Another Stepping Stone

Another Stepping Stone

What say we spread the news that it is actually a beginning rather than some frightening end to fear? Good news spreads much better than bad news.

Much the same as fresh peanut butter vs old peanut butter.
 
Another Stepping Stone

Originally posted by StarLord@Dec 16 2004, 01:07 AM
What say we spread the news that it is actually a beginning rather than some frightening end to fear? Good news spreads much better than bad news.

Much the same as fresh peanut butter vs old peanut butter.
​
Click to expand...


You're right. The new world is beginning. Yesterday I spoke in plain, honest terms to a jury, and they listened patiently and seriously even though everyone wanted to be somewhere else. They took the whole sad spectacle of the crime and trial as an important job to witness. They want to make sense of the ridiculous "jury instructions" language. Now, a new thing, I don't care what the verdict is.

This may not seem like much, but it occurred to me that, at root, you can actually trust Americans, when it comes down to the wire. We are decent people who try to do the right thing. You can dupe us, some of the time, because we actually believe one another.

The rest of the time, better watch out.
 
Another Stepping Stone

I don't know if this is the right thread, but the title sure looks like it. Two interesting articles from over the weekend. One is about a "doomsday" bill that the U.S. House passed that would allow for a handful of representatives to pass legislation, even if other House members were alive, but couldn't make it to the capital in the event of some catatrophy, attack, etc. While some might say this is "forward" thinking, I find it reprehensible that such an un-Constitutional law would ever make its way to the floor of the House. This bill still has to go through the Senate and be signed by W. It will be interesting to see if it makes it into law.

Congress passes `doomsday' plan

Here's a snippet from the beginning of the article.

WASHINGTON - With no fanfare, the U.S. House has passed a controversial doomsday provision that would allow a handful of lawmakers to run Congress if a terrorist attack or major disaster killed or incapacitated large numbers of congressmen.
? ``I think (the new rule) is terrible in a whole host of ways - first, I think it's unconstitutional,'' said Norm Ornstein, a counselor to the independent Continuity of Government Commission, a bipartisan panel created to study the issue. ``It's a very foolish thing to do, I believe, and the way in which it was done was more foolish.''
? But supporters say the rule provides a stopgap measure to allow the government to continue functioning at a time of national crisis.
? GOP House leaders pushed the provision as part of a larger rules package that drew attention instead for its proposed ethics changes, most of which were dropped.
? Usually, 218 lawmakers - a majority of the 435 members of Congress - are required to conduct House business, such as passing laws or declaring war.
? But under the new rule, a majority of living congressmen no longer will be needed to do business under ``catastrophic circumstances.''
? Instead, a majority of the congressmen able to show up at the House would be enough to conduct business, conceivably a dozen lawmakers or less.
Click to expand...

The second article deals with the extent and velocity that the Republican party is consolidating its power with its clear majority in Congress. Shades of things to come? Squelch the dissidents, and make them toe the line? Looks like we'll be getting "one party" rule for a while.

GOP Leaders Tighten Their Grip on House

Just a few beginning paragraphs from the article.

House Republican leaders moved swiftly last week to tighten and centralize control of the new Congress by replacing uncooperative committee chairmen and changing the chamber's rules to deter ethics investigations of leaders.

The Republicans expanded their majority by only three seats in the Nov. 2 election, yet party leaders have been emboldened by GOP domination of all branches of government and appear determined to squelch dissent in their own ranks and to freeze Democrats out of key decisions.

Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) moved to force out the ethics committee chairman, Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), who supported three formal admonishments of Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) last year, and ousted the chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee for failing to toe the party line on spending. The GOP leaders also rammed through a change in House rules to make it more difficult in the future to file an ethics complaint against DeLay or other members.

AND THE FOLLOWING FROM FURTHER IN THE ARTICLE

Democrats and some Republicans, troubled by the moves, cite parallels between today's Republicans and the Democrats who lost their 40-year hold on the House in 1994 after Gingrich and other conservatives campaigned against them as autocratic and corrupt, and gained 52 seats.

\"It took Democrats 40 years to get as arrogant as we have become in 10,\" one Republican leadership aide said.

Julian E. Zelizer, a Boston University history professor who edited the 2004 anthology \"The American Congress,\" said Republicans used the past week to \"accelerate the trend toward strong, centralized parties.\"

\"This is a move toward empowering the leadership even beyond what you saw in the 1970s and 1980s,\" Zelizer said. \"They have been going for broke.\"
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm feeling pretty good about the new Congress and their display of cooperation.

Cary
 
Another Stepping Stone

Just think of the time it will save all of us if there was only one party. Oh, and of course, there would be much less confusion about who to listen to because if there is only one party they would obviously be the right one, otherwise they would not be there.
 
Another Stepping Stone

Originally posted by CaryP@Jan 10 2005, 02:44 PM
Yeah, I'm feeling pretty good about the new Congress and their display of cooperation.

Cary
Click to expand...

I was listening to Rush a few days back (I know, not one of your favorite people ;) ) and he spoke about the House and Senate with Republicans having the majority. The population voted these people in, they are voting along party lines, wouldn't we expect it if the Dem's had the majority? Absolutely! Remember the voting records, when you're back in the voting booth in two years, and be informed before you do so.

I didn't know that Cary had already posted the above article on here, I posted it on Hoyt without looking!

The Doomsday Bill stymies me. It seems a bit extreme. It's good to plan before a disaster. However, I would have thought that they would simply conduct congress in an alternative place. A military base, Norad, or any state capital building would be fine, wouldn't it?

It doesn't seem like they need to have a minimum amount of congressmen to have a (trying to remember the word here) quorum? Our own city council has 7 aldermen and a mayor, they cannot vote on anything unless there are at least 4 aldermen present.

If this bill is infact signed by Bush, I can almost guarantee the Supreme Court will be asked and will agree to review it. Oh, and shouldn't this bill be an amendment to the Constitution? It seems like it is changing certain elements of the Constitution.
 

Top