(03-05-2015 02:05 PM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2015 01:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]I think their biggest issue would be the fact we elect our senators, which aborted our entire system. The Federal system was not supposed to be a parallel system to the states or a highly politicized one, which it is today.
I think this has had enormous unintended negative effect, and current trends are to further shift power toward the national government by direct election of the President, which was also not what it was originally intended. I don't see that movement as nearly as harmful as direct election of Senators.
I think you could make a pretty strong argument that the experiment died with that.
You can also trace back the rise of the regulatory state to that point.
(03-05-2015 02:09 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2015 02:05 PM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2015 01:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]I think their biggest issue would be the fact we elect our senators, which aborted our entire system. The Federal system was not supposed to be a parallel system to the states or a highly politicized one, which it is today.
I think this has had enormous unintended negative effect, and current trends are to further shift power toward the national government by direct election of the President, which was also not what it was originally intended. I don't see that movement as nearly as harmful as direct election of Senators.
I think you could make a pretty strong argument that the experiment died with that.
You can also trace back the rise of the regulatory state to that point.
I agree. I've been convinced of that since hearing the author of a book on the subject nearly 20 years ago or so. My memory for detail (especially names) is not particularly good over that period, so I can't remember the guy's name any more, but I'm happy the idea has gained more traction recently.
(03-05-2015 02:18 PM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2015 02:09 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2015 02:05 PM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2015 01:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]I think their biggest issue would be the fact we elect our senators, which aborted our entire system. The Federal system was not supposed to be a parallel system to the states or a highly politicized one, which it is today.
I think this has had enormous unintended negative effect, and current trends are to further shift power toward the national government by direct election of the President, which was also not what it was originally intended. I don't see that movement as nearly as harmful as direct election of Senators.
I think you could make a pretty strong argument that the experiment died with that.
You can also trace back the rise of the regulatory state to that point.
I agree. I've been convinced of that since hearing the author of a book on the subject nearly 20 years ago or so. My memory for detail (especially names) is not particularly good over that period, so I can't remember the guy's name any more, but I'm happy the idea has gained more traction recently.
Those must have been the college drinking days.
(03-05-2015 02:08 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]That's a narrow restriction on the broad power of the President.
The President conducts foreign policy. Policy and treaty are two very distinct things.
The legislative branch has a very, very, narrow level of control in international affairs. It was framed that way.
Bringing foreign dignitaries in under these circumstances expands on the power and influence the legislative branch has, which, as I said, is extremely narrow.
Congress is not intended to play any part whatsoever in the conducting of foreign affairs and policy. Approving a treaty is a separate issue. The power of treaties is reactive while the power of the Executive in foreign policy is proactive.
The fact remains that the Administration is in the process of negotiating a treaty.
While the power of Congress is both reactive and narrow, that power has been rendered irrelevant by contemporary tradition and actions by both congress and the president.
And, it seems clear that those in Washington have no real respect for what they are supposed to be doing and mainly just do what they can, and expand their own power when they are able.
(03-05-2015 02:22 PM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2015 02:08 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]That's a narrow restriction on the broad power of the President.
The President conducts foreign policy. Policy and treaty are two very distinct things.
The legislative branch has a very, very, narrow level of control in international affairs. It was framed that way.
Bringing foreign dignitaries in under these circumstances expands on the power and influence the legislative branch has, which, as I said, is extremely narrow.
Congress is not intended to play any part whatsoever in the conducting of foreign affairs and policy. Approving a treaty is a separate issue. The power of treaties is reactive while the power of the Executive in foreign policy is proactive.
The fact remains that the Administration is in the process of negotiating a treaty.
While the power of Congress is both reactive and narrow, that power has been rendered irrelevant by contemporary tradition and actions by both congress and the president.
And, it seems clear that those in Washington have no real respect for what they are supposed to be doing and mainly just do what they can, and expand their own power when they are able.
Sounds like pretty much every administration since, well, forever.
(03-05-2015 02:22 PM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2015 02:08 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]That's a narrow restriction on the broad power of the President.
The President conducts foreign policy. Policy and treaty are two very distinct things.
The legislative branch has a very, very, narrow level of control in international affairs. It was framed that way.
Bringing foreign dignitaries in under these circumstances expands on the power and influence the legislative branch has, which, as I said, is extremely narrow.
Congress is not intended to play any part whatsoever in the conducting of foreign affairs and policy. Approving a treaty is a separate issue. The power of treaties is reactive while the power of the Executive in foreign policy is proactive.
The fact remains that the Administration is in the process of negotiating a treaty.
While the power of Congress is both reactive and narrow, that power has been rendered irrelevant by contemporary tradition and actions by both congress and the president.
And, it seems clear that those in Washington have no real respect for what they are supposed to be doing and mainly just do what they can, and expand their own power when they are able.
That is where things get really weird. There is a lot of reading on that idea. It also goes back to what I said about proactive and reactive. Congress is being proactive here which is outside their power. They are in the wrong.
