WaPo Really Asking The Hard Questions
(media.communities.win)
Comments (31)
sorted by:
Unfortunately, I don't think it is enough. If we still had a government operating on the principals of individual freedom and self determination that would be true, but with the massive number of laws on the books that infringe on these principles, and the massive disparity in the amount of force the government can bring to bear compared to an individual, we need the Republicans (or some group in government) to actively be nullifying these infringements and restoring the balance of power to where it should be.
People talk about term limits for politicians, but what I'd like to see is term limits for laws.
Imagine if there was an amendment nullifying every law that isn't revoted for 10 years. Sure there would be giant omnibus bills that reupped everything, but at least there would be a process that could remove cruft. Is it really that much easier to hide stuff in a 20,000 page reauthorize than a 2000 page omnibus budget? Maybe a little but it's not like congressmen are actually reading these things anyway.
Maybe it would also make it easier to get rid of old good stuff like Sherman Antitrust, but with it not being enforced anyway maybe it's better to not even have it on the books pretending to be protecting us.
Both this and an amendment stating that bills must cover ONE topic only, no extraneous attachments, and be read in full out loud by the presenter before being voted on.
Forcing the sponsor to read any bills they propose (probably three times, maybe four; once to introduce to committee, once as amended in committee, once before the whole body as amended out of committee, and once before the whole body as amended from the floor) would be great, but I'd add the stipulation (as suggested in my other post) that if a congress critter isn't present for at least the entire final reading, they can't vote on the bill.
Make it so they cant vote yes. They may still vote no on bills they haven't read. Dont need to listen to everything to know something is a pile of shit.
I don't think that's really necessary, because as I understand it bills are passed based on the total number of 'Yes' votes, not the ratio of 'Yes' to 'No' votes. If you want to make what is functionally only a a political statement against a bill as a representative, I think you should be required to be aware of the content of that bill.
Requiring (most) laws to sunset if not passed again sounds like a brilliant idea, and I'm not sure there are any arguments against it beyond "it would just cause more gridlock in congress" (which I would generally consider to be a good thing) or "people would work around it so it'd be moot", but if there are I would love to see them.
The workaround to this (and other issues) is to ban bills greater than a certain length, and/or actually require the contents to be read by/in the presence of every congress critter before a vote (rather than allowing congress to waive those requirements.)
Awesome! so when dems or rinos are in power, every law protecting the people would be repealed.
Smart law.
The key laws protecting the people are the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which I would assume would be exempt from automatic repeal (or I wouldn't support the system), along with any other constitutional amendment. What additional legal protections do you think are needed (at least from the Federal government)?
They cant even do that right.
Everyone saw the 2020 steal from a mile away and they did nothing until it was too late.
Almost like they were in on it.
That isn't nearly enough.
One wing of the turkey is useless and the other is malicious.
Maybe instead of figuring out which one we will vote for, we should just have Thanksgiving.
I remember Biden’s campaign platform clearly. “I’m not Trump.”
That’s it. That was the single issue they rallied behind. They certainly couldn’t list the destruction of America by destroying the supply chain and economy and importing millions of foreigners. That wouldn’t play well with the independents.
Truth, Justice, and the American Way. And not the new pansy-ass American Way, but the old American Way, with hookers and blow.
Well the smart play is to run on lift lockdowns and stop inflation.
Kind of agree. The GOP at the federal level are a bunch of cucked feckless RINOs. Vote them out in the primaries.
An unborn child's right to life. Next question?
link
Oh shit. I actually know that author.
did you meet her when she was talkig to your manager?
No. Don't want to dox myself, so let's just say that I used to know that family a while back.
Urgh. I'm going to have to defend McConnell.
To be fair to McConnell, what he gets up to after the mid-terms depends on what he gets in the mid-terms, does it not?
If it's a red wave that overwhelms the filibuster, the sky is the limit (although it's McConnell, I very much doubt you will see the US turned into an Ancap paradise by the time Biden's up for re-election). If he gets 52 seats, he's necessarily got to be more cautious, no?
Also who he gets. If I'm being charitable to McConnell, looking at who is elected and what platform they ran on should inform his legislative priorities, so they best reflect the ideals of the voters the members of his party represent. Uncharitably, from a practical perspective, there are certain issues that are divisive even within the Republican party, and if he gets a narrow majority he will have difficulty getting them passed (much as you said.)
TrUmPF TRUMpf TRumpF trumpF TRuMPF TRuMPF tRUMpf trumPf TRuMpf truMpf TrUmpf tRUMpf tRumPF tRumPF TRumpf trUMpF TRUmPF TrUmpF TrUmpF trUMPf trumPf TRUmpF trUMpf TruMPF TRUmpF trUMPF truMpf TruMpF TrUMPF TRuMpf TRUmPf tRuMpf TRUmpF TRumpf trumpF Trumpf TRUMpF truMPF TrUMPf TruMpf TRUmpF TruMpf
People actually read this thinking: "Please tell me how to think". Rags like this are for elites to signal their sycophants the next PC opinion they will be required to espouse to advance at their San Francisco job
You can apply this to any identity group that functions as a political bloc (blacks, jews, muslims, etc.)
Women was literally the sole point of TI1's statement. I merely pointed out that while he was correct, he was once again being a bit monomaniacal about his pet issue.