USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
- Status
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
I always liked "Polyamory is wrong - it's a sinful mixture of Greek and Latin roots!" (should be polyphilia or multiamory)
True enough.
I always liked "Polyamory is wrong - it's a sinful mixture of Greek and Latin roots!" (should be polyphilia or multiamory)
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
The government would just exempt themselves from the rules they pass, as they have done in the past.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Sounds like a clear-cut need for a Constitutional amendment: any laws passed by Congress must also apply to Congress!
Sounds like a clear-cut need for a Constitutional amendment: any laws passed by Congress must also apply to Congress!
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
You'd never get it passed by 2/3 of each house. However if 2/3 of the states say it must be so via a constitutional convention, then it is so.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
According to Wikipedia there have been about 700 applications for an Article V convention, two of which (1969 and 1982) almost succeeded. In all seriousness, I hope that never happens. The Constitution rewritten by today's numbnuts would be the worst political document ever authored.
After a direct planetary collision or spontaneous generation of a black hole, a constitutional convention is the third event that could actually destroy the United States.
According to Wikipedia there have been about 700 applications for an Article V convention, two of which (1969 and 1982) almost succeeded. In all seriousness, I hope that never happens. The Constitution rewritten by today's numbnuts would be the worst political document ever authored.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Absolutely. Switzerland did a complete re-write of their constitution in 1999 and ended up with this monstrosity. 197 articles in all, including such vital topics as development schedules of rail projects, that people should be protected against abuse of genetic technology, limits on the amount of tax that can be levied on casinos, the amount of toll charged to foreign trucks using Swiss roads, etc.
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
"The US Constitution, as authored by lobbyists."
Yeah, fark that.
"The US Constitution, as authored by lobbyists."
Yeah, fark that.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
why do you think it would be completely rewritten when what most people want is one simple thing: if Congress passes a law, Congress cannot exempt itself from said law?
If PPACA is so great, why did they exempt themselves?
If insider trading is so bad, why did they exempt themselves until recently?
If self-dealing is so bad for corporate pension plans, why is it okay for the Social Security Trust Fund?
If fiduciaries have a "prudent investment rule" why is the Social Security Administration allowed to invest 100% in only one security?
and on and on and on....
why do you think it would be completely rewritten when what most people want is one simple thing: if Congress passes a law, Congress cannot exempt itself from said law?
If PPACA is so great, why did they exempt themselves?
If insider trading is so bad, why did they exempt themselves until recently?
If self-dealing is so bad for corporate pension plans, why is it okay for the Social Security Trust Fund?
If fiduciaries have a "prudent investment rule" why is the Social Security Administration allowed to invest 100% in only one security?
and on and on and on....
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
The common legal belief is that there is no way to limit a constitutional convention called by the states. It could easily devolve into a free for all.
The common legal belief is that there is no way to limit a constitutional convention called by the states. It could easily devolve into a free for all.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
And anyway there is a much better method, that used for all prior amendments. You do need 2/3rds of both the Senate and House, but put it this way... if you ever actually got it to a floor vote, what legislator is going to vote it down and then tell his constituents "yeah, I voted to bar exempting myself from the laws we pass." That is not a winning message. Or if it is a winning message then the amendment is not what the people want.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/08/congress-exempted-from-obamacare/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/08/congress-exempted-from-obamacare/
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Problem is, absent a huge outcry from the public, the powers that be in Congress would never let this get out there for a floor vote. And I doubt most of the public has enough of an attention span to clue in on this issue and express their concerns to their representatives.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Another thing that would help is an incendiary scandal. That's what brought down franking privileges, which everybody always said would never happen since it was the incumbents' ticket to re-election.
At least a significant faction within one party would have to make a concerted effort to bring it to public attention. It seems like the sort of thing the Tea Party was born for.
Another thing that would help is an incendiary scandal. That's what brought down franking privileges, which everybody always said would never happen since it was the incumbents' ticket to re-election.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
And Kepler, most of the Congre$$ is bullet-proof. 90% of them could get away with voting for a tax on TV watching (the more you watch, the more you pay) and get returned to office with a supermajority of the votes.
Good find! Until the Congre$$ tucks into some meaningless bill a section that voids Section 1312 of the ACA. After all, they had to read it to see what was in it. And, as a participant of FEHBA, I like FEHBA, and want to keep my health plan. Right, Mr. President?
And Kepler, most of the Congre$$ is bullet-proof. 90% of them could get away with voting for a tax on TV watching (the more you watch, the more you pay) and get returned to office with a supermajority of the votes.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
You mean you think the Tea Party could do something positive? I can't believe my ears (or eyes)!
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Sure, they COULD. Doesn't mean they will.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Touche!Sure, they COULD. Doesn't mean they will.
- Status