| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure lobbying per se is an issue, but severe conflicts of interest do exist, and are currently legal. For example, if I'm a senator about to vote on a law of great interest to Company Z, then right now it's more or less standard practice for Company Z to present me with a deal: "Vote our way and when you retire from the senate you come to work for us -- no need to actually show up or anything, but we'll pay you $200,000 a year in "consulting fees" as a way of saying thanks." I don't know of anyone being successfully prosecuted for that sort of thing.
BT -- regarding restrictions of free speech, I'm with you, but this is an area where "corporations aren't people" actually means something. I worry about restricting the free speech of humans. I have no qualms about restricting the ability of one human to choose to speak on behalf of all of his employees, using a share of the wealth they generated, without their say.
I agree with most of it, too. Then again, when I say lobbying, I refer mostly to the forms that are basically forms of bribery.
When I support a candidate with my time and money is that bribery?
When an issue advocacy group that I support with my time and money donates to a candidate is that bribery?
When a corporation I work for gives money to a trade organization that advocates for an industry is that bribery?
If I'm a member of a public sector union and my union lobbies for better pay and benefits and supports candidates who vote that way is that bribery?
If any of these are bribery should I get life in prison for my role in any or all of them?
I know I'm taking some liberties with hyperbole here, but I'm really trying to provoke thought about the vast reach of some unintended consequences.
I say we keep corporations and the government strictly separate until corporations do something harmful.
I agree with most of it, too. Then again, when I say lobbying, I refer mostly to the forms that are basically forms of bribery.When I support a candidate with my time and money is that bribery?
When an issue advocacy group that I support with my time and money donates to a candidate is that bribery?
When a corporation I work for gives money to a trade organization that advocates for an industry is that bribery?
If I'm a member of a public sector union and my union lobbies for better pay and benefits and supports candidates who vote that way is that bribery?
If any of these are bribery should I get life in prison for my role in any or all of them?
I know I'm taking some liberties with hyperbole here, but I'm really trying to provoke thought about the vast reach of some unintended consequences.
Read Kirth's post above yours. That is the behaviour, which is incredibly common, that I hate.
By the way, your third example very often does involve bribing congresspeople.
I'm not sure lobbying per se is an issue, but severe conflicts of interest do exist, and are currently legal. For example, if I'm a senator about to vote on a law of great interest to Company Z, then right now it's more or less standard practice for Company Z to present me with a deal: "Vote our way and when you retire from the senate you come to work for us -- no need to actually show up or anything, but we'll pay you $200,000 a year in "consulting fees" as a way of saying thanks." I don't know of anyone being successfully prosecuted for that sort of thing.
BT -- regarding restrictions of free speech, I'm with you, but this is an area where "corporations aren't people" actually means something. I worry about restricting the free speech of humans. I have no qualms about restricting the ability of one human to choose to speak on behalf of all of his employees, using a share of the wealth they generated, without their say.
Technically the quid pro quo makes that illegal, but you're right that some form of exactly that (for the Senator and many of his relatives) is precisely how business is done with government these days.
I agree that the status quo is a catastrophe, but I think the slippery slope is a very real one in this case.
I agree with most of it, too. Then again, when I say lobbying, I refer mostly to the forms that are basically forms of bribery.When I support a candidate with my time and money is that bribery?
When an issue advocacy group that I support with my time and money donates to a candidate is that bribery?
When a corporation I work for gives money to a trade organization that advocates for an industry is that bribery?
If I'm a member of a public sector union and my union lobbies for better pay and benefits and supports candidates who vote that way is that bribery?
If any of these are bribery should I get life in prison for my role in any or all of them?
I know I'm taking some liberties with hyperbole here, but I'm really trying to provoke thought about the vast reach of some unintended consequences.
Read Kirth's post above yours. That is the behaviour, which is incredibly common, that I hate.
By the way, your third example very often does involve bribing congresspeople.
Sinecure is already illegal if the prosecutor can prove a quid pro quo in court.
OK, how much prison time should I be looking at in the 3rd example if any, and why or why not?
I'm not sure lobbying per se is an issue, but severe conflicts of interest do exist, and are currently legal. For example, if I'm a senator about to vote on a law of great interest to Company Z, then right now it's more or less standard practice for Company Z to present me with a deal: "Vote our way and when you retire from the senate you come to work for us -- no need to actually show up or anything, but we'll pay you $200,000 a year in "consulting fees" as a way of saying thanks." I don't know of anyone being successfully prosecuted for that sort of thing.
