Yeah. DDay caused me to waste an hour or two on Wikipedia. Kind of an interesting discussion of Faraday. I knew a bit about him, but he was quite the character. His lectures sound like they would have been pretty entertaining....and then there was the link about The Great Stink, which I just had to read.
Sounds like Faraday got the credit for the cage, but perhaps the original person to report the phenomenon was Ben Franklin. He wasn't just a lecherous old man.
"Bones heal. Chicks dig scars. Pain is temporary. Glory is forever." - Robert Craig "Evel" Knievel
“Leave me alone, I know what I’m doing.” - Kimi Raikkonen
I didn't even turn on the news until this morning. I knew that people would be talking and talking and talking, even when they had nothing new to say. There would be frequent recaps of what little was known and speculation on that which wasn't known, and only occasionally would anything new get added to the stream of redundancy.
Instead, I listened to music and other things. After all, I was pretty certain that I'd not only hear the results in the morning, but they'd also be more complete and more accurate. Nothing changed in that time, and I seriously doubt that anything really changed in Washington unless you are an insider. A few people gained more power, a few people lost some power, and life will go on about the same as before. The only question I have is whether less will be accomplished in the next two years than in the last two. After all, the senate now has the means to block EVERY appointment by Obama, so perhaps the dysfunction will be able to spread to judiciary (judges won't be appointed, and may not even be nominated). I would expect that the executive branch would largely remain untouched because the political appointments are largely figureheads running agencies that will continue about the same as they have for decades.
On the other hand, the Republicans have good reason to want to get something done, which would require a compromise. The optimistic view is that this congress will be able to get things done because the only way to do so is through compromise....but I'm not feeling optimistic.
The only question I have is whether less will be accomplished in the next two years than in the last two.
I think that more will be done. Think about it, anything Republicans came up with for the past 2 years Harry Reid would shut it down; even if Democrats and their base would benefit more from it than the Republicans.
I'm very optimistic about the next couple of years.
Oh, you can bet that plenty will get done - all by executive order. Obama has made it clear that laws don't apply to him and the Republicans have made it clear they will do nothing about it.
We're about to see the mother of all lame-duck sessions. That old Chinese saying applies here: "May you live in interesting times."
"Bones heal. Chicks dig scars. Pain is temporary. Glory is forever." - Robert Craig "Evel" Knievel
“Leave me alone, I know what I’m doing.” - Kimi Raikkonen
"Bones heal. Chicks dig scars. Pain is temporary. Glory is forever." - Robert Craig "Evel" Knievel
“Leave me alone, I know what I’m doing.” - Kimi Raikkonen
I think that more will be done. Think about it, anything Republicans came up with for the past 2 years Harry Reid would shut it down; even if Democrats and their base would benefit more from it than the Republicans.
I'm very optimistic about the next couple of years.
Thats a bit one sided, both sides have been doing that to each other to be fair. There has been very little working together from what i can see between the parties during the Obama presidency
I wouldn't be optimistic, basically you have a republican party that is almost allergic to Obama, they are likely to go out of there way to put through partisan bill's which Obama will just veto.
At least that is the impression we get across the pond
Homer - Anyone who Quotes George Carlin gets my vote, have you put your self forward for office yet ?
Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you
they are likely to go out of there way to put through partisan bill's which Obama will just veto.
If he veto's certain issues, then I'm sure that you could get a congressional override. One that I can think of off the top of my head is the medical device tax.
To override the veto, the Republicans would have to have Democratic support. They lack the votes in the senate to do that. That's why there was gridlock before. Harry Reid would ignore the partisan crap that he didn't want to deal with, and which was DOA anyhow, but he lacked a majority sufficient to bring up partisan crap of his own. The things that moved through the senate were things that got bipartisan support. They were then sent to the house to die, because there isn't any bipartisan support in the house for anything.
There are two senators per state. That makes it mighty hard to gerrymander states to make safe seats, which means that senators can't be quite as partisan. The house is a different story. Those seats are heavily gerrymandered in pretty nearly every state such that most seats are decided in the primary, not in the general election. Those reps don't have to please their constituents, only their partisans, which further polarizes the house.
This situation could be fixed in a variety of ways, but until it is, the house will become increasingly polarized.