Anyways, to the second highlighted portion, that is pretty much the problem. The entire government is looking to increase their control and influence and nobody seems to care about what that will look like in the future.
I blame a total breakdown in approach to our system which has been going on for the last 80 years.
(03-05-2015 02:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]Those must have been the college drinking days.
I wish I could use that excuse. It probably has more to do with chronic sleep deprivation and just something I'm not very good at. Thankfully, Google has replaced my need to recall details. I'm not sure I could've coped in a world without computers... I just have to do a lot of hand-waving at times.
I recently talked to a coach about applying SABR type metrics to soccer and had to kind of say this guy (Bill James) and these people on the internet (SABR) apply statistical analysis and wondered if they applied that to shoot versus pass situations (this was professional indoor soccer where the players take shots at crazy angles instead of passing, and I was talking to someone else about why they did that so much). I think the ability to recall names and details in conversation is probably a skill that I should've paid attention to long ago, or it's something that went by the wayside after getting hit in the head a few too many times...
(03-05-2015 02:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds like pretty much every administration since, well, forever.
Yes. I keep wanting to say that failing to respect the constitution is a new phenomenon, but it's not.
Certainly not a new phenomenon.
Also not a reason to passively dismiss constitutional violations, however.
(03-05-2015 01:34 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2015 04:26 PM)fsquid Wrote: [ -> ]It was a political speech for those back in Israel. However, once Susan Rice was trotted out there last weekend, it became twisted in our political machine. Great speech, but zero effect for those of us here.
Maybe it's just me, but wouldn't it have served Obama better to give that little speech himself, rather than have Rice give it?
If I was in their position, I would have ignored it, said Congress can invite whom they want to and let it go. Wouldn't have been news.
(03-05-2015 03:35 PM)fsquid Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2015 01:34 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2015 04:26 PM)fsquid Wrote: [ -> ]It was a political speech for those back in Israel. However, once Susan Rice was trotted out there last weekend, it became twisted in our political machine. Great speech, but zero effect for those of us here.
Maybe it's just me, but wouldn't it have served Obama better to give that little speech himself, rather than have Rice give it?
If I was in their position, I would have ignored it, said Congress can invite whom they want to and let it go. Wouldn't have been news.
Well to be fair this was a political move by Boehner and I see HOD's point and I wasn't aware of the Article in the constitution outlying the President's power to invite foreign ministers. I think I've become so numb to constitutional protocol since it has been ignored so often by both parties in both the executive and legislative branches.
(03-05-2015 02:35 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote: [ -> ]Certainly not a new phenomenon.
Also not a reason to passively dismiss constitutional violations, however.
I don't think anyone here is saying there was a violation by inviting Netanyahu. Everyone is saying that one party or another is an *******... in reality they all are.
(03-05-2015 02:22 PM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2015 02:08 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]That's a narrow restriction on the broad power of the President.
The President conducts foreign policy. Policy and treaty are two very distinct things.
The legislative branch has a very, very, narrow level of control in international affairs. It was framed that way.
Bringing foreign dignitaries in under these circumstances expands on the power and influence the legislative branch has, which, as I said, is extremely narrow.
Congress is not intended to play any part whatsoever in the conducting of foreign affairs and policy. Approving a treaty is a separate issue. The power of treaties is reactive while the power of the Executive in foreign policy is proactive.
The fact remains that the Administration is in the process of negotiating a treaty.
While the power of Congress is both reactive and narrow, that power has been rendered irrelevant by contemporary tradition and actions by both congress and the president.
And, it seems clear that those in Washington have no real respect for what they are supposed to be doing and mainly just do what they can, and expand their own power when they are able.
with this, there is little doubt in my mind....
I do believe '0' has good intentions....I just don't think he knows how to implement and negotiate properly....that is what I witness to be his overall weakness...he is a very poor leader.....Jimmy Carter is the best comparison I can come with....
(03-05-2015 04:19 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]with this, there is little doubt in my mind....
I do believe '0' has good intentions....I just don't think he knows how to implement and negotiate properly....that is what I witness to be his overall weakness...he is a very poor leader.....Jimmy Carter is the best comparison I can come with....
He has intentions and is a very poor leader. He had never displayed the leadership qualities nor experience that you would demand from a president of the United States.
On that, we should all be able to agree.
(03-05-2015 05:15 PM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2015 04:19 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]with this, there is little doubt in my mind....
I do believe '0' has good intentions....I just don't think he knows how to implement and negotiate properly....that is what I witness to be his overall weakness...he is a very poor leader.....Jimmy Carter is the best comparison I can come with....
He has intentions and is a very poor leader. He had never displayed the leadership qualities nor experience that you would demand from a president of the United States.
On that, we should all be able to agree.
what really sucks about that??.....the reds knew it beforehand and didn't exploit it....and they whiffed it again in rd 2.....
politics.....it's become tmz policy at this point....just another reason I cannot watch the 'news' networks.....