BT -- regarding restrictions of free speech, I'm with you, but this is an area where "corporations aren't people" actually means something. I worry about restricting the free speech of humans. I have no qualms about restricting the ability of one human to choose to speak on behalf of all of his employees, using a share of the wealth they generated, without their say.
Technically the quid pro quo makes that illegal, but you're right that some form of exactly that (for the Senator and many of his relatives) is precisely how business is done with government these days.
I agree that the status quo is a catastrophe, but I think the slippery slope is a very real one in this case.
I'd rather the slope be doused in KY jelly than continue the status quo, which will lead to the collapse of the entire system and balkanized third world nation status for the whole continent if not stopped.
Sinecure is already illegal if the prosecutor can prove a quid pro quo in court.I agree with most of it, too. Then again, when I say lobbying, I refer mostly to the forms that are basically forms of bribery.When I support a candidate with my time and money is that bribery?
When an issue advocacy group that I support with my time and money donates to a candidate is that bribery?
When a corporation I work for gives money to a trade organization that advocates for an industry is that bribery?
If I'm a member of a public sector union and my union lobbies for better pay and benefits and supports candidates who vote that way is that bribery?
If any of these are bribery should I get life in prison for my role in any or all of them?
I know I'm taking some liberties with hyperbole here, but I'm really trying to provoke thought about the vast reach of some unintended consequences.
Read Kirth's post above yours. That is the behaviour, which is incredibly common, that I hate.
By the way, your third example very often does involve bribing congresspeople.
Since when are charges ever filed?
OK, how much prison time should I be looking at in the 3rd example if any, and why or why not?
If you bribed an elected official, life.
Ha, ha, ha. How cute, tinkering about with your declining, rusting system. Maybe if we make a little adjustment over here, oh no, maybe a little loosening over there...
There is but one Party--the Property Party and it has two Right Wings!
Vive le Galt!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, don't get me started on Communism. That won't work any better than our current system. What is needed is a balance between Capitalism and Socialism, not a total free market state, and not a completely government run economy. Both of those lead to disaster.
America seriously needs to stop treating Socialism like a swear word. Some socialist policies here and there would be good for us as long as we didn't go overboard and completely purge all elements of the free market and personal responsibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, when much of the House accepted the words "You have to vote for the legislation to find out what's in it,"Anybody who bought that argument should be booted out of office, along with anybody who made it.Deal with it. No one in Congress reads every bill they vote. Nor are they expert enough to comprehend the details of every bill on every possible topic. That's why they have staff.
They read the summaries. They get advice from their staff. They hear from the leadership.
There's nothing wrong with that. They delegate. They have to. It's the essence of running any large organization.
Perhaps their immense ignorance of the the issues that they are trying to control through regulation means that I am better qualified to make decisions for myself rather than the politicians who think they should control me.
Of course I reject the notion of beneficent autocracy. Even if the politicians and regulators had the purest of intentions the idea that a few hundred legislators know better than 300,000,000+ individuals how those individuals should live seems stupid and offensive to me.
Well, when much of the House accepted the words "You have to vote for the legislation to find out what's in it,"Anybody who bought that argument should be booted out of office, along with anybody who made it.Deal with it. No one in Congress reads every bill they vote. Nor are they expert enough to comprehend the details of every bill on every possible topic. That's why they have staff.
They read the summaries. They get advice from their staff. They hear from the leadership.
There's nothing wrong with that. They delegate. They have to. It's the essence of running any large organization.Perhaps their immense ignorance of the the issues that they are trying to control through regulation means that I am better qualified to make decisions for myself rather than the politicians who think they should control me.
Of course I reject the notion of beneficent autocracy. Even if the politicians and regulators had the purest of intentions the idea that a few hundred legislators know better than 300,000,000+ individuals how those individuals should live seems stupid and offensive to me.
So, what's the alternative?
Oh, don't get me started on Communism. That won't work any better than our current system. What is needed is a balance between Capitalism and Socialism, not a total free market state, and not a completely government run economy. Both of those lead to disaster.
America seriously needs to stop treating Socialism like a swear word. Some socialist policies here and there would be good for us as long as we didn't go overboard and completely purge all elements of the free market and personal responsibility.
I disagree, but I think we have far too much socialism already, and I don't think it's working very well.
