This guy gets it. It’s the inevitable result of the complete dysfunction in the Senate, its utter inability to pass legislation (that is popular and good for avg Americans, btw).
The Senate has become paralyzed, both by its arcane, arbitrary and outdated rules, and its structural inequity in representation.
This guy gets it. It’s the inevitable result of the complete dysfunction in the Senate, its utter inability to pass legislation (that is popular and good for avg Americans, btw).
The Senate has become paralyzed, both by its arcane, arbitrary and outdated rules, and its structural inequity in representation.
How can we expect any laws to pass when 40K people have the same influence as 40M?
Not to mention that R’s are unwilling to do anything but stymy a possible “D win”, and whose voters send them to DC with the express (and only) instruction to “own the libs”?
And let’s not forget the root of all evil, moneymoneymoney. Aside from
all the open purchase of influence, the PACs and dark money are calling the shots, not the voters. It makes me sick and ashamed that the average age and income of legislators are both way, WAY above the average citizen.
We’re not represented by fellow citizens impacted by their decisions; we have no input or influence unless we can shovel money at them, and they don’t even bother to hide that their sole motivation is holding onto power.
I wish I knew the solution- ideally I think it would be abolishing the Senate and creating a second House, or apportioning senators by population. It’s fundamentally broken to its core and needs to be replaced.
So, let me get this straight. When Congress fails or is unable to act in a way that the President wants, that gives the authority to the President to act?
Hell no! That's not the way our constitutional system works. Will it take a Trump second term for you to understand how dangerous this idea is?
Bush did it...Obama did it..we know Trump did it. EOs are not new. They aren't made up. They are legal unless deemed illegal by the judicial branch. If there is an illegal move here...bring the suit.
Two wrongs don't equal a right. I criticized Obama and other Presidents when they took this approach. It is an incredibly dangerous idea that Congressional inaction authorizes a President to act.
EOs are a legal method of enacting a policy by a president. The FBI was created by one. Presidents have a right to use them. The Congress can supersede them with laws. Don't miss the larger point here which is that a functional 3 branches of govt is needed. It does not exist right now. Call your congressional reps and tell them to act like a co equal branch of government!!
Absolutely. But that is not what they are arguing. They are saying if Congress doesn't act, the President can. In fact the President's power is completely unrelated to Congress'.
I agree with your points in general. However, the average of Senate is 62, House 56 - hardly old in today's world. And their income (for years now) is $174,000 for Congress, which is hardly astronomical. Now, their net worth is another story - most are multimillionaires. But as the saying goes, you get the government you deserve. Let's get real - how many younger people are able to sustain 2 households with kids in two different parts of the country? And give up whatever employment they once had? Not to mention the often paparazzi-type of media many have to contend with. Would you do it?
That said, yeah, the cap on the number of House members and the fact that representation in the Senate is grossly skewed are problems. The cap is a congressional fix; the representation is a constitutional issue. Neither are gonna happen as long as the current crop of Rs are around.
Probably neither is going to happen as long as one party benefits enough from the current system to stop change. Nevermind that it is one of the factors that is pulling threads out of our national fabric.
This guy gets it. It’s the inevitable result of the complete dysfunction in the Senate, its utter inability to pass legislation (that is popular and good for avg Americans, btw).
The Senate has become paralyzed, both by its arcane, arbitrary and outdated rules, and its structural inequity in representation.
How can we expect any laws to pass when 40K people have the same influence as 40M?
Not to mention that R’s are unwilling to do anything but stymy a possible “D win”, and whose voters send them to DC with the express (and only) instruction to “own the libs”?
And let’s not forget the root of all evil, moneymoneymoney. Aside from
all the open purchase of influence, the PACs and dark money are calling the shots, not the voters. It makes me sick and ashamed that the average age and income of legislators are both way, WAY above the average citizen.
We’re not represented by fellow citizens impacted by their decisions; we have no input or influence unless we can shovel money at them, and they don’t even bother to hide that their sole motivation is holding onto power.
I wish I knew the solution- ideally I think it would be abolishing the Senate and creating a second House, or apportioning senators by population. It’s fundamentally broken to its core and needs to be replaced.
Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
Hmmmm....so because Congress doesn't do what YOU want, WHEN you want it done, means the president can become a dictator?
Good to know that's how our government works.
(TED Talk: It doesn't work that way. Go take a civics class. End of TED Talk.)
I couldn't agree more. I can't believe people actually think this is okay especially in light of the fact the next president could be Donald Trump.
So, let me get this straight. When Congress fails or is unable to act in a way that the President wants, that gives the authority to the President to act?
Hell no! That's not the way our constitutional system works. Will it take a Trump second term for you to understand how dangerous this idea is?
Bush did it...Obama did it..we know Trump did it. EOs are not new. They aren't made up. They are legal unless deemed illegal by the judicial branch. If there is an illegal move here...bring the suit.
Two wrongs don't equal a right. I criticized Obama and other Presidents when they took this approach. It is an incredibly dangerous idea that Congressional inaction authorizes a President to act.
EOs are a legal method of enacting a policy by a president. The FBI was created by one. Presidents have a right to use them. The Congress can supersede them with laws. Don't miss the larger point here which is that a functional 3 branches of govt is needed. It does not exist right now. Call your congressional reps and tell them to act like a co equal branch of government!!
Absolutely. But that is not what they are arguing. They are saying if Congress doesn't act, the President can. In fact the President's power is completely unrelated to Congress'.
So....
If you rob a store, it's only illegal if you are found guilty in a court?
Interesting take on how the law works....
That is the stupidest thing I’ve heard since last week.
Someone “breaks into” my house, is taking my possessions, but they aren’t robbing me. Interesting logic you got there.
I guess if someone if found dead on the street with a knife in their head they weren’t “murdered” until the killer is convicted.
Your conflating a legal definition (which is a very narrow one) with a reality.
Life isn’t a courtroom.
If you think something is only illegal/immoral only when decided by a court…
A) you’re part of what’s wrong with America today and,
B) your moral compass is pretty jacked up.
Wrong is wrong. Illegal is illegal - even if you don’t get caught.
This should be an easy concept to grasp, but apparently it’s is difficult for a great many people - yourself included.
I agree with your points in general. However, the average of Senate is 62, House 56 - hardly old in today's world. And their income (for years now) is $174,000 for Congress, which is hardly astronomical. Now, their net worth is another story - most are multimillionaires. But as the saying goes, you get the government you deserve. Let's get real - how many younger people are able to sustain 2 households with kids in two different parts of the country? And give up whatever employment they once had? Not to mention the often paparazzi-type of media many have to contend with. Would you do it?
That said, yeah, the cap on the number of House members and the fact that representation in the Senate is grossly skewed are problems. The cap is a congressional fix; the representation is a constitutional issue. Neither are gonna happen as long as the current crop of Rs are around.
Probably neither is going to happen as long as one party benefits enough from the current system to stop change. Nevermind that it is one of the factors that is pulling threads out of our national fabric.
Amen brother! Doing away with the Citizens United Supreme Court decision might be a place to start to fix a broken legislative branch of govt.
I've also heard that bringing back earmarks might help. They weren't good, but it could be that their elimination was worse.