 |
The problem with what you do is you had pre-existent states and therefore an imperfect federal system where the states basically retain the right of veto. They cannot leave and yet they can get in the way of change a dichotomy that does no one any good
It's a Civil War, no gun but a battle over ideas nonetheless.
Yes a nation equally divided
OK let's use your example.. at least 34 states ban gay marriage ;closer to 38.. That means a convention called by 34 states to introduce an amendment that marriage is between a man and a women would need 38 states to ratify . Very doable... and that would reflect the will of the people as defined by the Federal nature of the constitution. (btw... there is no such thing as "states rights " .people have rights ;states have powers ) .Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
This is news ? It has been since the beginning .Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
How Nancy Pelosi Saved the NSA Surveillance Program | The CableQuote:
The obituary of Rep. Justin Amash's amendment to claw back the sweeping powers of the National Security Agency has largely been written as a victory for the White House and NSA chief Keith Alexander, who lobbied the Hill aggressively in the days and hours ahead of Wednesday's shockingly close vote. But Hill sources say most of the credit for the amendment's defeat goes to someone else: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. It's an odd turn, considering that Pelosi has been, on many occasions, a vocal surveillance critic.
Ahead of the razor-thin 205-217 vote, which would have severely limited the NSA's ability to collect data on Americans' telephone records if passed, Pelosi privately and aggressively lobbied wayward Democrats to torpedo the amendment, a Democratic committee aid with knowledge of the deliberations tells The Cable.
"Pelosi had meetings and made a plea to vote against the amendment and that had a much bigger effect on swing Democratic votes against the amendment than anything Alexander had to say," said the source, keeping in mind concerted White House efforts to influence Congress by Alexander and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. "Had Pelosi not been as forceful as she had been, it's unlikely there would've been more Democrats for the amendment."
With 111 liberal-to-moderate Democrats voting for the amendment alongside 94 Republicans, the vote in no way fell along predictable ideological fault lines. And for a particular breed of Democrat, Pelosi's overtures proved decisive, multiple sources said.
"Pelosi had a big effect on more middle-of-the road hawkish Democrats who didn't want to be identified with a bunch of lefties [voting for the amendment]," said the aide. "As for the Alexander briefings: Did they hurt? No, but that was not the central force, at least among House Democrats. Nancy Pelosi's political power far outshines that of Keith Alexander's."
But despite the minority leader's instrumental role in swaying the vote, you won't find her taking credit: She's busy protecting her left flank from liberal supporters of Amash's amendment -- some of whom openly booed her at last month's Netroots Nation conference where she defended President Obama's NSA surveillance program.
When contacted, a Pelosi aide did not dispute the minority leader's assertive role in influencing Democrats, but passed along a letter Pelosi sent to the president today raising skepticism about the NSA's surveillance powers.
"Dear Mr. President," reads the letter. "Although the amendment was defeated 205-217, it is clear that concerns remain about the continued implementation of the program in its current form. Although some of us voted for and others against the amendment, we all agree that there are lingering questions and concerns about the current 215 collection program."
The letter goes on to question whether the bulk metadata collection program sufficiently protects the privacy of Americans, whether it could be tailored more narrowly and whether the law is being implemented in a manner consistent with Congress's intent.
Pelosi is no stranger to intelligence issues; she was a member of the House's intelligence committee in the aftermath of the September 9/11 attacks. In recent years, she's grown increasingly skeptical of surveillance powers authorized by the PATRIOT Act, which she voted against in 2005 when it was up for reauthorization and again in February. "Well, I didn't vote for the PATRIOT Act the last time it was up," she said today, at her weekly press briefing. "I don't want anybody to misunderstand a vote against the Amash resolution yesterday."
At the briefing, she emphasized her current effort circulating a letter for members to sign expressing concern over how metadata is collected. "The Administration is the custodian of the information. The ownership belongs to the American people," she said. "And we, as their Representatives, have to make decisions about it, we have to know more about it."
In other words ;had a Republic been in the WH ,she would've had a completely different position on the NSA snooping .
But nothing is being accomplished. How will you ever stop the corporations and special interests groups from owning your politicians?Quote:
this is news ? It has been since the beginning .
Term limits... but that requires a constitutional amendment .Sen David Vitter has already introduced one . But why would the Senate and House vote for them? Again.. it will only happen with a convention.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Good luck.
I'm sure the states think very differently about itQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
It is an incorrect turn of phrase . I defy anyone to find a state "right" in the constitution. Every mention of government comes under the word power(s) . The 10th amendment (the one most frequently referenced by those who argue for state "rights ") as an example reads...Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Yes it's a growth industry
Government... indeed is a "growth "industry .
RINO Republic Chris Christie has come out attacking those who would put common sense constitutional limits on the powers of the NSA.
Chris Christie: Rand Paul
The emperor's favorite Republic cheerleader also praised the emperor's approach during the panel discussion. Instead of taking a position that perhaps the critics of the gvt dragnet approach may have legitimate concerns that need to be addressed ;he pulled out the 'victims of 9-11" card. ("I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation") .I would suggest to him that the Amash amendment was about the NSA's ability to monitor people who aren't threats to the 9-11 families.
Christie is all about politics . So let me suggest that he get a clue. The Republic coalition is split on this between the inside the beltway big gvt Repubics and the what he dismisses as the esoteric libertarians . Someone like him who has national ambitions should be working at ways to unite the coalition by recognizing their concerns and working on ideas that would protect the nation from the threat of jihadistan constitutionally . But Christie belongs to that group of Repubics that have the Tea Party in their cross hairs ,and would prefer to make common cause with big state Democrats . He's a classic pompous Democrat -lite Republic .
NJ Governor Warns of “Dangerous Thoughts” | USBC NewsQuote:
Chris Christie, Republican Governor of New Jersey, warned of a “strain of libertarianism that's going through both parties right now,” and described the political philosophy, which trends heavily toward a belief in fundamental human rights and fiscal responsibility, as a “very dangerous thought.”
Yup dictators throughout history have expressed similar thoughts about liberty.
Paul is the senator from Kentucky but we all know they have a judge on call to sign any warrant they submit. They probably do it by TEXT, or verbally.Quote:
Rand Paul, Senator (R) TN, responded to Governor Chrisities remarks via Twitter later in the day, stating that, “Christie worries about the dangers of freedom. I worry about the danger of losing that freedom. Spying without warrants is unconstitutional.”
You think a blanket warrant to collect data on everyone is constitutional ?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
Simmer down, just pointing out where the irony in the system is. Rubber stamping a government warrant is a dangerous practice and doesn't allow for any safeguards or balances in the structure of such an institution. Even law enforcement has a burden to meet, so why shouldn't the government?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:29 AM. |