@kelsey: nuke the earth into a radioactive wasteland and start again when inteligent life re-evolves?
i'm honestly beginning to think that human society simply hasn't evolved to the point where it can keep up with our population. we're simply too numerous for our systems to work well, and as a result anything we do seems broken when in fact it's just a matter of trying to do too much too fast. then of course people give up on an impossible task and begin gaming the system, and it all falls down.
this is patially why dictatorships are falling. their system simply can't control their population.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree, but I think we have far too much socialism already, and I don't think it's working very well.Oh, don't get me started on Communism. That won't work any better than our current system. What is needed is a balance between Capitalism and Socialism, not a total free market state, and not a completely government run economy. Both of those lead to disaster.
America seriously needs to stop treating Socialism like a swear word. Some socialist policies here and there would be good for us as long as we didn't go overboard and completely purge all elements of the free market and personal responsibility.
That's because our socialist policies are written stupidly and are too pro-corporation, not because socialism is stupid. Back in the 1950s we were much more socialist than we are now, and the economy was stellar. At this point, more capitalism would be bad unless it was helping small business. Screwing small business, which is what we are doing, is bad, m'kay?
It's time to bring back the draconian anti-trust laws we used to have. They worked once, they can work again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@kelsey: nuke the earth into a radioactive wasteland and start again when inteligent life re-evolves?
i'm honestly beginning to think that human society simply hasn't evolved to the point where it can keep up with our population. we're simply too numerous for our systems to work well, and as a result anything we do seems broken when in fact it's just a matter of trying to do too much too fast. then of course people give up on an impossible task and begin gaming the system, and it all falls down.
this is patially why dictatorships are falling. their system simply can't control their population.
I don't blame population. I blame fiscal conservatism taking policies that work, overturning them to be "pro-business", and causing the economy to suffer. They screwed things up in both the 80s and the Oughts, and are now championing the same stupid ideas. TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS DO NOT WORK. Get that through your thick skulls. I blame fiscal liberals, for having too little adherence to the concept of personal responsibility and condoning unnecessary nannyism. You stay the f%%+ out of my kids' lunches. I blame both sides for being more interested in personal attacks and "defeating" the other side than they are in solving problems, and I blame everybody for bending knee to corporations in exchange for monetary rewards.
So, what's the alternative?Well, when much of the House accepted the words "You have to vote for the legislation to find out what's in it,"Anybody who bought that argument should be booted out of office, along with anybody who made it.Deal with it. No one in Congress reads every bill they vote. Nor are they expert enough to comprehend the details of every bill on every possible topic. That's why they have staff.
They read the summaries. They get advice from their staff. They hear from the leadership.
There's nothing wrong with that. They delegate. They have to. It's the essence of running any large organization.Perhaps their immense ignorance of the the issues that they are trying to control through regulation means that I am better qualified to make decisions for myself rather than the politicians who think they should control me.
Of course I reject the notion of beneficent autocracy. Even if the politicians and regulators had the purest of intentions the idea that a few hundred legislators know better than 300,000,000+ individuals how those individuals should live seems stupid and offensive to me.
More individual liberty and responsibility and less government force is the answer for me.
I think the government tries to do far to much, and it does an amazingly bad job of it and consumes a horrifying amount of money.
I think the government should exist to defend human rights and virtually nothing else.
I believe that we own ourselves, and it's not the job of the state to control what I do with myself or my property so long as I don't initiate force against someone else.
I think that a great example of how the government tries to do too much at the expense of performing its core duties is our idiotic criminal justice system. We imprison nearly a million non violent drug offenders, but child rapists routinely go unindicted and continue to rape children. Perhaps if we focused on crimes with actual victims we would do a better job of prosecuting predators. Also if we ended the unconstitutional war on drugs we would save tens of billions immediately in direct costs as well as generate new revenue streams.
I think that very often the government is not the solution it is the problem.
So, what's the alternative?Well, when much of the House accepted the words "You have to vote for the legislation to find out what's in it,"Anybody who bought that argument should be booted out of office, along with anybody who made it.Deal with it. No one in Congress reads every bill they vote. Nor are they expert enough to comprehend the details of every bill on every possible topic. That's why they have staff.
They read the summaries. They get advice from their staff. They hear from the leadership.
There's nothing wrong with that. They delegate. They have to. It's the essence of running any large organization.Perhaps their immense ignorance of the the issues that they are trying to control through regulation means that I am better qualified to make decisions for myself rather than the politicians who think they should control me.