Homer also makes a good point. W really got the ball rolling with his signing documents. He wasn't the first to use them, but he was the first to use them to re-write the laws that were handed to him. Obama, for all his talk about undoing some of the things W did, hasn't proved very intererested in undoing executive power in the slightest. It's understandable that it would be a bipartisan issue: Every president has a motivation to not weaken his own power, but it's a bad trend, as it leads to more confrontation and less cooperation.
The best thing that could happen to this nation in regards to congressmen is to add term limits. My proposal would be to allow a maximum of two terms. Once your term limit is up, you may run for re-election after the amount of time that you've been in congress is up. For example:
Code:
Dim waitingPeriod As Integer = If(termServed = 1, 1, 2)
I'm not sure that I agree with that. The issues they deal with are complex and longer lived than just four years (two terms). The major result of such a thing is that everybody would be new all the time, which would mean that there would be a high likelihood of staff running the show. Essentially, nobody would ever be up to speed on more than one or two issues, at best, so they'd end up being nearly dependent on the people who had been there a long time, which is how they start out now, as well. The difference would be that the people who had been there a long time wouldn't have been elected.
I feel that term limits are mostly a visceral reaction to the dysfunction in congress. We are talking about running the largest economy in history, though, and doing that where all the decisions are made by neophytes just seems like a recipe for something bad. It works for the president, but that seems a bit different, since the president brings an entire team with him. Congressmen won't be able to do that unless we change some other things around.
I favor getting rid of gerrymandering. There is surely a mathematical way to divide up a population into equal size groups by number (not area). This may not be so easy, though, as I think it ends up in some pretty exotic math. The goal would be to have every district be a convex shape, which may not be entirely possible, but should be pretty close. It would be something of a 2D soap bubble problem.
The reason I'm for term limits on congressmen is because of people like John Dingell or Orrin Hatch. After 40/50 years of service, you're not a public servant.
As for the term themselves, I think both the senate and the house should have 6 year terms then impose the term limits of 2 terms. This grants them a maximum service of 12 years at any given time and a maximum waiting period of 12 years.
Ok, that would work, but doesn't that take a constitutional amendment to change length of service for the house? Longer term limits for the house, but the same terms, would be easier if I'm right about that (which I may or may not be).
One thing to note is that those changes are pretty nearly hopeless. Changing one state isn't so hard, changing all of them is tough. Getting Congress to pass a law limiting itself isn't going to happen lightly. We'd need a crisis, which we don't have, yet. However, some states have been able to do a variety of things. One of the results that I like is that in CA (and perhaps OR, but I might have that second state wrong) where the two primary candidates who get the most votes are the nominees for the general election regardless of party.
Getting Congress to pass a law limiting itself isn't going to happen lightly.
That's very true. Mark Levin proposes that we exercise the second part of Article 5 of the Constitution. That basically says that constitutional amendments may be proposed by a convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures.
The first part of Article 5 is the well known way of getting two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress to amend the constitution that many people think is the only way.
While I think that it's great in theory, it would be much tougher to do that then to get two-thirds majority of both houses. Butcha never know!
That's very true. Mark Levin proposes that we exercise the second part of Article 5 of the Constitution. That basically says that constitutional amendments may be proposed by a convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures.
The first part of Article 5 is the well known way of getting two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress to amend the constitution that many people think is the only way.
While I think that it's great in theory, it would be much tougher to do that then to get two-thirds majority of both houses. Butcha never know!
Actually, that would be a total disaster. If you convene a constitutional convention, you open the ENTIRE constitution to changes. There's no other way to do it. Just saying that you'll play in just one corner of the yard won't matter. Do you think that with the constitution open for whatever people would confine themselves to term limits? It would be a free for all for every change any group could push for. No matter which side of the fence you are on there would be a bunch of proposals you would absolutely hate.
If you convene a constitutional convention, you open the ENTIRE constitution to changes.
The same thing applies to how congress works right now. The house and the senate approve an amendment and then it gets sent to the president for him to do his thing. This applies to the entire constitution.
Still, one at a time isn't bad. Things rarely get passed through that process and only after considerable discussion. Whether it would be possible to convene a constitutional convention on a narrow subject is hard to say. It hasn't been tried as far as I am aware.
From what I understand, it's been tried a handful of times, but the convention has never convened. Either due to lack of support or lack of organization.
I believe it has been attempted a few times, that's where my position on the matter comes from. When I was younger, I heard about something like that for some amendment that I have long since forgotten. My mother explained why it would be a horrible idea, and she was generally right on these things, since it was what she was studying for her doctorate, effectively. I don't know all that much about constitutional conventions, since I grew up believing that they would open a door wide even if all you wanted was it open a crack.
In general, the US Constitution (as well as the USS Constitution, for that matter) has remained little changed for centuries. Additions and alterations are generally slow and ponderous, with few glaring mistakes (prohibition). Lots of other countries change their constitutions about as often as they change leaders, which has never worked well. The constitutions they have are rarely well thought out, and are often gamed for the advantage of one party or special interest. The closest we have to that is the Second Amendment, which didn't favor any viewpoint when it was included, but became more polarizing a couple centuries later, and could fade back to being non-polarizing at a later date.
I like the slow, ponderous, approach when it comes to those kinds of changes. As a general rule, states try out a variety of different positions on various topics. Some things get enough concensus to prompt a constitutional change, but most do not. I'd say that's a pretty moderate approach, and that seems like a good thing.
Big night for the GOP last night. Whenever I fell asleep it was net +7.
Yep. GOP now has control of both houses.
It can actually be nice to have a Republican Party-controlled Congress and a Democratic president. Two opposing agendas means both the President and Congress will have to compromise, thereby creating a favorable outcome for both parties.
Do not read this sentence.
You read that last one, didn't you?
Darn. You now read the previous two.
In general, the US Constitution (as well as the USS Constitution, for that matter) has remained little changed for centuries. Additions and alterations are generally slow and ponderous, with few glaring mistakes (prohibition). Lots of other countries change their constitutions about as often as they change leaders, which has never worked well. The constitutions they have are rarely well thought out, and are often gamed for the advantage of one party or special interest. The closest we have to that is the Second Amendment, which didn't favor any viewpoint when it was included, but became more polarizing a couple centuries later, and could fade back to being non-polarizing at a later date.
I like the slow, ponderous, approach when it comes to those kinds of changes. As a general rule, states try out a variety of different positions on various topics. Some things get enough concensus to prompt a constitutional change, but most do not. I'd say that's a pretty moderate approach, and that seems like a good thing.
You can thank the amendment process. If I recall correctly, an amendment has to be ratified by 2/3 of each house of Congress and by 3/4 of the states.
That's as it should be. That shouldn't be an easy document to change.
I'm cautiously optimistic about seeing some postiive economic changes as a result of the split government, but not very optimistic. We could really stand to get some strong tax reform. I shouldn't advocate less deductions and other exemptions, since I don't get any anymore. That seems kind of self-serving, but I would have given up things like the mortgage interest deduction a long time back. If we closed a bunch of that stuff we could get the tax code back towards a more manageable size and reduce tax rates across the board.
That is probably asking too much, though. There are huge numbers advocating for pretty nearly every line in that tax code. I'm not one of them, but I can file the 1040-EZ each year (if it weren't for capital gains). My life and my income are too simple.
Failing that, I don't see much to be hopeful for. Everybody talks about reducing regulations, but that discussion is kind of like the VB6 people: They all want the concept, they just have different specific details, so no two want quite the same thing.
I suspect that this is kind of the issue with a responsive government: Everybody is tugging in slightly different directions and all kinds of things result from that. We end up with a whole lot of rules and laws. Most everybody agrees that there are too many, but when you get down to specifics, each rule seems to have a fair number of supporters.
Perhaps the thing to do would be to pass all laws with sunset clauses. Forget term limits on the legislators, put term limits on the legislation. That would make the system opt-in rather than opt-out. If people really care enough about some rule, then let them revisit it preriodically. Favored rules would be able to extend with no effort at all. Non-favored, or controversial, rules would result in a fight.
We kind of do that now, but in a twisted way. For example, W suggested shifting social security more into the market controlled by the individual. That went nowhere. The result was that the status quo remained in effect, but the subject was visited. Many of the rules on the books are now relics, and there they sit forever.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by dday9
if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you 
