On October 20th, 2009 at 3:33 pm, WarTip said: #827457

OK. I think we are good. No doubt we will engage again. My hope is that we share with one another when we agree, and disagree.

The FF wanted states to have a lot of control over the national government, so people would vote for legistatures and then senators would be named. By allowing direct election, states were bypassed, reducing them even more, to obscurity in running the country.

Also why we must resist the backdoor attempts to nullify the Electoral College system. With (Liberal) states trying to pass laws to award electors based on who wins the national popular vote, rather than who won the vote in their states, they are subverting the intent of the Founders.

On October 20th, 2009 at 3:01 pm, John Deaux said: My personal favorite was the CAD operators who caused voluminous data dumps when their machines crashed. Of course, every once in a while they would forget to clean up after themselves and the dumps never got caught on the way to the printer. Imagine the look on the new employee’s face when we showed up with 4-7 boxes of paper.

I do not have to imagine it … the face you saw was mine.

On October 20th, 2009 at 2:24 pm, zyzzyg said: There might be an uproar, and that remains to be seen.

There has been, there is now and there will continue to be. Your inability or refusal to see or admit to it does not mean that it does not exist.

Will MM cover the the process of this other legislation? I don’t know, the question again was rhetorical. And, she is just one person.

As am I only one person and despite the Army’s new campaign slogan, I think we all realize and freely admit the weakness of an army of one. However, the fact that we do not march arm in arm, goose-stepping down the rue (that would be street or avenue to you “commoners” in Amerika) does not mean that we should remain unheard and certainly does not mean that we can be summarily dismissed.

Dare I ask? Do you march arm in arm with your entire party simply because they speak with a voice that is louder than your “One voice” that emanates from you as an individual or do you dare to stand your ground whether alone or with a band of brothers when your honor, your duty and your sense of right and wrong is questioned? It is easy to hide in the middle of a pack but not so easy to stand on the edges and guard against the rabid wolves.

I have visited your site and have bookmarked it. There is quite a bit there and I will take my time to read through it.

I would appreciate it. If by chance, I am incorrect in some points (which is not altogether unlikely) I should not know it were someone not to point it out to me. I do, in all sincerity, welcome discourse … especially when it is relevant to the topic at hand and not towing some party line that elects to stereotype all of us as equals and a mass rather than individuals. I shall look forward to discussions as you have time and would (believe it or not) value your thoughts, ideas and opinions.

Finally, I am not discussing right or wrong, or for that matter partisanship. I am discussing process and understanding it.

But that is exactly the problem. It does not matter if it is a bi-partisan effort or simply a single individual attempting to bypass the regulatory limitations set forth within the constitution, it remains contrary to the supreme law of the land. There is right and there is wrong but there are very few shades of gray. Unfortunately, we have many among us on both sides of the aisle who would gladly submit in the name of compromise. You have taken the time to examine points carefully. You have taken time to look before you leap. In all reality, I would say that we have every bit as much in common as we do to contest with one another … though I feel that both would be equally enjoyable and beneficial … in a mutual regard.

MM mentions, or uses, the phrase ‘behind closed doors’ and it solicits emotions, but does not elaborate on the process that has existed for, I’ll say it again, some 220 plus years. Intellectual honesty requires telling the entire story. Having all this emotional energy absent the facts is disingenuous.

The long time practice of going behind closed doors to combine bills, and not saying so, is a sin of ommission.

And again I contest that this has been the steady practice for 220 years. Granted, it did not take long for the weaknesses in our constitution to be exploited and the likes of Madison and Jay to be openly mocked by the likes of Henry, Adams and Jefferson due to the new American Aristocracy to be granted carte blanche with our new system.

As long as only those with a vested interest in the success of our nation were granted a right to vote, nobody could vote themselves “pay raises” through social welfare. As long as Senators remained protective of and servants to their respective states, no state’s individual powers could be usurped. Davy Crockett left for Texas due to the inability of our cackle of congress critters to heed our founding fathers and our constitution. Likewise, I pay homage to no political party. However, I do recognize the subtle yet severe distinctions between a republic and a democracy and I have watched in horror as our nation has been labeled and run as a democracy when such was never the intent and severely impedes her chances of survival as a nation, much less as a world power.

I fail to see how the direct election of Senators, by the people, made the federal government more centralized and more controlling.

It took away more of the states’ power and influence and gave it to the government. The FF wanted states to have a lot of control over the national government, so people would vote for legistatures and then senators would be named. By allowing direct election, states were bypassed, reducing them even more, to obscurity in running the country.

On October 20th, 2009 at 2:13 pm, WarTip said:

Hahahahaha In a really odd sort of way, that does bring some comfort to me and also made me laugh.

My personal favorite was the CAD operators who caused voluminous data dumps when their machines crashed. Of course, every once in a while they would forget to clean up after themselves and the dumps never got caught on the way to the printer. Imagine the look on the new employee’s face when we showed up with 4-7 boxes of paper.

On October 20th, 2009 at 11:45 am, WarTip said: #827228

Yes there will be, whether or not it involves the federalization of a major portion of the entire national economy. (And yeah, if you look at my site, you look at my history and you look at my involvement, you will discover that I have p’d off dems and reps alike with this) It is not a partisan matter but a matter of right and wrong.

There might be an uproar, and that remains to be seen.

How many pieces of legislation are working through the Congress now? I don’t know, the question was rhetorical. Will MM cover the the process of this other legislation? I don’t know, the question again was rhetorical. And, she is just one person.

We will see if this much attention is given to every bill that goes to conference committee, and behind closed doors.

I have visited your site and have bookmarked it. There is quite a bit there and I will take my time to read through it.

