All the posts going around about Reagan nominating Kennedy as a SCotUS justice in an election year as well as...
All the posts going around about Reagan nominating Kennedy as a SCotUS justice in an election year as well as various Republicans saying a President (or rather, this president) shouldn't be allowed to nominate a replacement to Scalia during his final years in office. But we have to remember, this behavior isn't limited to the GOP.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee/article/2583283
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee/article/2583283
Comments
still doesn't make it right.
Thanks
The idea was to ensure that the people never have to deal with a tyrannical government ever again and that everything is structured such that the people have the power.
I get these ideas from the federalist papers.
The idea of checks and balances was to check one branch of government from becoming too powerful and balancing the power out, so that, once again, one branch of government doesn't become too powerful. No where is it mentioned how obstruction is a valid tool for party politics. No where does it mention how obstruction should be used to circumvent constitutionally mandated responsibilities.
Why does the government meet for as long as they do as compared to the founding? Wrangling over power. They have decided to cooperate for the creation of a political class, the very thing they were trying to guard against.
I'd love to see every law set forth to have a sunset clause applied to it unless it has an overwhelming majority in favor of it. Today we get bare majorities that change a substantial amount of our economy. They don't know what they are doing, they are not serving us with what they do. It was never meant to be so top heavy. States rights has been taking it in the shorts for far too long.
I'll give you your argument that it is not there. But I think that you would agree that there should not be the Leviathan like legislation being made where all politicians are satisfied because they got what they wanted even though they disagree with other portions of the bill. Less pork, more thoughtful and generally agreeable limited issues need to be the norm.
Too big and powerful. This article articulates well my general feeling: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/meyer/110922
It is said that we break laws every day that we are not even aware of?