[TAML] Re: [TAML-WNT] Waterboard Dick
- From: Kevin Hopkins <kh2@xxxxxxxx>
- To: teamamiga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 22:27:07 -0600
At 4:21 PM -0500 11/1/06, Dave Haynie wrote:
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:47:48 -0600, Asha DeVelder <asha@xxxxxxxxxx>
jammed all night, and by sunrise was heard saying:
James,
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 18:19:20 +0930, James McArthur
<jamesm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> was caught saying:
>
>Asha DeVelder wrote:
>>> Guess that means, don't vote for me :-)
>>
>> Why not?
>
>Too extreme? You'd really want someone a bit more balanced, I s'pose. :)
Actually, I think it would be great if there was a huge range of
opinions in the House and Senate. It might slow things down (though
with the current Congress working for so little time one might not
notice the difference) but it would also expose to debate more sides and
options.
That seems to me to have been the original idea. Congresscritters were
intended to honestly represent local interests above anything but
perhaps an overall sense of duty to the Country and Constitution. While
it's hardly them alone, the latest crop of Republicans have demonstrated
that, when your loyalty is primarily the Party, it's easy to forget your
oath to Country and State, as so many of the incumbants have, to the
point of tossing it into the trash bin, along with the Constitution and
their all their morals.
You've put your finger on it. This fanatical loyalty to party is the
root of the problem. The authoritarian following of marching orders
coming down from the party leadership, rather than independently
weighing issues as a sensate being is the canker in the Republican
soul. But then, it is in perfect alignment with the mind set that
blindly follows a religious dogma or the top down structure of
corporate governance. It is the blinkered world view that has taken
them to the top of the mountain and right off the cliff.
The fact that a guy like McCain didn't expose this torture bill as a
national travesty, but rather ultimately cowtowed and voted for it,
shows that even the best of them aren't fit to polish the boots of our
Founding Fathers, much less serve in Congress.
"Oh he's a maverick. What a maverick. He's his own man - a maverick.
Maverick pure and simple. A maverick press's maverick darling
maverick." He's a great talker, but a party whore.
Washington needs an enema! Toss 'em all out; arrest and proscute the
worst of 'em.
I'd like to see some changes, and big ones. For example, the Oath taken
by the President, VP, Judges and all Congresscritters should REALLY have
the force of Law. If you promise to uphold the Constitution, and are
later shown (for example, by voting "aye" on the Patriot Act or the
Torture Act, etc) then you're not simply disgraced in public, but you're
held libel. Anything you voted on/signed that's judged in any serious
way to be Un-Constitutional, and you're no longer in office, and perhaps
subject to arrest and trial, both for purjury and perhaps for the
damaging effects of passing an obviously Un-Constitutional bill. The
fact of the matter today is that when you elect cretains, they're pretty
much free to do as they will; the only real recourse is kicking them
bums out. High offices need higher standards than that. I guess our
original Founding Fathers simply didn't forsee the level to which men
would fall in the acquisition of power... they had a faith in humanity
that our current Congress/Senate so very clearly contradicts.
There's more of that Responsibility Party stuff you talked about a
while back. "A man's word is his bond" with no statute of
limitations. Works for me. The Founding Fathers were men of the Age
of Reason and the Enlightenment - Come let us reason together. They
knew human nature very well - thus the emphasis on checks and
balances. The only thing I think they may have overlooked is the
birth and calcification of a two party system, and a revolutionary
people who would over time become so remise in guarding their liberty
from a cliche of fanatics.
Of course, then we have to deal with the Judges themselves, not
upholding their Oath. That's certainly trickier, since their job is
certainly to interpret the Constitution.
Thus the charter concept of the Federalist Society. Screw the law and
Congressional intent. The law is what we say it is.
The real cure here is to make
the job of becoming a judge, particularly a Supreme Court judge, far
more stringent. Your entire history needs to be considered with the same
razor used for the President and Congresscritters; any transgressions
disqualify you from the job, before any votes.
I'd like to see a little more detailed expression of your ideas on
this. More stringent perhaps, but considered by whom? The last two
Justices were nominated by a President who was appointed by the
self-same Court, term one, and stole his re-election, term two.
Confirmed by a Senate majority whose concept of Advise and Consent is
embossed in negative on the bottom of the rubber stamp wielded by the
Executive. Opposed by a minority who is either prone or supine,
depending on your point of view. "Razor used for the President and
Congresscritters"? Ah, how's that been working out so far? I seem to
be missing something.
--
Kevin Hopkins <kh2@xxxxxxxx>
Other related posts:
