Basically, what happened is that Colorado had a civil union bill that was pretty much gauranteed to get the votes it needed to pass the house. There was, however, a minority in the house that did not want the bill to pass. So what do they do? They filibuster, delay, and do whatever else they can do to keep the bill from being voted on. It worked, and killed not only the civil unions bill, but 30 other bills on various topics.
This isn't the first something like this has happened, both at the state level and the federal level, and it's getting really tiring. A minority of individuals should not be allowed to flat out prevent something from even being voted on, regardless of what it is. It's unfair, obstructionist, and damned un-American. Every bill that passes committee should have the opportunity to be voted on, not delayed by a bunch of childish games until it expires. Shameful. Damned shameful.
"It's Time We Changed How Legislature Works in America"
I agree.
I have a few ideas about making things better, Mama Kelsey, if you'd like to hear them...
--
Srly, though, imho, it is pretty disgusting, what the filibusterers did.
|
I live in this sate and funny how we where the first to pass laws against discrimination against GLB and especially T people even before National did it
Gov Hickenlopper has the option to have special sessions. he best get his ass in gear and lay down some but rumor has it he is not planning on it. Yeah It SUCKS!
Then on the other hand we get states like North Carolina that pass laws against Civil Union, Gay Marriage and funny it was even against common law marriage. Screwed many in that deal
Half the issue is Bible pushers and I thought we had Freedom of Religion and from Religion
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
You've got to keep up with the Newspeak, IQ. "Freedom from religion" has been rebranded as "discrimination against Christians."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Filibusters serve a purpose. Yes, they can be abused, but a filibuster also is a way to help balance power. Just think at least twice and then do the research before saying that something does not work. ~shrugs~ OTOH, I also feel that our government needs some serious work and it is corrupt and being used against the majority of the people. I also feel that BOTH parties do not serve the interest of the majority. ~sighs~
I'm not in favor of what North Carolina did, but even then at least there was a damned vote. Sure, I don't think that civil rights should be up to a vote in the first place, but I'd rather see them voted on than killed through a bunch of childish filibustering and delaying tactics that do nothing but undermine and destroy our values.
When the public is actively heckling politicians, it should be a big clue that the politicians are doing something very wrong.
The problem is that we have a two party system, which is just one step removed from a one party system, especially when a small and frankly disgusting minority can hijack huge swaths of the government.
I'm not sure exactly how the procedure for bypassing a filibuster works in the Colorado state legislature, but there should be a procedure for how to bypass this sort of thing.
Filibusters serve a purpose.
Yea, they serve to let a bunch of children stamp their feet and scream until they get what they want.
When the public is actively heckling politicians, it should be a big clue that the politicians are doing something wrong.
The problem is that we have a two party system, which is just one step removed from a one party system, especially when a small and frankly disgusting minority can hijack huge swaths of the government.
This is why we originally didn't have political parties at all. I'm generally not one for a return to the so-called "good old days", but that specific policy was a good one that shouldn't have gone away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Until the shoe's on the other foot, and sweeping anti-(whateve you're for) legislation looks to win by a majority. Then you'll wish you had a filibuster option.
They work both ways.
Filibusters serve a purpose.Yea, they serve to let a bunch of children stamp their feet and scream until they get what they want.
The fact that Filibuster comes from the dutch word for pirates should tell you all you need to know about it as a political tactic.
Until the shoe's on the other foot, and sweeping anti-alternative lifestyle legislation looks to win by a majority. Then you'll wish you had a filibuster option.
They work both ways.
Better that than the rampant corruption we have now.
Remember how the democrats reacted to the proposed public union changes in Wisconsin? They left the state and refused to vote.
Was that better or worse?
There's no such thing as freedom from religion.
It's freedom of religion to practice or not practice as you wish, not to levy one person's rights to vote their conscience over another's.
Remember how the democrats reacted to the proposed public union changes in Wisconsin? They left the state and refused to vote.
Was that better or worse?
"More weight."
Basically he found the third option (kind of): If he plead guilty he would have lost the farm (literally) -- if he had plead not guilty he would have been tried, found guilty and still lost the farm.
The democrats in Wisconsin (and in Indiana too actually) did the same basic thing by having their walk out.
Until the shoe's on the other foot, and sweeping anti-alternative lifestyle legislation looks to win by a majority. Then you'll wish you had a filibuster option.
They work both ways.
Well fortunately this sort of legislation would be hopefully struck down as unconstitutional unless the other side has packed the benches with their judges, which is a whole other issue.
It's freedom of religion to practice or not practice as you wish, not to levy one person's rights to vote their conscience over another's.
