realguyusa
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2002
- Posts
- 108
Colleen Thomas said:I do believe in Santa and the Easterbunny and stubborly refuse to let anyone sway me from that opinionBut I agree with you on honest politicians.
Honestly I don't know exactly what they tried to impeach Clinton for. I was very anti-Clinton, but I didn't ecpect them to succeeed. I know Clinton comited perjury and I think that should have had some repercussion, but apparently it didn't. My annnotation about high crimes and misdermeanors is jut that, an annotation of what the phrase origianlly stood for, I don't even pretend it's defensible today as what it is construed to mean or in the way self serving people try to define it.
Noone is saying that podunk should have as big a say on who is president as NYC. I didn't advocate that. But by direct democracy Podunk has no say and I don't advocate that either. I am well aware that most of those 8 million aren't redgistered voters or of voting age or simply don't vote. The same could be said of the states I named, more's the pity.
My whole point about large cities isn't that they are trying to take over, it's just that in a direct vote they would be the only group that mattered. Why even campaign in Nebraska, Kansas, Mississippi, or any other under populalted state when I can spend my war chest on adverts in the only area's I need to carry to win. The current format makes a candidate pay attention to and attempt to gain the support of the broadest crossection of views. He needs to carry the majority in several different states and he can't do so by simply pandering to one group.
While direct democracy would better represent the will of the majority, it would do so at the cost of representing the widest range of views. In efffect it would render megligible the legitimate concerns of many citizens and remove them from the process. In efect you are saying, if you live in North Dakota you can vote, but if you aren't voting for the candidate who is campaigning strictly to the urban populace your vote means nothing.
Basically the 2000 people in Podunk shouldn't have the same impact as the 8 million in NY, but they should feel that they have the same opportunity to have their vote determine who ispresident. After florida every voter now has to believe that in a close race, his or her state could turn the tide one way or another. I don't see that as bad.
-Colly
I hope you don't mind if I weigh in with an opinion. I agree with Colly on this, and would like to offer a different slant that you may wish to consider.
Senator Byrd (D-WV) took to the floor of the Senate recently to decry the constitutional ineptness of the House and Senate pertaining to their constititional duties. He was specifically speaking about the Omnibus spending bill. With pocket constitition in trembling hands, he chastised the body for partisan lock step voting with the executive branch. He rightly stated that constitutionally, the Congress controls the purse strings and is not required to quell debate on any issue, just because the President wants it. He referenced a call from Clinton, Johnson, Nixon, Truman (who he didn't like due to his vulgar language in public) and others where he refused to abdicate his constitutional duties and would not vote for issues along party lines.
The Congress is the constitutional body of the people. The President has limited powers under the constitution. However, it seems that in recent years, Congress has engaged in partisan politics without regard to the constitutional duties they are sworn to protect, from enemies both foreign and domestic. It would seem that we are so divided along party ideology that we have forgotten the constitutional responsibilities of our elected officials, including the President.