Of course I reject the notion of beneficent autocracy. Even if the politicians and regulators had the purest of intentions the idea that a few hundred legislators know better than 300,000,000+ individuals how those individuals should live seems stupid and offensive to me.
More individual liberty and responsibility and less government force is the answer for me.
I think the government tries to do far to much, and it does an amazingly bad job of it and consumes a horrifying amount of money.
I think the government should exist to defend human rights and virtually nothing else.
I believe that we own ourselves, and it's not the job of the state to control what I do with myself or my property so long as I don't initiate force against someone else.
I think that a great example of how the government tries to do too much at the expense of performing its core duties is our idiotic criminal justice system. We imprison nearly a million non violent drug offenders, but child rapists routinely go unindicted...
I agree when it comes to keeping government away from civil liberties, and I agree that it's about time to back off on the drug war, but I think that, in the case of corporate greed, environmental conditions, and the healthcare system, government very much IS the answer. Big government isn't bad, big government that doesn't do anything, and then either throws money at a stupid policy to fix it or takes away money from something that could work with more money is the problem.
I will say no more of my ardent desire to see this system of barbarism and exploitation swept into the dustbin of history.
Did you see my Gore Vidal links above, BT? I think you would enjoy reading him very much.
Gore Vidal trolling the empire.
EDIT: Btw, the person transcribing this essay messed up--the essay begins with the words "Most Americans of a certain age..."
Also, I'll just link his whole webpage. Good reading in there.
It's an informative article, and it reflects some of my deep frustration as a long term conservative and GOP member. Back during the Clinton administration it was pretty mainstream in the party to oppose the administration's draconian domestic terror initiatives as well as opposing becoming the post cold war world police. During the Bush administration this all got turned on its head. The globalist interventionist neo con segment of the party basically took over and people opposed to invading Iraq preemptively and opposed to things like the patriot acts became almost completely marginalized. In my mind these changes along with a complete failure to limit government and balance the budget constitute a fundamental betrayal of core conservative principals. I believe we were punished for our lack of principal as a party in 2006 and 2008, but the GOP seems intent on expanding military spending and preemptive military adventurism abroad as well as a constantly expanding security state on and endless war footing. I think this is the slippery slope to an increasingly autocratic police state.
Less than 20 years ago this was a fairly mainstream position in the GOP when Clinton was president, but now I'm considered a radical even though we are living in another Democrat administration. Odd how much things can change, but the end result seems to always be more government power. It saddens me deeply that this is the America we are handing down to our children and grand children, and I think it will end extremely badly for us all.
I will say no more of my ardent desire to see this system of barbarism and exploitation swept into the dustbin of history.
Did you see my Gore Vidal links above, BT? I think you would enjoy reading him very much.
Gore Vidal trolling the empire.
At least Bill came to oppose the drug war toward the end. I'm constantly amazed that so many of my supposedly small government conservative friends can defend the war on drugs as constitutional, moral, and pragmatic. It makes my brain itch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will say no more of my ardent desire to see this system of barbarism and exploitation swept into the dustbin of history.
Did you see my Gore Vidal links above, BT? I think you would enjoy reading him very much.
Gore Vidal trolling the empire.
Gore Vidal again?
!VIVA LA CHERRYH!
Targeted Killing and the Rule of Law
I agree with you on most things, BT, but not this. An act of war should not be held to constitutional standards.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we're talking about government folly, how about the recent crusade against birth control? The people are for having their insurance coverage of their birth control. Most U.S. Catholics are for it. It's the old white guys in charge of the church itself that are against it. And apparently most of the old white guys on Capitol Hill as well.
Again, for a party that's supposedly for keeping the government out of people's personal freedoms, they sure do pick and choose some strange battles.
Targeted Killing and the Rule of LawI agree with you on most things, BT, but not this. An act of war should not be held to constitutional standards.
I don't think this is exactly true, but I do feel that the laws of war should be considered as well. The laws of war haven't been challenged on the grounds of being unconstitutional so they are in fact the constitutionally correct laws of the land until proven otherwise in SCOTUS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we're talking about government folly, how about the recent crusade against birth control? The people are for having their insurance coverage of their birth control. Most U.S. Catholics are for it. It's the old white guys in charge of the church itself that are against it. And apparently most of the old white guys on Capitol Hill as well.
Again, for a party that's supposedly for keeping the government out of people's personal freedoms, they sure do pick and choose some strange battles.
