178382

神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!magnesium.club.cc.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!paladin.american.edu!gatech!udel!bogus.sura.net!darwin.sura.net!martha.utcc.utk.edu!FRANKENSTEIN.CE.UTK.EDU!VEAL
From: [e-mail] (David Veal)
Subject: Re: re: fillibuster
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 323
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <C5CEOrganization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 19:23:41 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Veal) writes:
>
>|>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>|>>
>|>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Veal) writes:
>|>>
>|>>Well yes and no. The Federalist papers are propaganda and it is therefore
>|>>difficult to determine precisely what Maddison etc were up to from them. 
>|>
>|>       There are a couple of ways to look at them.  One is, "We want
>|>you to support this Constitution, so we'll say anything that we think
>|>will appeal to you," or the more straightforward, "This is why we think
>|>what we've suggested in this Constitution is a good idea."
>|>
>|>       You clearly consider the former to be the primary situation.
>
>The point is that they did not make pains to point out where the consitution
>may have been aginst the new yorker's interests. Also they did not want
>to raise opposition by basing their advocacy on unpopular principles.

       Horrors, appealing to popular principles.  Can we perhaps as the
question of whether the Constitution might have been written to appeal
to the principles, rather than, as you appear to believe, it was written
with something else in mind and "propoganda" put out by its supporters.

       But let's be honest about something, here.  When was the last time
you brought up all the valid points against your own arguments?

       Or are they simply propogranda?  We can't know what Phill *really*
means because he's obviously using arguments designed to convince.

>|>       Well, I know Hamilton was a dyed in the wool monarchist, and 
>|>probably the authoritarian extreme to Jefferson's democratic impules.
>|>But what would you suggest as a means of determining their opinions
>|>on the government if we don't consider what they wrote about the
>|>government?
>
>I don't propose that any means exists for determining their true opinions.
>Thus their true opinions died with them and are of little help today.
>
>Their opinions have not the slightest bearing on the matter though, only their
>arguments. These are true or false regardless of who said them or why. 

       If they're true or false, regardles of why they were said, why
on earth did you make a point of calling them "propogranda?"  That
would seem to be irrelevent.

>The
>difficulty that most US posters seem to have is in considering that their
>arguments may have been flawed or no longer apply to modern societies. 

       Oh, I have no argument with questioning them.  I don't believe
they no longer apply, but that's because I think most of them were
good arguments.  I'm not entirely happy about the situation, because
they were obviously only applied to a minority of the time, but I don't
think that alone is sufficient to invalidate them.

>If they were alive today the one opinion we could count upon these men to
>express is that a careful study of the mechanisms of government is necessary
>and that an ongoing improvement of the same is required. They gave their 
>opinions in certain areas and have been proved right. In other areas they
>got it wrong. They ensured that there was a mechanism to adapt and improve
>the consititution. this can only happen if there is a willingness to accept that
>the structural problems within the US political system may require
>constitutional change as a solution. 

       Since the U.S. constitution is the basis for the U.S. political
system, most changes in it would require Constitutional change.  In this
particular case, however the fillibuster is a matter of procedure
and tradition.  It only *should* have been made part of the Constitution. :-)

>|>       If the Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords, than
>|>we'd almost have to state that the House of Representatives was also.
>|>(In fact, they both were, because the British government had much
>|>greater power than did the American system).       
>
>In principle no, in practice yes. 

        In principle no?  That they had less power of that they should have
had less power?

>The British government today is theoreticaly
>dependent on the will of the Monarch. By convention any monarch seeking to
>exercise that power is deposed. The subtly is that the Prime Minister is
>not able to identify their politics with the national interest in the same
>manner that US Presidents regularly do.

        Phill, we're discusing the power of legislative houses.  While
the Prime Minister *is* member of Parliament, he is more analgous (although
badly) to the U.S. President.

        Now, please explain to me how the U.S. House of Representatives
is "in principle" more powerful than the House of Lords (or the Senate)
but in practice is less.  Are you suggesting that the writers of the
Constitution *really* intended for them to be more powerful, but gosh
darn the thing was ratified before they realized they'd forgotten to put
those extra restrictions on the Senate in?

>|>       I disagree.  The system is not too slow, it was simply designed to
>|>handle less than it has demanded that it handle.  As somebody in Washington
>|>put it (whose name I forget), "Congress has become everybody's city
>|>council."
>
>One reason for that is that at every level the government is rendered unable
>to come to decisions. These decisions are pushed up to the next higher level
>instead. 

      Not at all.  As any entry level political science course will tell
you, people who want laws implemented will always choose the level of
government to "attack" which presents them with the best chance of
getting what they want.  With national "interest groups" it is simply
a very rational thing to do to want the Federal government to enact a
law rather than the states.  Less people to persuade, and less 
"contributions" to make.  

      Why do those concerned about abortion primarily concentrate at
the Federal level?  Simply because if they win that battle all the little
state battlefields are won by extension.  The same extends to insurance,
medicine, and most other questions.

      Local government has not "failed" in that it hasn't done what it
should, but that it is dominated by local interests.  Thus non-local
interests who want localities to abide by their rules can't get their
rules past the local government.  Thus, since they've got more clout,
only in the wrong place, they appeal to the next higher level because
it can impose its will on the lower.

      I mean, let's get real here.  Do we *really* need the Congres
of the United States deciding that x traffice light should be on thus-
and such pattern?  Or that *carjacking* needs to be a federal as opposed
to a local crime?

      The more people want the more Congress will take power to "sell"
it to them for their votes.  I don't think the rise of "special interests"
is coincidence with the increased power of Congress.

>|>       Congress is more than capable of quick action, and has more than
>|>enough power and time on its hands, if it confined itself to what its
>|>original jurisidiction was and allowed more local autonomy.
>
>If they were to start from a social welfare model instead of the current 
>"no state subsidy motto" they would be better placed. As it is there is
>plenty of state money being handed out. The problem is that it is
>distributed on the basis of power in congress and not on the basis of
>actual need. 

       Bingo.  The higher up the governmental ladder the less actual
need matters, because political power can be concentrated at higher
levels, while people with less cloud only find themselves reduced to
in effectiveness.

>In order to set up a school project in New York state you have to pay off the
>other 49 states with pork - defense contracts, agricultural subsidies etc.
>Or to be precise 30 of the states since you need 60 to beat the filibuster.