k wrote:

It is hard enough to run the hurdles posed by a bicameral system where, unlike many countries around the world, each House has an absolute veto on the other. It is, I believe, indefensible to give a single individual, who has no conceivable claim to greater legitimacy than the collective House and Senate, the power to set aside their expressed political judgment.

Oh, give me a break. THIS is EXACTLY the same as all the Republican bitching about filibusters from two years ago. The U.S. President has always had the power to veto laws for whatever reason. Thats hows things have always worked. And now all of a sudden its some great affront to Democracy when it means you don't get your way?! You're damn right it's counter-majoritarian! The fact that either party gets 51% of the vote, particularly in a single election, is not, in fact, carte blanche to ram through your partisan agenda. These checks and balances exist to prevent that very thing, and in recent years they have worked exactly as they should. You can override a veto. If the government isn't getting things done its because the parties are too busy following the radicals at their fringes than working together on reasonable solutions that have broad support.

Decius wrote:

k wrote:

It is hard enough to run the hurdles posed by a bicameral system where, unlike many countries around the world, each House has an absolute veto on the other. It is, I believe, indefensible to give a single individual, who has no conceivable claim to greater legitimacy than the collective House and Senate, the power to set aside their expressed political judgment.

Oh, give me a break. THIS is EXACTLY the same as all the Republican bitching about filibusters from two years ago. The U.S. President has always had the power to veto laws for whatever reason. Thats hows things have always worked. And now all of a sudden its some great affront to Democracy when it means you don't get your way?! You're damn right it's counter-majoritarian! The fact that either party gets 51% of the vote, particularly in a single election, is not, in fact, carte blanche to ram through your partisan agenda. These checks and balances exist to prevent that very thing, and in recent years they have worked exactly as they should. You can override a veto. If the government isn't getting things done its because the parties are too busy following the radicals at their fringes than working together on reasonable solutions that have broad support.

Bingo. Navigating through the house, senate, presidency and courts is DELIBERATELY hard. The point was, to make it inordinately difficult for any majority to put a heel on the throat of any minority. It was built this way on purpose. It frequently doesn't work because it is not supposed to. Our government is designed such that, in theory, only worthwhile ideas can make their way through the whole thing.

On the topic of the original article, I do find his proposed veto of health care for millions of CHILDREN to be offensive beyond words, but he has the power to do so if he chooses (demonstrating yet again he's an oxygen thief). Can he do it? Yes. Should he do it? Well I suppose Herod didn't feel bad about his little executive order, so why should W?

This may be the first piece of legislation in some time that could garner enough votes to override a veto. If that happens, we'll then see what sort of signing statement the oxygen thief attaches to it to screw it up.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
On the topic of the original article, I do find his proposed veto of health care for millions of CHILDREN to be offensive beyond words, but he has the power to do so if he chooses (demonstrating yet again he's an oxygen thief). Can he do it? Yes. Should he do it? Well I suppose Herod didn't feel bad about his little executive order, so why should W?

The question is why is he doing it? There are articulate reasons they don't support this. I haven't studied it, but if its that open and shut and the executive was simply being irrational, you'd get your override. I think its rarely that simple.

Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:
On the topic of the original article, I do find his proposed veto of health care for millions of CHILDREN to be offensive beyond words, but he has the power to do so if he chooses (demonstrating yet again he's an oxygen thief). Can he do it? Yes. Should he do it? Well I suppose Herod didn't feel bad about his little executive order, so why should W?

The question is why is he doing it? There are articulate reasons they don't support this. I haven't studied it, but if its that open and shut and the executive was simply being irrational, you'd get your override. I think its rarely that simple.

The reason given is that it could encourage people to leave the rolls of private insurance because the program would pay for them. I found that here.

To be blunt, the whole damn system is going to go down the tubes and millions will LOSE what they have because Bush wants to make sure the insurance companies can continue to make a (dishonest) buck.

And since the thought occurs to me, the right always screams "private is better! private is better!" If that's the case, why are police and fire departments public? The army is public, but they're trying to change that, and I think we can see just how well that is turning out (See the recent releases on Blackwater in Fallujah). Private may do some things well, but public interests and national service are two areas where the private interest and the public need are in gross conflict.

Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:
On the topic of the original article, I do find his proposed veto of health care for millions of CHILDREN to be offensive beyond words, but he has the power to do so if he chooses (demonstrating yet again he's an oxygen thief). Can he do it? Yes. Should he do it? Well I suppose Herod didn't feel bad about his little executive order, so why should W?

The question is why is he doing it? There are articulate reasons they don't support this. I haven't studied it, but if its that open and shut and the executive was simply being irrational, you'd get your override. I think its rarely that simple.

I used to agree, but that presupposes the president is a rational, thinking person with thought out positions and defensible arguments. He's not. He's simply not.

Likewise for the braindead monkeys that follow his every word, and wouldn't oppose him on anything.

Your arguments are based on statesmen who actually work to accomplish things and have a willingness to engage their intellect. Faith has now replaced intellect for enough politicians that the system is untrustworthy.

I don't necessarily think that means the system needs to be replaced. I brought up the original link more because i thought it was an interesting position to take than because i believe it 100%. I don't really know what I think about it.

But i do know that the system isn't supposed to be as hard as it is right now because politicians aren't supposed to act on faith, but they are.

See too the current R threat to simply filibuster 100% of anything dealing with Iraq. It's not right. It's a fucking childish abuse of process. The Dems really just need to require them to actually deliver, and keep pressing forward. If the R's keep filibustering, pretty soon none of them will have a voice left, on top of which they'll no longer be able to hide behind the argument that they're simply being steadfast... the obstruction will be clear. I half want the Dem's to effectively shut down government by requiring the R's, either in congress or the white house, to obstruct every single bill.

Of course, that won't work because our criminally out-to-lunch media won't bother to get the real story and will simply undermine government itself, which not a few on the Right actually see as the final goal.

[EDIT] I was right, by the way. Fucking CNN headline news just reported on this and dropped the ball, as expected.

They presented a democrat, saying that "It's important to have this debate." and a republican getting twice as much time to decry the "political theatre" supposedly being engaged in by the democrats after which the host simply says that the bill under consideration does not have enough votes to pass. For one thing, we don't know that for sure because there was no mention of the relative support. Secondly, what's being filibustered is the ability to get this amendment under discussion so that it can be voted on in the first place. It does not have 60 votes, which would get it past the filibuster, certainly, but that's not what was presented, nor was there any effort to educate anyone about anything actually occurring. More He-said-she-said nonsense.

[EDIT 2]And they keep doing it. Reuters fucks this one up. The news media are suffering from complete dereliction of duty.

k wrote:
I used to agree, but that presupposes the president is a rational, thinking person with thought out positions and defensible arguments. He's not. He's simply not.

I think in that case the solution is to impeach. That option is available, as well as the option of a veto override. The case you describe is anticipated by this system. However, its not acknowledged until you have agreement from a supermajority.

Decius wrote:

k wrote:
I used to agree, but that presupposes the president is a rational, thinking person with thought out positions and defensible arguments. He's not. He's simply not.

I think in that case the solution is to impeach. That option is available, as well as the option of a veto override. The case you describe is anticipated by this system. However, its not acknowledged until you have agreement from a supermajority.

Which you don't get until, gasp, blowjobs are involved. Fine, the system is perfect, it's just everyone *in it* that's fucked up beyond recognition.