This is a classic example of how broken left leaning statist political thought is.
If the government doesn't subsidize something that is simply not the same as waging war on it.
The government simply shouldn't be involved in this. This is the problem with the omnipresent invasive state.
I don't think the government should be in the business of marriage, charity, religion, drugs and so forth, but when they do control these things there are going to be outcomes that are very bad.
The whole marriage debate is a perfect example of this absurdity. Why on earth should the government have any right to tell you you can't have a husband or wife or 5 of each?
One of the arguments for the government having this authority is to maintain control of things like employee benefits for government employees, social security, and what have you.
The war on drugs and the FDA are other fine examples. I don't think it's the role of the state control what you do with your body, but my opinion is clearly a tiny minority.
I think the government programs are the problem here not individual liberty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think this is exactly true, but I do feel that the laws of war should be considered as well. The laws of war haven't been challenged on the grounds of being unconstitutional so they are in fact the constitutionally correct laws of the land until proven otherwise in SCOTUS.Targeted Killing and the Rule of LawI agree with you on most things, BT, but not this. An act of war should not be held to constitutional standards.
I don't agree. I think that, in wartime, anything considered a threat should be eliminated by whatever means are easiest. Bringing law and procedure into it gets troops killed because they can't react when they need to. The law should only extend to basics like not shooting unarmed kids or prisoners.
Now, the war itself is stupid, but the tactics are not. The constitution should not apply to combatants in an armed conflict. That just opens the door to a lot of legal wrangling about whether or not to shoot when lives are in danger. That screws over our men and women in uniform.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think this is exactly true, but I do feel that the laws of war should be considered as well. The laws of war haven't been challenged on the grounds of being unconstitutional so they are in fact the constitutionally correct laws of the land until proven otherwise in SCOTUS.Targeted Killing and the Rule of LawI agree with you on most things, BT, but not this. An act of war should not be held to constitutional standards.
I think Dehn makes your argument reasonably well, but I find the idea of a very poorly defined war with no end in sight being the foundation for justifying this power very disturbing. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before these powers are used against us on our own soil.
I don't think this is exactly true, but I do feel that the laws of war should be considered as well. The laws of war haven't been challenged on the grounds of being unconstitutional so they are in fact the constitutionally correct laws of the land until proven otherwise in SCOTUS.Targeted Killing and the Rule of LawI agree with you on most things, BT, but not this. An act of war should not be held to constitutional standards.I don't agree. I think that, in wartime, anything considered a threat should be eliminated by whatever means are easiest. Bringing law and procedure into it gets troops killed because they can't react when they need to. The law should only extend to basics like not shooting unarmed kids or prisoners.
Now, the war itself is stupid, but the tactics are not. The constitution should not apply to combatants in an armed conflict. That just opens the door to a lot of legal wrangling about whether or not to shoot when lives are in danger. That screws over our men and women in uniform.
Alas what happens when they decide you or I are terrorists or somehow supporting terrorists?
Alas what happens when they decide you or I are terrorists or somehow supporting terrorists?I don't think this is exactly true, but I do feel that the laws of war should be considered as well. The laws of war haven't been challenged on the grounds of being unconstitutional so they are in fact the constitutionally correct laws of the land until proven otherwise in SCOTUS.Targeted Killing and the Rule of LawI agree with you on most things, BT, but not this. An act of war should not be held to constitutional standards.I don't agree. I think that, in wartime, anything considered a threat should be eliminated by whatever means are easiest. Bringing law and procedure into it gets troops killed because they can't react when they need to. The law should only extend to basics like not shooting unarmed kids or prisoners.
Now, the war itself is stupid, but the tactics are not. The constitution should not apply to combatants in an armed conflict. That just opens the door to a lot of legal wrangling about whether or not to shoot when lives are in danger. That screws over our men and women in uniform.
We die. War sucks like that.
Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with the war on terrorism. It's making the problem worse, not better, and is eating up a lot of lives and money. However, I am also against politicians telling the military what they can and cannot do during a fight. War is a nasty, brutish business, which is why it needs to be resorted to only when absolutely necessary, and it isn't absolutely necessary right now. Trying to make it less nasty or brutish, however, puts us at a disadvantage when we can't take out the enemy, prolongs the conflict, and costs even more lives. When you get into a fight, take out the enemy with every method at your disposal to end it as soon as possible. Don't handcuff your troops with a bunch of regulations that inhibits their ability to fight.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the issue with contraceptives here, BT, is that the Catholic Church is fine with giving Viagra to men (because it's a "legitimate medical problem"), but says that requiring them to offer similar coverage to women (that is, contraceptives) is against their religious freedom.
