These are the people who represent you

[GoldenRivet]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rep-john-lewis-cites-pursuit-of-happiness-as-justification-for-health-care-mandate/

"this might be funny if it were some stranger walking the street on Jay Leno's Jay Walking"

[mookiemookie]

This always irks me

FTFA:

Finally, though, Lewis’s statement begs the question: what happens of many people’s “pursuit of happiness” doesn’t include buying health insurance

No, you EEJITS! It doesn't BEG the question, is RAISES the question. Learn the difference.

[Platapus]

That is a commonly misused term. :yep:

It aint the way to speak English good.

[Kaye T. Bai]

Somebody slept through grade school history class.

[Platapus]

Uh Representative Lewis. The Pursuit of Happiness aint in the Constitution. It happens to be in the Declaration of Independence. The DOI may be an important historical document, it is not a legal document and really has no legal standing as a source of "rights".

Now if he wanted to reference "Promote the General Welfare" he might have a point.

Why can't we have a test on the constitution that all our congresscritters must pass?

Doctors need to be certified, lawyers need to be certified. But congresscritters, probably the most powerful group of people in the nation.....no test.

[Kaye T. Bai]

Doctors need to be certified, lawyers need to be certified. But congresscritters, probably the most powerful group of people in the nation... no test.

That's what scares me. :o

[UnderseaLcpl]

Now if he wanted to reference "Promote the General Welfare" he might have a point.
I've never understood that argument from either a legal or a philosophical perspective. It hardly seems likely that the founders, after arriving at a compromise that took so many steps to limit the national government by granting it only the enumerated powers, would then throw one thing in there that you can cram anything through.

In any other legal argument, that would never fly because it is obviously contrary to the intent of the law, but it's allowed as justification for legislation because legal precedent was set by two major cases - Marbury v Madison and Missouri v Holland, neither one of which makes any damn sense whatsoever as far as judgements are concerned, but were supported by propnents of the "Living Constitution", even though the term itself wasn't coined until the 1920's, I think.

The argument is that the Constitution was intended to be a document that would maintain contemporary relevance, and that is true, but that's why there is an amendment process. There's also a good reason why that process is so difficult. I simply cannot fathom how any reasonable person would believe that the concepts of "enumerated powes" and "all other powers not listed belong to the states and the people" leave some kind of room for interpretation unless they just don't care what the Constitution says and are too short on integrity to just say it.


Why can't we have a test on the constitution that all our congresscritters must pass?

Most of them would pass it. Most of them are legal professionals who know damn well what the constitution stipulates because constitutional law is a required area of study for just about any legal subset, unless you're specializing in foreign law or something. Even with this knowledge, they are still possessed of the desire to use our founding principles as a doormat because the system rewards them for doing things that make them popular and well-funded; like giving free stuff to idiots with a vote and helping lobbyists for companies that are too immoral and/or worthless to compete properly.

Even worse, then congress would be limited to lawyers, and we have a preponderance of them as it is.


Doctors need to be certified, lawyers need to be certified. But congresscritters, probably the most powerful group of people in the nation.....no test.
I think I have a good test for them. I suggest that we take away all their power except what is specifically enumerated, and then we pass a balanced-budget amendment that requires them to stay in the black and also limits taxation except in cases of war or national distress. I'd even be happy to accept current levels of taxation with the exception of the corporate tax, which needs to be way lower, or better yet, gone. The market is powerful, and the day will come when the standard of living outpaces the tax rate, just as long as it doesn't get higher and the dollar isn't destroyed by abundance and bad credit.

That would keep them honest because nobody is going to throw money or time at a Congressman who has no power other than that which is already clearly outlined and has no money to give out. Problem solved.

As long as I'm dreaming, I'd also throw in a requirement that any congressperson who votes for war must have at least one serving immediate family member in combat arms, abdicate and enlist themselves, or have no family at all. That ought to fix the whole "uneccesarry wars and international resentment" problem in about 5 seconds flat.

Finally, I'd pay them more. Quite a bit more. Yeah, you just heard me say that. Good salaries attract good, skilled workers, and we need them. Even better, they discourage attempts to find other sources of income. My hope is that the increased pay will offset the loss of power and that some actually skilled and properly motivated civil servants will be incentivized to throw their hats in the ring. Good companies pay exorbitant sums for CEOs because there is no other way to attract competent people. We could use a Warren Buffet or two at the helm of a newly efficasized (hmm..that's not a word, is it?:oops:) national government.

Of course, were it in my power, I'd probably do even more, such as abolishing a lot of expensive agencies that do little for what we pay for them and aren't constitutionally mandated. No entitlements, I think, not without more reform. I'd abolish the Fed, for sure.

