Wall Street journal wrote a piece discussing the “inaction” of congress. Much more detailed than I could describe. Posting from mobile so not sure if the link will work.
You both are right on this, Congress severely limited legislation passed by the Obama administration but was unable to defund the massive omnibus budget bills that enabled the Obama administration to continue most of its policy. Before you call congress out on keep in mind that the majority of congress is not Ted Cruz or Rand Paul neither do they have the same constituency they are responsible to. Not everyone wants to shut down the government to defund plan parenthood or the ACA so we shouldn’t expect the Republican congress to do the same.
The problem lies in the gradual increase of power at the executive branch, in my opinion this isn’t just a problem with this administration (although they are probably the worst offender) but has built up over at least the last 20 years.
1 Like
Spot on and very true. This administration pushes the limits of power like no other, but in my view the real offender has been congress. Congress has given its power to the executive branch little by little for over a hundred years. The problem isn’t new, only the speed in which power has been centralized. Consider every alphabet federal agency that was granted authority to make law. Congress stopped making law and instead passed legislation granting authority to unelected bureaucrats.
I think the founders had foreseen the executive pushing the boundary, but I don’t think they envisioned the legislative being such a bunch of pussies and relinquishing their power.
What do you mean the decision might be turned over. My understanding (which needs more eductation regarding Supreme Court cases) is that the cases are final. Gay marriage is here to stay.
You would be a good politician. You spin everything to be the same answer without actually answering. I’m understand there will be new Supreme Court judges, but the two issues you specified (gay marriage and abortion) have already been decided. Are you hoping there will be new decisions regarding those cases or are you using those as examples and you disagree with every liberal social position?
Please show me the link between gay marriage or abortion and economic failure. I would argue the opposite. Abortion (however you think about it) allows people to not have a baby that they don’t want. If they are forced to have that baby, there is significant cost associated with having a kid. I also don’t see how gay marriage leads to economic failure in any way. Gay people were here before gay marriage was decided by the Supreme Court. They aren’t going to go away if the decision was different. How does that lead to economic failure?
Unless it is overturned by a more conservative Supreme Court
And both can be overturned.
It is also costly and painful for the woman involved and her family. Many women go through much therapy after killing their unborn child. We don’t hear about it in the mainstream media, just like we don’t hear about the number of suicides that are committed by gay people, or the many std’s and aids cases suffered by them as well. All of this is costly my friend.
SCOTUS rulings aren’t overturned very often.
True I think something like 8 or 10 have in our history. But one can remain hopeful if more conservatives are appointed. Also, it’s not just overturning the bad decisions, it’s keeping our 2nd amendment rights. Should Hillary be elected I am thinking that before she is out of office there will be an incredible attack on the 2nd amendment, one like we’ve not seen before.
Also, I’m not so sure the 1st amendment is completely safe when the left is in charge of making Supreme Court appointments. Just look at what they’ve done with “hate speech” what a bunch of crap!
1 Like
Much further that that; however the end of the Nixon administration was a turning point. Nobody has worked harder since then that Dick Cheney to expand executive branch power. An argument could be made that he has made it his life mission. Each administration uses the previous administrations ceiling as their floor.
1 Like
Good on Cruz for standing up and having some balls. He might be too much of a firebrand for me at other times, but he at least has a spine.
2 Likes
On what basis?
First of all, classifying abortion as the same as killing a child is not the same. But we don’t need to get into that.
People go into theropy for all sorts of reasons, and that is a cost to them. “We” are not paying for it, as you said previously. You said these issues lead to economic failure, does all theropy lead to economic failure or only theropy related to this specific issue? I have never viewed theropy as a indicator of large economic issues.
Do suicides and STD’s lead to economic failure? I’m again not following your logic. We can go down the rabbit hole of why speicifc people commit suicides, how that could be prevented, how that is handled, and how tradional social norms might have caused that… but that is a completely different discussion. You said these issues cause economic failure, saying that some gay people commit suicide does not prove that unless there is a leap in the logic I am overlooking.
This is a little easier to get through: From The Conservative Reform Network.
http://conservativereform.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Room-To-Grow.pdf
The separation of powers is specifically spelled out in the GOP plan I made the topic about.
Here is the Challenge, as they state:
Just as the size of government has grown, so has its arrogance. Washington spends money it isn’t authorized to spend. It takes power it isn’t given. It ignores laws it is required to execute. It doesn’t listen, and it certainly doesn’t care to learn. The Founders insisted on a separation of powers to protect our constitutional liberties. But over time, especially in recent decades, the executive branch has collected more power for itself, enabled by a judiciary that defers to the bureaucracy and a Congress that has yielded some of its most fundamental duties. James Madison warned that the Constitution is “a mere parchment barrier” unless each branch asserts its powers to keep the others in check. This concentration of power ultimately comes at the expense of the people, who rightly feel detached from—distrustful of—their government.
Here is their Vision:
A constitutional government is a good, fair, and decent government—one that listens to the people and promotes their well-being. It makes sure that each of us has the biggest role to play in our lives. Instead of trying to find every which way to
bypass the will of the people, it abides by the consent of the governed. No one bill is going to rebuild trust. No one decision will restore the separation of powers. But we have more tools than ever to restore self-government. Now we need to use them.
Congress must start writing laws in clear language with clear lines of authority. We must make sure agencies and bureaucracies adhere to the letter of the law. We must use our constitutional checks on spending by revitalizing the appropriations process from start to finish. We must make the government catch up with the times, and provide real transparency – after all, this is the people’s business.
formatting might be a bit off. Here is the total link to this specific issue they are discussing: http://abetterway.speaker.gov/?page=constitution
or you can look at the snapshot of their plan with ideas to put a stop to exectutive overreach, rein in the regulators, impose limits on spending, and increase transparency for taxpayers: http://abetterway.speaker.gov/_assets/pdf/ABetterWay-Constitution-Snapshot.pdf
He spoke to the Texas delegation this morning. Almost to the man they told him not to expect any support from them during his next campaign for Senator. Time may heal some wounds; but he burned bridges last night. All the local radio talk host are burning him at the stake. Mark Davis (who has spent considerable time suspended from Cruz’s scrotum) stated that no other individual has done more to get HRC elected than Cruz did last night.
We were talking about Gary Johnson’s social point of view, and he is very pro 1st and 2nd amendment (as most libertarians) unless I’m mistaken. I do not think he would nominate a judge who would attack them, so I’m not following how this is a disqualifier for you on those issues.
Which might be Cruz’s plan. I argued with pushharder a while back that everything Cruz has done is with the sole purpose of benefiting himself. That was on full display last night as he was aiming for 2020. If Trump is the president, that means he would have to wait 8 years instead of 4.
I’m NOT a Ted Cruz supporter but he earned a lot of respect from me last night. He stuck to his principles against his party instead of falling in line like a little bitch (see McCain, Christie) and stood up there like a man when the whole convention turned on him. After Trump insulted his family on multiple occasions I would like to think any self-respecting person would do the same thing. Doing this also proved that he doesn’t just have blind party loyalty which IMO is the most dangerous aspect of American politics. Good on him for this.
1 Like
He signed a pledge. Now everyone knows he can’t be counted on to keep his word. As Zeb1 has mentioned on more than one occasion; politics is a team sport.