This is a really nice sentiment in any instance where people's "conscience" is basically PR cover for regressive and bigoted opinions that have no place in the modern world. Religion should not be so misused as to be a cover for people having that sort of opinion. It deserves more respect than that.
True. But the courts can't do anythign about a law until it takes effect. Then it's in effect and had to be heard. If it's a crappy enough law, you may not want it in effect while the courts decide.
As for the other thing, I agree. I personally am a Christian, and for gay marriage being legal. But, that doesn't mean others do not feel differently. If a person truly believes that gay marriage will ruin the USA, and they vote against it, so be it. I'd rather have people able to vote their convictions than not.
Remember how the democrats reacted to the proposed public union changes in Wisconsin? They left the state and refused to vote.
Was that better or worse?
It was just as childish as what happened in Colorado.
As for the other thing, I agree. I personally am a Christian, and for gay marriage being legal. But, that doesn't mean others do not feel differently. If a person truly believes that gay marriage will ruin the USA, and they vote against it, so be it. I'd rather have people able to vote their convictions than not.
That's just it. They COULDN'T vote, because a minority refused to allow the bill to be voted on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Until the shoe's on the other foot, and sweeping anti-(whateve you're for) legislation looks to win by a majority. Then you'll wish you had a filibuster option.
If the Bill of Rights were working as intended, then tyranny of the majority would be unconstitutional, and any legal bill passed by a majority would be a case of "I don't agree, but so be it." Filibusters are necessary against majority rule only when the rights of the minority are not being upheld.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, if the Bill of Rights were working as intended, it would just be assumed that any American citizen legal adult could marry another legal adult person of their choice. Extra legislation would not be necessary.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, if the Bill of Rights were working as intended, it would just be assumed that any American citizen legal adult could marry another legal adult person of their choice. Extra legislation would not be necessary.
SOOOOOOOO True. But instead some people are NOT getting their rights given but taken and thus they become less than 2nd class citizens
Indeed. But this is becasue someone assumed that laws needed to be passed to make it so, when clearly there is nothing in the BoR that preclude it.
EDIT: Preclude the right word im looking for?
An actual Seperation of church and state would go a long way. I fear the US is moving to become a theocracy. If/when that happens I'm moving to Brazil.
If it does become a theocracy, we are duty bound to oppose it. And I will, if it becomes necessary.
America is supposed to be the land of 'cans' not 'can nots' unless you are the gov't.
Indeed. But this is becasue someone assumed that laws needed to be passed to make it so, when clearly there is nothing in the BoR that preclude it.
Not only does the Bill of Rights not preclude this, but they in fact require it in and of themselves. The 14th amendment gives equal protection, and already has a history of being used in judicial opinions on this topic.
If it does become a theocracy, we are duty bound to oppose it. And I will, if it becomes necessary. America is supposed to be the land of 'cans' not 'can nots' unless you are the gov't.
I'm with Tiny Coffee Golem. If America becomes a Theocracy I'm moving to Asia. Or possibly staying here and not going back to America. I hear Singapore is a really nice, civilized place.
Hopefully there will be a pushback against these religious lunatics infesting our politics before it even gets close to that sort of thing happening. Freedom of religion means we have a duty to stop those who oppress on religious grounds, even in they claim it is an expression of their religion. No legitimate interpretation of religion should require that.
If it does become a theocracy, we are duty bound to oppose it. And I will, if it becomes necessary. America is supposed to be the land of 'cans' not 'can nots' unless you are the gov't.I'm with Tiny Coffee Golem. If America becomes a Theocracy I'm moving to Asia. Or possibly staying here and not going back to America. I hear Singapore is a really nice, civilized place.
Hopefully there will be a pushback against these religious lunatics infesting our politics before it even gets close to that sort of thing happening.
America as a whole is moving away from organized religion, statistically speaking. I think this is a good thing as a move from religion is a move towards reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
America as a whole is moving away from organized religion, statistically speaking. I think this is a good thing as a move from religion is a move towards reason.
Its a good first step, but moving away from organized religion is different from moving away from religion.
And even so, moving away from religion is not necessarily moving towards reason. There are plenty of problems with completely secular people saying stupid and willfully ignorant things about vaccines, nuclear power, etc.
Not to be pessimistic, but there is still a long long slog ahead of us.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
All right, all right
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
For people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
All right, all right
Ah
Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...
You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
All right, all right
All right, all right, all right
All right, all right, all right
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sort of feel like this is the system working the way it should.
