blackduckdog2 wrote:and if you'll recall I absolutely gave you props for the point you'd made, and further admitted that I ought not have attached this more recent (and general) rebuttal to your point……When I originally posted it, it was in response to a more generalized discussion of who used the filibuster for what, and when. For the third time now…..I should NOT have attached that to your point, which was a good one. We cool?
Now of course you like the veto and the filibuster because you want government to do as little as possible, as a general rule (please do not extrapolate from that, as you are won't to do, to the polar opposite that since I do not like the filibuster, I must want government to do as MUCH as possible. Try to avoid the black and white extremes just this once. I know you can do it) I feel like government was never intended to run this way (filibuster at the ready) because there are provisions for nine super-majorities in the constitution, and none are for presidential appointments. Pretty simple to me. Veto's fine, that's spelled out clearly enough
Sorry if I misunderstood. We're always cool even if it may seem otherwise.
Whether you want the government to do a lot or a little, I know you appreciate the need for the actions of government to be thoughtful and deliberative. That is my argument for both the veto and filibuster. It is not a small government argument. It is a don't act rashly without time for serious consideration of what you are doing argument.
Everybody knows this and I wish it had been put in the Constitution.http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/23/campbell.brown.transparency/index.html?_s=PM:POLITICS#cnnSTCText
The president's old campaign Web site still has this commitment there for all to see:
"As president, Obama will not sign any nonemergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days."
Well, the president broke that promise barely a week after taking office when he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Bill dealing with equal pay for men and women.
BTW, I believe the GOP has made and broken similar promises in the past.
Ideally, I'd have the Senate still appointed by the state legislatures so the feds can't dump things on the state without the state's consent. I'd also mandate that all legislation be available for months before the final vote is taken without amendment in order for the represented to have time to express their opinions to the representatives and time for their representatives to digest it and express their opinions to their constituents. I believe then, there should be no filibuster of legislation. Presidential appointees, I don't see a way to prevent a rush job without the threat of filibuster, which is a de facto 60% vote and I'm fine with that.
I really do believe in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. At the local level, I want the government to do far more than probably most of my fellow "right-winger". I just don't want one size fits all. I don't want the all or nothing. I don't want the huge cost of federal screw ups. If Romneycare was so awesome, every state in the country is empowered to pass a version that suits their needs. There is no need to put all our eggs into an Obamacare basket. If Obamacare was Illinoiscare, millions of people would not be losing their health care, having their hours cut to part time to avoid the penalties, and all the huge screw ups embedded in that law because they had to pass it in a mad rush before the narrow window to ram it through closed.
If it works, I'm for it. Making people less free, does not work, except for those in power. That's why I want government at all levels to do less. The federal government, there is just no point in taking such a huge risk in the event that it fails. There is just no reason to put all our eggs in one basket for any domestic policy whether I support it or oppose it. It's just too big of a gamble and it is not necessary to get good policy enacted nationwide.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.