Not ever going to happen, but I think that overall this is a really good plan, though I'm not sure on the pay part. Maybe a new system of districting and losing the "winner-takes-all" system would achieve the same result at less cost. No test required and no twisting of the law feasible; the system gets the right people into power with minimal effort involved, and even if it breaks, they can't do much harm.

[TLAM Strike]

As long as I'm dreaming, I'd also throw in a requirement that any congressperson who votes for war must have at least one serving immediate family member in combat arms, abdicate and enlist themselves, or have no family at all. That ought to fix the whole "uneccesarry wars and international resentment" problem in about 5 seconds flat.

Stop me if I've mentioned this before but have you read For us the living? In that book any vote for war (except in case of the US being attacked) must be voted on by all citizens. If the resolution passes those who voted 'Yes' are required to volunteer, those of abstain are the second wave of draftees, and those who voted 'No' are the third wave of draftees. Under that system the US never declared war on anyone (although it fought a few defensive wars, one against Brazil I think).

[Armistead]

Uh Representative Lewis. The Pursuit of Happiness aint in the Constitution. It happens to be in the Declaration of Independence. The DOI may be an important historical document, it is not a legal document and really has no legal standing as a source of "rights".

Now if he wanted to reference "Promote the General Welfare" he might have a point.

Why can't we have a test on the constitution that all our congresscritters must pass?

Doctors need to be certified, lawyers need to be certified. But congresscritters, probably the most powerful group of people in the nation.....no test.

Sarah Palin proved that point...

[UnderseaLcpl]

Stop me if I've mentioned this before but have you read For us the living?
I know you haven't mentioned it to me, personally. I think I may have read it but that would have been years ago. I don't even remember what it was about. In all honesty, I thought you were referring to "We, the Living" for a second, there.



In that book any vote for war (except in case of the US being attacked) must be voted on by all citizens. If the resolution passes those who voted 'Yes' are required to volunteer, those of abstain are the second wave of draftees, and those who voted 'No' are the third wave of draftees. Under that system the US never declared war on anyone (although it fought a few defensive wars, one against Brazil I think).


Okay, I redact my previous statement. I never read that book. I had to look it up to see what you were talking about. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen it, but it doesn't surprise me that someone like Heinlein would come up with a similar idea long before I ever did. But it isn't as if I didn't steal most of my favorite ideas from other people. I just didn't steal them from Heinlein in this case.

My only problem with it is Heinlein's idea it is that it is addressing the problem in a bass-ackwards way. We already have an all-volunteer force, and it is the most elite military in the world in terms of total force. There is absolutely no need to call up draftees, and conscripts are usually garbage anyway. It takes someone who is not both just willing and ready to fight, but also educated enough to make a good soldier. By contrast, making the politicians sacrifice something from the outset ensures that only very just wars will be fought, and they will have a plentiful supply of recruits who are both dedicated and willing to die for ideals, not just ASVAB-waivers and droputs recruited from the dregs of society that joined because they were too stupid or had no alternative.

I'd rather that the recruiting requirements were more strict and that the military was a more professional force, and you get that automatically when force requirements are met by quality instead of quantity, something which naturally happens when politicians are reluctant to engineer wars.

[TLAM Strike]

My only problem with it is Heinlein's idea it is that it is addressing the problem in a bass-ackwards way. We already have an all-volunteer force, and it is the most elite military in the world in terms of total force. There is absolutely no need to call up draftees, and conscripts are usually garbage anyway. Well that book was written in a different era. It was written just before WWII where the general idea of the military was to have a tiny standing force (mostly reservists) augmented by conscripts after war broke out.

[CaptainHaplo]

Doctors need to be certified, lawyers need to be certified. But congresscritters, probably the most powerful group of people in the nation.....no test.

Yea - but what would we certify em as??????

I vote for :88)

[TarJak]

Me no. I'm stuck with these jerks:

http://www.nma.gov.au/shared/libraries/images/exhibitions/behind_the_lines_2010/icarus/unitedalp480w/files/34977/UnitedALP480w.jpg

[Platapus]

.....conscripts are usually garbage anyway.

I am sure our Korean War and Viet Nam veterans appreciate that attitude. :nope:

I can only speak for myself, but I have the utmost respect for our conscripts. They served their country when they were needed and served it honourably.

Ps. Thanks for calling my Father and my Uncles garbage.

[Blood_splat]

My father was a conscript and didn't want to crawl into VC tunnels anymore then the guy who enlisted and volunteered to fight in Vietnam.

