178382

神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006

       Then why not simply leave New York's education to New York?  I
remain unconcinved that there is any state in the Union which is not capable
of educating its own children if that's what they want to do.  And if
you leave it to them, you only have to worry about the "pork" in that
state.  And since industries can't concentrate their political power
and wealth, rather they must divide it among the states to try and get
what they want, individual voices have more relative impact.

       The problem with the fillibuster is not that you must "buy off"
states, but that the Congress has acquired too much power to sell pork.

>|>       It is not a case of the system of government they created failing,
>|>but that it is operating under a set of conditions they specifically
>|>wanted to avoid.  Namely, a concentration of power.  It would seem
>|>then that the proper thing to do is not to reduce the power of either
>|>House in some attempt to grease the wheels.  All you'll get then is
>|>a system which moves quicker to do stupid things.  It would make more
>|>sense to make more decisions at a local level.
>
>No, you have to break the machine free of seizure before you can redirect it.

       But why on earth should we want to redirect it?  You said yourself 
that you have to sell pork to get things through Congress.  If Congres
has less authority to sell pork and retains its authority to enact
national legislation within its granted jurisdiction, the pork problem
is significantly reduced.

>The current blocks on power simply absolve congress of any responsibility
>to come to a decision. 

       The current blocks essentially state that inaction is preferable
to action, thus it the system is weighted against action.  Considering
the government the usually the institution with the sole power to
enforce its decisions by force, I consider bias against making those
decisions a good thing.

>Pushing the decisions lower in the pyramid won't
>work unless the lower levels are less corrupt. In most cases they are worse,
>not better.

       The difference with the lower pyramid is that a) they have
more legal, legitimate authority in most matters under our Constitution
than the federal government, and b) at those lower levels power is
harder to concentrate.  And c) you get the benefit of not imposing
new deicisons on everybody at once.  You get to see them tried out
without a national decision.  Congressional action usually treats the
entire country as a whole, yet even with similar problems in different
areas, different solutions may be called for.

       And while I often don't agree with the decisions my local
and state reps make, at least I have a better option of going to
the city council and shooting my mouth off.  I'd much rather the
majority of laws be made by accessible people who hang around and end
up having to put up with them rather than somebody far off in
Washington with half a million or more constituents.

       I'm curious what you base your assumption that lower levels
are more corrupt.  

>|>       I fail to see where any restrictions, implied or otherwise, were
>|>placed on the veto.  It could just as easily have been read as a means
>|>to put a check on democratically popular but unwise (in the executive's
>|>opinion) policies.  
>
>Since we were arguing from the Federalist papers I would point to them. 

       Phill, *you* brought up the Federalist papers.  We were
arguing the fillibuster and whether or not a minority of Senators
should be allowed to hold up a bill.  You claimed the Senate was
suppose to be a far less powerful House, and I contended there was
nothing in the Constitution or other writings which indicated this.
Which was when you brought up that we can't decide what the founders
wanted based on the Federalist papers.  You argued against them,
I never argued from them.  I have primarily referred to the Constitution,
which places only very small restrictions on the Senate than for
the House.

>The 
>US constitution gives almost no reasoning as to how it should work. The
>only part where a reason is given is the right to bear arms ammendment where 
>the well regulated militia justification is ambiguous.

       The U.S. Constitution is a nuts-and-bolts document.  The Delcaration
of Independence was the high-brow reasoning.  (There are a couple of other
examples, though, such as the reasoning for the power to tax, and the
reasoning for the power to grant permits, both in Article I, Section 8.)

>That the veto was meant to be an exceptional measure follows from the 
>fact of the senate. If the President was meant to revise legislation then
>there would be three chambers of the legislature, not two. Furthermore
>the separation of powers would have been much less distinct. 

       To a certain extend I do believe the veto has become something
it wasn't intended.  However, I also believe it is inevitable considering
the Congress' own abuse of their power to make bills say whatever they
want them to say.  Unlike most people I think we shouldn't be worrying
about the veto, which is fine, but of the problem in Congress which
almost necessitates its abuse.

>|>       There is no limit in the Constitution to the President's veto power
>|>regarding what a bill is for.  Previous Presidents have used the veto
>|>for any number of reasons, most usually having something to do with their
>|>agenda.  I am really curious how you single Bush out as *the* President
>|>who abused vetos.
>
>He has the record for vetos. 

       *BUSH?*  Phill, that's absurd.  Bush had *37* vetos, one of
which was over-ridden.  Go read up on FDR if you think that's
anything resembling a record.

>|>       Why is it not a reasonable restriction?  Because 51 Senators
>|>is the magic holy number upon which Laws must be based?  If 41 Senators
>|>feel safe enough with their state constituencies to stand up and 
>|>fillibuster isn't that *enough* to indicate there's a sufficient question
>|>as to whether a law is a good idea or not to re-evaluate it?
>
>Up to a point, the fact is though that when the majority are opposed by
>a minority the minority should not be allowed to win by default.

       Why not?  What is inherently wrong with biasing the system
against action?  Historically governemnt action in the U.S. when
dealing with issues with a bare minority and a large minority have
not been successful.  When you're in a position of imposing federal
power on diverse people, why should the federal government not have to
got through something more than a bare majority

>|>       Why one earth *should* 51% be sufficient to enact a law which
>|>covers 250 million people in very, very diverse places and living
>|>in radically different conditions?  Why *shouldn't* a super-majority
>|>be required?
>
>Because the bill at issue is a money bill relating to a short term proposal.

       Now we're switching from a general question of a fillibuster
to a specific bill.  I don't see how it make a difference.

>It is not a change in the law where a presupposition in favour of the 
>status quo is arguable. 

       Sure it's arguable.  Theyr'e *arguing* it.  However, requiring
60% to bring it to a vote ensures that they'll have to have a *good*
argument.  Something that isn't based solely on party lines.

>|>       Any system in which the simple majority is given absolute power
>|>to ignore the minority then the minority *will* be ignored.  I do not
>|>see this as a positive thing.  And for all that I'm sure the Republicans
>|>are looking for pork as much as the Democrats, they've got some legitimate
>|>objections to the legislation in question.
>
>So instead you consider a system under which the minority automatically win
>to be superior?

       No, I am completely happy with a system which requires a minority
for *action*.  Since U.S. history is a history of carving up population
groups and implementing piece-meal on minorities, I feel minorities
should have sufficent clout to prevent action they feel strongly enough
about.  And 41% is hardly a tiny minority.  I don't advocate the minority
being capable of initiating actionm but I see no problem with biasing
the *federal* system against action.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
[e-mail] - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"