We could permit each newly elected president to appoint 50 members of the House and 10 members of the Senate, all to serve four-year terms until the next presidential election. [More]So what we really need is a strongman?
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Speaking of Imbeciles
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
They tout these as examples of progress that could be made if their way is had: "The next few years saw the enactment of amendments establishing the legitimacy of the federal income tax, direct election of senators, Prohibition and women’s right to vote."
I see only one tenative good thing among those four, and the only reason I question women voting is because I've heard spirited arguments against it from women, primarily from the viewpoint of the destruction of the nuclear family as a societal norm. There are also many arguments to be made for having skin in the game before being able to vote. The Constitutional idea of a government chained down by law, only able to operate in small, specific areas, and subject to the votes of landowners, has more and more merit. (I'm not a landowner.)
So, yet another reason to be overly suspicious of individuals wailing about governmental gridlock.
Not to mention, the source of most of the US' societal woes are largely caused by the failure to enforce both the Rule of Law and Equality Under the Law.
The comments are priceless. Perfect examples of progressive idiocy.
I have long believed that a building with many small rooms containing only a desk and equipped with a single door with a food slot exists in the City of Austin, Texas.
Immediately upon graduation from Texas University, each of the new alumnae is locked into one of these small rooms and given a quota of silly-ass regulations he must dream up before being allowed to leave the room.
Once the newly brain dead idiot manages to achieve release he is then allowed a choice of running for public office or becoming a law/government professor at his alma mater.
[W3]
I kinda like how we do things here in Texas. Instead of having a run for legislature continuously in session, ours meets for a limited, fairly short time every other year. That serves to limit the amount of harm the busybody types who typically run for office (think back to your High School Student Council and tell me I'm wrong) can do and forces them to concentrate on what absolutely NEEDS to get done. If the Governor thinks that some needed things were not done in the regular session he/she can call a special session with a well defined agenda and another time limit. Plus, the legislators only get paid while in session.
I think that would work quite well at the federal level. It would reduce the opportunity for empire building. It would also make going to D.C. less lucrative and return us to something more like the Founders' vision of CITIZEN legislators as opposed to professional politicians. It would also serve to keep the size, scope and cost of government in check as the congresspeople would have less opportunity to think up creative ways to p**s away our tax money.
Notice that each side of the aisle wants more power for the presidency when their guy is in power:
The republicans wanted the Patriot act, but dislike it when Obama uses it.
The Democrats would never have wanted Bush to have the sort of power that the article advocates.
Post a Comment