[Growler]

Korea, Vietnam - and WW2.

Remember that whole "draft" thing? Yeah - that there's conscription, sports fans.

Those lads were far from worthless.

To be totally frank, if you're a lawyer, that should be an automatic DIS-qualification for political office beyond Governor of a state. I don't want LAWYERS in Congress. Hell no, I want plumbers, HVAC guys, carpenters, small business owners, steamfitters, and yeah, soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. Forget the white collar special interest toadies. I want people in there who know how to FIX shtuff for everyone's benefit.


And while I'm dreaming, can I have a good American beer, too?

[Platapus]

To be totally frank, if you're a lawyer, that should be an automatic DIS-qualification for political office beyond Governor of a state. I don't want LAWYERS in Congress. Hell no, I want plumbers, HVAC guys, carpenters, small business owners, steamfitters, and yeah, soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. Forget the white collar special interest toadies. I want people in there who know how to FIX shtuff for everyone's benefit.




I don't know if I would go that far. Congress is the Legislative Branch and I do want my congresscritters to have education and experience in making legislation.

What exactly is a plumber going to use to help him or her make a decision on legislation? I don't want "your average joe" running this country. Congress is not an entry level job.

The solution is to start electing the right people with the right experience to the position. Not someone who has a letter after their name.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I am sure our Korean War and Viet Nam veterans appreciate that attitude. :nope:

I can only speak for myself, but I have the utmost respect for our conscripts. They served their country when they were needed and served it honourably.

Ps. Thanks for calling my Father and my Uncles garbage.


Hmmm.... yes, poor choice of words on my part. You have my sincere apology for that.:oops:

I didn't mean to imply that conscripts were not good people or that their sacrifices were any less worthy than those of volunteers. However, it is a pretty well-known fact that on the whole that they are not a match for professional volunteer soldiers. While I really am sorry for any offense caused, I'm not about to claim that anyone who is forced to pick up a rifle is as combat-effective as a crack trooper from a more thoroughly trained volunteer unit. It's just not true. We know this and we've seen it on battlefields across the globe.

Korea, Vietnam, and WW2, or WW1, or the Franco-Prussian war, or the Civil War, or any war one might care to think of, don't exactly make a strong case for the efficacy of conscripts. They generally died in large numbers in very short order because they were not interested in being soldiers. Also, I see no moral justification for dragging an unwilling civilian away from his life to fight.

In any case, I am sorry for offending you guys and for my choice of words. My only intent was to say that a more educated and trained soldiery would be more effective.

[Platapus]

Hmmm.... yes, poor choice of words on my part. You have my sincere apology for that.:oops:




Fair enough. I did not think you really meant that. Crap happens in the heat of posting. :salute:

[Growler]

I don't know if I would go that far. Congress is the Legislative Branch and I do want my congresscritters to have education and experience in making legislation.

What exactly is a plumber going to use to help him or her make a decision on legislation? I don't want "your average joe" running this country. Congress is not an entry level job.

The solution is to start electing the right people with the right experience to the position. Not someone who has a letter after their name.

That's sort of my point, Plat - why does a lawyer/doctor have any more right to lead than a blue collar worker?

What constitutes the "right experience [for] the position"? The ability to prosecute/defend lawsuits? Or the ability to interpret a law for your clients' best interest? I would like to believe that in these cases, constituents are Congress' clients, but when was that last true, on a congress-wide scale?

[August]

That's sort of my point, Plat - why does a lawyer/doctor have any more right to lead than a blue collar worker?

What constitutes the "right experience [for] the position"?

Well the Congress is about creating and passing laws so the ability to read and understand a legal document would be one important attribute. How many blue collar guys do you think can do that?

[Growler]

That's the problem, August - reading and interpreting laws. The Constitution is simple enough to interpret - until the lawyers start adding caveats and spin and subjective interpretation to it. As proof, I submit the never-ending, ongoing debate about gun rights - and how both sides claim to be right, based on their interpretation of that 2nd Amendment.

A blue collar guy is more likely to keep it simple; it's when you get lawyers involved that things get needlessly complicated.

And more likely than not, I'm wrong again.

[August]

A blue collar guy is more likely to keep it simple; it's when you get lawyers involved that things get needlessly complicated.

No that's a good point. It seems like the ideal then would be somewhere in between because all laws have to stand up to legal challenge. Because too simple and it fails to cover all potential situations, too complicated and most people can't understand it.

(Personally if I had to choose between the two i'd favor too simple and let all the "what if's" get decided on a case by case basis.)

And more likely than not, I'm wrong again.

That kind of attitude eventually leads to not posting and we don't want that! :DL