Because insurance is provided by employers instead of by the state as it is in other countries, you have employers who think they can control their secular employees by not offering standardized coverage.
This does not mean that I think we should necessarily switch to state-provided coverage, but I do think there should be standards so that minorities are not treated as second-class citizens by the all-powerful corporation. The employer doesn't get to say, "Oh, I think the only people who get AIDS are gay people, so I don't want to cover their medicines because I think being gay is against God."
I could go on a huge rant about the way the Catholic Church treats women (I studied medieval history!), but I won't go down that path. Suffice it to say that because some employers think that birth control is not a "medical issue" doesn't mean that they don't have to comply with the law and provide it to women.
I know my experiences are anecdotal, but most of the women I know take birth control to prevent medical issues. Preventing pregnancy is purely secondary.
It's especially frustrating watching coverage of this issue in the media, and the only people on the Congressional panel are men. The only people the Congressional panel calls to discuss this issue are men. Not saying that a male ob/gyn wouldn't have a good perspective, but you know it would be probably be a good idea to talk to the women who actually deal with these issues!
(/rant off)
Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with the war on terrorism. It's making the problem worse, not better, and is eating up a lot of lives and money. However, I am also against politicians telling the military what they can and cannot do during a fight. War is a nasty, brutish business, which is why it needs to be resorted to only when absolutely necessary, and it isn't absolutely necessary right now. Trying to make it less nasty or brutish, however, puts us at a disadvantage when we can't take out the enemy, prolongs the conflict, and costs even more lives. When you get into a fight, take out the enemy with every method at your disposal to end it as soon as possible. Don't handcuff your troops with a bunch of regulations that inhibits their ability to fight.By the same logic The enemies of the US can/should use every methond at hand even if it is very nasty or brutish, and it would not be terrorism because they are at war.
They already do use whatever methods are at hand. A lot of what they do is disgusting and heartbreaking, but WAR is disgusting and heartbreaking. Instead of complaining about how brutal it is and handcuffing the ability of troops to fight effectively, DON'T START WARS IN THE FIRST PLACE. We shouldn't be in the fights we are in right now at all. We were wronged, but our reaction escalated the hatred felt for us and proved our enemys' points.
Hey Kelsey!
An act of war should not be held to constitutional standards.I strongly disagree with you on this point Kelsey; as a US citizen first and as a human being second.
Regards,
-- Andy
Let's say we did hold acts of war to constitutional standards. How can we strike at the enemy while trying to respect their "right" to life and liberty? That sounds like a recipe for military disaster to me. Instead of trying to make war into something it isn't, don't start wars in the first place unless you absolutely have to. You don't have to worry about the heartbreaking brutality and unfortunately necessary slaughter of both troops and civilians if you don't go to war in the first place.
I think Dehn makes your argument reasonably well, but I find the idea of a very poorly defined war with no end in sight being the foundation for justifying this power very disturbing. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before these powers are used against us on our own soil.I don't think this is exactly true, but I do feel that the laws of war should be considered as well. The laws of war haven't been challenged on the grounds of being unconstitutional so they are in fact the constitutionally correct laws of the land until proven otherwise in SCOTUS.Targeted Killing and the Rule of LawI agree with you on most things, BT, but not this. An act of war should not be held to constitutional standards.
I think that's because it is a very good, easy to defend argument to make. I also think people like to try to ignore and cherry pick parts of the new bills that they think will make things worse without referencing all the clauses involved with those parts.
However I think part of this could be clarified if we were to put all the parts together and look at them as a whole... unfortunately this is a very difficult thing to do.
Beyond that however I do think specific parts shouldn't have been included in the bills in question and that other parts could use a bit more of a fine tooth comb going through them.
As a final note I would feel a lot less apprehensive about all of this if I had more faith in SCOTUS. I feel in many cases its the failure of SCOTUS that puts us in the many awkward positions we keep ending up in -- SCOTUS was supposed to be the ultimate brake on the government, and it keeps slipping (to continue the brake metaphor).
I think there are plenty of good things the government should do: for example I think the contraception requirement is actually a good thing as it allows the end consumer more choice on what they want instead of allowing another's religious choices to make their decision for them.
