, even for accidental visitors.

I've tried to figure out if there is a connection with the first part of your post/question about voting, and this second part about the Marine in a Mexican jail.

I laughingly tell people that if I had been born 8 miles further south, my last name would probably have been Garza, Hernandez or maybe Gomez. I would like to go back some day and see my old home town, go see the farm where I picked cotton and learned to drive a vehicle. In all these years I have never taken my wife to see "The Border". But if I went next month, I would NOT attempt to make the trip without a "tour guide"... maybe not without an armed guard. I might arrange to hire a deputy sheriff on his day off to show me around.

It's like a visit to NYC. There are safe streets and neighborhoods, there are places you dare not go. And if you are a stranger in town... get help. Get a guide.

The Mexican border.... BOTH SIDES can be an iffy-place to be.

I remember my first airplane ride. The pilot was my scoutmaster and we planned a week-end fishing trip along the Rio Grande River. He and I went up in his plane a day or two early and flew the area where we planned to fish. We kind of wobbled back and forth from one side to the other of the river in that little yellow two seat J-3 Cub. Today a stunt like that might result in being blown out of the sky by someone's missle.

I feel sorry for the Marine and his family. Is there more to the story than what we have been told so far? But I am going to guess that some of the people who live in that part of the country are muttering: "What the hell was he thinking?"

 

[Small Market Guy]

They're not passing budgets

The House is.

they're not writing legislation

The House is. So are the minority in the Senate. I get emails every single day with press releases of bills being proposed.

If the President is going too far, there are provisions in the Constitution for that.

What? Impeachment? Do you honestly think harry Reid would let that happen?

So do something. If an agency is screwing up, call some hearings.

There have been hearings on just about all of these problems. Kinda hard to do anything when everyone who testifies either lies or pleads the fifth (after already giving a statement). Hell, the House has even held the Attorney General in contempt. The problem is, the person that would prosecute that is....the Attorney General.

If the health care law is messed up, write a new one. I don't care what the result is. Just do something.

Yeah, that'll get far.

I don't know if you know how the process of writing a law works, but you should Google it. One chamber can't do it alone. These guys ARE doing their job. Right now the last thing we need is more laws that Harry Reid and the president approve of.

On the flip side, as has been pointed out, the president and Harry Reid are doing what they were elected to do. They're doing their jobs too. The system is DESIGNED to be clunky and gridlock prone to prevent the infringement of rights. These guys aren't doing piece work like they're in a shoe factory. They don't get paid for how many bills they pass.

 

[TheBigA]

The House is.
The House is. So are the minority in the Senate. I get emails every single day with press releases of bills being proposed.

That's not leadership. Leadership is getting the other side to do what you want. That's what the Constitution expects. When it was written, the battle was over slavery. Somehow, opposing sides managed to agree on certain things, and bills got passed. Why were the founding fathers able to solve their problems and today's Congress can't?

It reminds me of Michael Copps. He was an FCC Commissioner during the Bush years. He complained all the time about deregulation. But he never got anything done. He spent millions of dollars holding programming hearings around the country. Lots of people testified about how consolidation had ruined radio. Did anything get done? No. Has radio improved? No. But Copps had a lot of fun doing nothing. Why? Because he couldn't lead. He couldn't create a consensus among his Commissioners. So he would hold lots of press conferences, do lots of TV interviews with PBS, and basically whine to anyone who'll listen. Today's Congress is living with that legacy.

 

[boombox4]

That used to be the way government worked. But in this day of air travel, telephones, e-mail and industrial strength lobby groups, we have this concept being expressed in this thread: "If the voters back home elected you to go to Washington and be a jackass, then it is your duty and obligation to go and be a jackass... even when you can see that it is leading to the destruction of the system we think is the best in the world."

Maybe we should do away with congress. Every citizen has or can get to a computer owned by someone in the family. Let the people vote on EVERYTHING. Right from home. That sounds like something we assume the Democrats would dream up and support. The poor little old lady on welfare gets the same vote by hitting ENTER on her computer that Warren Buffett gets when he sits home and hits enter.

But here we are in the 21st Century and look: Its the REPUBLICANS who want emasculated Representatives and Senators who are nothing more than an appliciance at the Washington end of a bunch of mouse-clicks back home.

Is that the vision of Representative Democracy you guys are pushing? That IS the vision of Representative Democracy that Talk Radio is not only defending, but implementing and orchestrating.

I'm not pushing anything. I'm not saying how things should be, I'm just explaining the reality of it.

Really, the only actual job of Senators and Congressmen is to legislate.