Finally, I am not discussing right or wrong, or for that matter partisanship. I am discussing process and understanding it.

MM mentions, or uses, the phrase ‘behind closed doors’ and it solicits emotions, but does not elaborate on the process that has existed for, I’ll say it again, some 220 plus years. Intellectual honesty requires telling the entire story. Having all this emotional energy absent the facts is disingenuous.

The long time practice of going behind closed doors to combine bills, and not saying so, is a sin of ommission.

On October 20th, 2009 at 1:35 pm, John Deaux said: I can assure you that just as you cursed the technology, we cursed you.

Hahahahaha In a really odd sort of way, that does bring some comfort to me and also made me laugh. It is good to know that we made it through that though and if those are the biggest obstacles we face in life, perhaps the future will not be so bad. If they are not … well we will just have to see what we see when this Obamanation begins coming to fruition.

On October 20th, 2009 at 11:42 am, WarTip said: #827221

Yes, the constitution has been improved by amendments. In some instances.

Agreed.

No, I do not like the seventeenth amendment precisely for the reason you mentioned. The Senate was not created to be representative of the people but to be representative of the states and their individual rights above and beyond that of the federal government expressly to prohibit a centralization of power in the federal body.

Ummmm, OK. Though I much prefer the direct election, by the people, of Senators, instead of Senators being appointed by each State’s legislatures.

The AMENDED constitution is being followed but not in the manner, much less to the letter or in the spirit in which it was written as evidenced by numerous writings from our founding fathers. Again, this particular amendment has allowed the federal government to become more centralized and more controlling and to hold states hostage … and now we the people as well through the use of legislation (that is often arbitrarily enforced)

There are too many opinions that went into the Constitution to follow, or be governed by. Yes, the spirit of a Northerner will be different from the spirit of a Souterner. Whose spirit, or letter, do we follow?

I prefer to follow the Constitution as it exists. That is not to say that the written word of the various contributors should be diminished.

Did, or didn’t, Senators and Representatives (even before the 17th Amendment) meet to combine bills from two different committees? Were those meetings behind closed doors?

I fail to see how the direct election of Senators, by the people, made the federal government more centralized and more controlling. If anything it took control of who went to the Senate from fewer people (a couple of hundred in any State’s Legislature) to more people (the entire State’s population). The popular election of US Senators was de-centralized.

If the bills are to be combined, the resulting “conglomeration” (though that is certainly not the first term that came to mind) should be put to a vote as an entirely new and comprehensive bill in both houses. A failure to do so means that all of “our” “representatives” failed to vote on the final bill.

Ummmm, that is exactly what will happen. Once the bills are combined, the one bill will come to the floor of that chamber.

Guess what? The House bill and the Senate bill might be markedly different. Those two bills will go to a conference committee consisting of House and Senate members.

Do you know where this will happen? Yep, behind closed doors. The result will be a single bill, which . . . yes, will return to each chamber to be voted on. If passed, that bill will go to the President’s desk for signature.

Pre-Seventeenth Amendmant and post Seventeenth Amendment this is how bills become law. The bill whatever it’s final form after coming from behind closed doors is always, always, always voted on by each chamber. And, when I say voted on, I mean there is debate before the vote, especially in the Senate.

That is our system. That is the way it has always worked. This is our process. Again, I ask, why all of a sudden this hub-bub?

If you are in any “democratic” organization and something is proposed, when that is voted on, is it for that specifically or for “what your org leaders deem to be what you meant … to be decided at a later date”? The facts remain that if the bill(s) is/are changed, they are not the bills that are voted on.

Yes, I understand that if an indvidual supported a provision that did not make it through the conference committee, they might be “wee wee’d.” Like it or not, that is our system, and it has worked for us. It is often referred to as ‘sausage making.’ The good thing is that the individual who lost their provision will get to vote on the final form of the bill.

Tangentially, since none of the bills are read, perhaps it makes no real difference but that still does not make it proper, correct or legal.

The bills are read. Maybe not by any, or all, elected representative, but the bills are read. How could they be written if they weren’t read? Yep, our representatives rely on their staffs. And, the committees rely on their staffs.

When the two bills are combined, they become a new and unique bill and should be voted on as such.

Are you familiar with our system and the process? Each time any bill arrives from where ever it comes from, whether from the various committes, or from behind closed doors, it is voted on by each chamber.

And, the Senate has great rules that allows for amendments to any bill, when that bill is debated on the floor of that chamber. Maybe that dropped provision will get put back into the bill.

I appreciate the fact that you took the time to look up the seventeenth amendment but if you research the original intent of the Constitution and our (Constitutionally Guaranteed) Republican form of government (and you may notice they never once mentioned a democracy) you will also note that the reason the senators were elected in a different manner was to provide a buffer for the states and to protect we the people from an out of control congress.

Yes, OK. But, that has nothing to do with the process of how a bill becomes law.

It cannot be about intent. There are some fifty odd signers to the Constitution, and each of them had their own intent. Whose intent do we follow? Just follow the Constitution as it exists. Far more simpler, far more direct, and far more consistent.

On October 20th, 2009 at 12:04 pm, WarTip said:
On October 20th, 2009 at 11:49 am, rocketman said:
I did data dumps. They would bring cases of dot matrix printer paper to my desk full of

00101101 11001011 00101001

and I would sit there with my green card and curse the day technology came out.

As someone who worked their way through college in a printer room feeding cases of green bar through printers, I can assure you that just as you cursed the technology, we cursed you.

Philip Klein provides the following graph showing how the Senate Finance Committee has backloaded the costs for its health care “reform” package:

Obviously, the bill attempts to keep the costs down until most Dem incumbents, including Obam…