The fact that you see no difference between bills that take away civil rights, vs. bills designed to re-instate them where they've been unrightfully hijacked, says that your ideas of how things are "supposed" to work is a long way from Madison's and Jefferson's views on the matter.
the long run, civil liberties will continue to expand.
One step forward, two steps back. We now at least allow women and blacks to vote -- those are definite expansions. But as a trade-off, we are now subject to 24/7 physical and electronic surveillance, can be held without charges indefinately without trial, and can be declared "enemy combatants" by the whim of whomever sits in the Oval Office. We're also potentially subject to prison sentences and permanent records for such things as smoking, urinating, and listening to songs. These are massive curtailments of civil liberties, and speak to me of a net loss, rather than gain.
America as a whole is moving away from organized religion, statistically speaking. I think this is a good thing as a move from religion is a move towards reason.Its a good first step, but moving away from organized religion is different from moving away from religion.
And even so, moving away from religion is not necessarily moving towards reason. There are plenty of problems with completely secular people saying stupid and willfully ignorant things about vaccines, nuclear power, etc.
Not to be pessimistic, but there is still a long long slog ahead of us.
It's not the leaps and bounds that I'd prefer, but it's something. When it comes to large groups of people not acting like idiots the bar has been set pretty low.
You say you want a revolution...
Who here's got Chairman Mao pictures?
Who here's got Chairman Mao pictures?
I got a picture of the top of his head...
Oh, snap!|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You say you want a revolution...Who here's got Chairman Mao pictures?
Probably only you. That was not my point. I actually had a long winded rant that went into it more deeply but honestly why bother. People are entrenched in their beliefs. When the system gets them what they want or feel is their rights, even if they did not exist in the first place that person calls it a "Win" and when it doesn't well the excuse is that the system is broke and they are the only ones smart enough to see it, or rather those that agree with them are. So it needs to be changed. I just see that as silly. Since no one here really cares about my opinions anyway, why bother. For if I share I will hurt someones precious feelings or be attacking them while in truth I am merely being honest.
As far as surveillance, so what? What are you doing that you don't want to be seen doing?
Lots.
You say you want a revolution...Who here's got Chairman Mao pictures?
"Giant poster of Mao seizes power in China - Enormous placard now controls world's most populous nation"
Probably only you.
Not true.
Since no one here really cares about my opinions anyway, why bother.
What makes you think you're so special?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. We can be held without trial if we are suspected of being terrorists. Generally speaking, that can be avoided.
2. As far as surveillance, so what? What are you doing that you don't want to be seen doing?
1. If it's fair game, avoidance is at the whim of the people deciding. You avoid it until someone in government disagrees with your views, or just doesn't like the way you look, and decides to accuse you of being a terrorist.
2. If I want to stare in a mirror all day, that's my prerogative. I don't feel that my tax dollars should be used to pay someone to do it for me without my need or permission, and without any benefit. And sooner or later they'll get bored and maybe decide my gray sweat pants should really be blue or I must be a terrorist -- which brings us back to point #1.
Overall, I don't think it's a good model to set up governmment so as to be at war with its own citizens. It sucked in East Germany; I think it'll suck here. YMMV.
The fact that Filibuster comes from the dutch word for pirates should tell you all you need to know about it as a political tactic.Vrijbuiter =/= pirate.
Vrijbuiter = freebooter, from vrijbuiten, "to rob, to plunder." That's pretty daggone close to "pirate," unless your definition of the latter requires a parrot and an eye patch.
According to wikipedia, the first filibusterer was Cato the Younger!
|
IMHO, if the Bill of Rights were working as intended, it would just be assumed that any American citizen legal adult could marry another legal adult person of their choice. Extra legislation would not be necessary.
Unfortunately, that isn't quite how it works. When analyzing the constitution, you need to examine what the possible intent was at the time it was penned as well as looking at how things have changed since then, and at time to even more historical sources that would have underlined the philosophy of the framers and their intent.
And, besides from that, the Bill of Right's has nothing to do with marriage or freedom from "classes" of citizen. Look more towards the Amendment XIV, Section 1 for what you're thinking. While, again, taken in strict historical context, probably wouldn't apply to marriage right's, however taken in a broader scope, you could make arguments along the lines of privacy and how laws like above, and the denial of rights to marriage, which is protected by the constitution along with the right to procreate and use contraceptives (a privacy issue), could be impeded.
A solid constitutional argument for civil unions in this case would hinge on the Right to Privacy (while never specially found anywhere in the Constitution is has been long upheld as being there) and a right to be free from classes of citizens being afforded different rights, or their right unequally.
Separation of Church and State is a whole other ball of wax...