But politicians are in the business of getting elected, and then re-elected. They usually get re-elected by giving the people who voted them into office, the people in their party who helped with the campaign, and their biggest contributors what they expect. If they don't deliver, or they stray too far from the party line, they will probably get de-elected.

 

[boombox4]

He's just one guy out of 100. Why is he the bad guy but Eric Cantor isn't important?

You want to know why the majority of people have given up on talk radio? This is why. Finger pointing, blaming, obstruction, party politics, and meanwhile the people and the country suffer. These posts read like what people hear every day on talk radio. Same talking points. Pointing at Harry Reid isn't leadership. It's not doing your job. It's not solving problems. And it's not serving the public.

I wasn't pointing specifically at Harry Reid, any more than anyone else. He was just an example, and being that he is head of the leading party in the Senate, an obvious one.

You may be right about finger pointing making people give up on talk radio. But I think people give up on it more because of Political Rhetoric Overload, which they get in massive amounts from that other media, the internet.

 

[Silkie]

In my case, it depends on what and who is on the ballot. There are some elections where I show up with great enthusiasm because there are choices that matter, people on the ballot that I know, issues that I care about. Then there are some elections where there are no choices to be made. There are no opposing candidates. There are no bond issues. There are no state-wide referendums on topics like abortion, gay marriage, or school choice. But you show up and vote, with the only reason for enthusiasm is to be able to remind people: "I never miss an election." (It is getting to where it is less and less likely that you will have an election in the South with none of the HOT-BUTTON issues as part of the package.)




I've tried to figure out if there is a connection with the first part of your post/question about voting, and this second part about the Marine in a Mexican jail.

I laughingly tell people that if I had been born 8 miles further south, my last name would probably have been Garza, Hernandez or maybe Gomez. I would like to go back some day and see my old home town, go see the farm where I picked cotton and learned to drive a vehicle. In all these years I have never taken my wife to see "The Border". But if I went next month, I would NOT attempt to make the trip without a "tour guide"... maybe not without an armed guard. I might arrange to hire a deputy sheriff on his day off to show me around.

It's like a visit to NYC. There are safe streets and neighborhoods, there are places you dare not go. And if you are a stranger in town... get help. Get a guide.

The Mexican border.... BOTH SIDES can be an iffy-place to be.

I remember my first airplane ride. The pilot was my scoutmaster and we planned a week-end fishing trip along the Rio Grande River. He and I went up in his plane a day or two early and flew the area where we planned to fish. We kind of wobbled back and forth from one side to the other of the river in that little yellow two seat J-3 Cub. Today a stunt like that might result in being blown out of the sky by someone's missle.

I feel sorry for the Marine and his family. Is there more to the story than what we have been told so far? But I am going to guess that some of the people who live in that part of the country are muttering: "What the hell was he thinking?"

Well, you laughingly tell yourself anything your little heart desires. We have tens of thousands of children daily, without their parents, being sent here to turn themselves in - alone from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, through Mexico, nobody in Mexico notices them going the long way to Texas along the Gulf, the government tells everyone that no pictures are allowed and no one is to know; however, we don't seem to notice our Marine, but Mexico noticed him a few feet inside their border.

That said, I am glad you are not my caregiver...not that I need one, but if you are caring for someone....

You make light of too much.

 

[Avid Listener]

The Constitution remains the law of the land. Don't like it? There are amending provisions. Nevertheless it is the law of the land - like it or not.

That is true, and correct. However, it is also true that there were unwritten expectations that the Founding Fathers anticipated becoming long term traditions, such as each Representative or Senator being independent of political party affiliation. The Constitution neither permits nor forbids political parties. But when they arose, that changed the dynamics of how the government worked, even though it didn't change the legal processes described.

 

[Avid Listener]

Article One Section One.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

That means the president can't just tell the EPA to shut down coal plants. He can't just tell the IRS to punish his enemies. He can't just tell the State and Defense departments to broker a deal for a POW without Congress's approval. And finally, the president can't just arbitrarily make changes to a massive health care law that Congress passed.

It's the VERY FIRST THING MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Congress can pass laws creating bureaucracies within the Executive branch, such as the EPA, and may empower such agencies to write regulations that have the weight of law. Congress can also empower such agencies to enforce their regulations as if they were laws. Anyone working at an FCC licensed broadcast station has experienced that situation.

 

[Small Market Guy]

That's not leadership. Leadership is getting the other side to do what you want.

LOL this is the second funniest thing I've seen all day.

You can't put a wild dog on a leash and expect him to walk.

I'm off for a week in Vegas, so this is likely the last word I'll give on the subject. I enjoy these discussions with you, even if we don't agree.