It protects the person that should be making the decisions about their own body and health from the invasion into their rights and freedoms from oppression by others involved.
Oh hey, what's going on over here?
I think the issue with contraceptives here, BT, is that the Catholic Church is fine with giving Viagra to men (because it's a "legitimate medical problem"), but says that requiring them to offer similar coverage to women (that is, contraceptives) is against their religious freedom.
Because insurance is provided by employers instead of by the state as it is in other countries, you have employers who think they can control their secular employees by not offering standardized coverage.
This does not mean that I think we should necessarily switch to state-provided coverage, but I do think there should be standards so that minorities are not treated as second-class citizens by the all-powerful corporation. The employer doesn't get to say, "Oh, I think the only people who get AIDS are gay people, so I don't want to cover their medicines because I think being gay is against God."
I could go on a huge rant about the way the Catholic Church treats women (I studied medieval history!), but I won't go down that path. Suffice it to say that because some employers think that birth control is not a "medical issue" doesn't mean that they don't have to comply with the law and provide it to women.
I know my experiences are anecdotal, but most of the women I know take birth control to prevent medical issues. Preventing pregnancy is purely secondary.
It's especially frustrating watching coverage of this issue in the media, and the only people on the Congressional panel are men. The only people the Congressional panel calls to discuss this issue are men. Not saying that a male ob/gyn wouldn't have a good perspective, but you know it would be probably be a good idea to talk to the women who actually deal with these issues!
(/rant off)
I don't think the government should be forcing any employer to provide health care. This is the core problem to me.
The government should neither subsidize any employer nor force them to provide any particular benefit.
It's the government's fault that people grew dependent on employers for health insurance in the first place. I don't think constantly giving the government more power to try and fix the things that they broke by abusing their power in the first place is the way to go.
Please see government thrives on failure above.
I really don't care about some religions doctrine. I care about the government violating the constitution.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know how this could be solved? Socialized medicine. It's just about time.
I think Dehn makes your argument reasonably well, but I find the idea of a very poorly defined war with no end in sight being the foundation for justifying this power very disturbing. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before these powers are used against us on our own soil.I don't think this is exactly true, but I do feel that the laws of war should be considered as well. The laws of war haven't been challenged on the grounds of being unconstitutional so they are in fact the constitutionally correct laws of the land until proven otherwise in SCOTUS.Targeted Killing and the Rule of LawI agree with you on most things, BT, but not this. An act of war should not be held to constitutional standards.
I do agree here. I don't mind letting the military do what it takes to win, but I do believe that the war should never have been started in the first place. You are correct in that it's poorly defined and has no visible end, and that is not good.
Oh hey, what's going on over here?
Employer provided healthcare and unpleasant military strategies.
TL;DNR yet.
So, my understanding is that a bunch of the leading neocons were New York state school kids who'd been Trotskyists in the 30s and/or 40s. Anyone, off the top of their heads, have any idea what I'm talking about?
It's the government's fault that...
Quote was too far down to get it in the box.
Anyway, I am, of course, for socialist medicine (as in free!! not socialized, like Canada) including all safe forms of birth control, but I don't foresee this conversation going anywhere it hasn't before, so...
What's the story about how it's the government's fault that people grew dependent on employer-provided health insurance? I don't know that one.
However, I am also against politicians telling the military what they can and cannot do during a fight.The framers of the US Constitution saw it differently.
"The Constitution's division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers (such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of "twilight zone" of concurrent powers. In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act."
citeUnfortunately, most US Presidents for a long time have also had to be "politicians," but the point is the framers didn't want the military to have a free hand in how war was waged by the United States.
Regards,
-- Andy
Yes, because the founding fathers vision was completely perfect. I don't care what the framers thought.
There is a difference between congress being the only entity that can declare war (It would be a good idea if the current congress wasn't as corrupt as it is) and congress meddling in how that war is fought once it has been declared. Deciding HOW to fight a war should be the job of the Joint Chiefs, Secretary of Defense, and Commander in Chief, and it should be based on nothing except what wins the war fastest without causing even more problems.
Instead of trying to make war into something it isn't, don't start wars in the first place unless you absolutely have to.Kelsey, I'm totally down with you here.
I'm also not a big fan of re-branding social policies (like the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Terrorism") as "wars."
-- Andy
Yea. Neither the war or drugs or the war on terrorism is a good idea. I think both have caused more harm than good.