 |
Hello:
Over all, how well do you think we do when we enact law due to an emergency?? I don't think we do very good.
We just did it with $850 BILLION of our dollars. We did it when we passed the Patriot Act. We did it when we made marijuana illegal.
I don't think any of those things are working out for us.
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You left out what may have been the biggest one - prohibition. The history behind that is beyond reason and belief. And it doesn't appear that it worked out very well -
Hello Judy:Quote:
Originally Posted by JudyKayTee
Good one. I'm sure there are others. Who wants to add to the list?
excon
The one that makes Bush a dictator in emergencies real or created.
How about gun bans? They generally fit the description of bad legislation based on panic and "emergency".
Smoking bans?
Trans fat bans?
In fact, pretty much any law passed by any legislative body is in reaction to some problem or "emergency", and any time you are reacting, you really aren't thinking, and first reactions tend to be pretty poor.
SOMETIMES a poor reaction is better than no reaction at all. But in MOST cases, first reactions are usually wrong, because they are based on poor data and panic. The actual problem is rarely ever as bad (or as good) as it seems at first glance. And Congress never seems to get past their first reactions.
Elliot
When government makes a (emergency or not) decision that something is bad for me, therefore it is illegal for me to access, I feel as if I am being controlled by people who would have me adhere to their religious ideas.
The government is not a parent is it? The recourse I have is to vote..
Prohibition may not have worked out well but it was not a gut reaction . There was a long temperance movement for many years ;and amending the Constitution is not an exercise that is done in haste.
Also I'd have to say that most of the Patriot Act has held up and the parts that didn't has been amended or scrapped.
I'd like to add to your list the National Recovey Act enacted and passed by that genious Frank Roosevelt who said "nothing to fear but fear itself" . If I am correct the whole damn act was overturned and Roosevelt tried to pack SCOTUS to get it back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Got to disagree here - more than half of the country was "dry" prior to the ratification of the 18th Amendment - but the Federal Government (which I think we are talking about) took no action, other than discussions.
Then the US entered WW 1 (April 1917). Congress passed the 18th Amendment in December 1917. Advocates argued that breweries (specifically) were owned by "enemies of the Country" - meaning Germans - and that grain and grain products had to be reserved/preserved for the War effort.
The emphasis on War and enemies of this Country leads me to believe that no matter how long the subject - prohibition - had been discussed by the US Government, prohibition itself was a knee-jerk, quick reaction to a National crisis.
Under any other circumstances I don't believe the US would have gotten involved in prohibition - there was too much power/influence/money on both sides of the issue and nothing for the Government to gain.
The US declared war and the issue, which had been passed around for years, was passed by Congree in fewer than 8 months.
No problem being corrected if someone sees it another way - maybe the hang up is the word "emergency."
I never discuss politics - not here, not anywhere and am only entering this discussion from the angle of US history.
I will concede that much of the countrty was dry prior to the passage and that anti-German attitudes were a contributing factor . Still the movement towards prohibition was a long time coming .
As an example ,The Interstate Liquor Act, prohibiting the shipment of alcohol into dry states, was passed over President Taft's veto in 1913 long before our participation in WWI . But remember the 18th amendment was only proposed in 1917 .It took another 2 years for the 36 states needed for ratification to adopt it and make it the law of the land.
The steady temperance movement was the driving force .It was not emergency action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I guess we agree to disagree - I don't question that the temperance movement was ONE of the driving forces. The anti-War, anti-German movement was another. After years of discussion the catalyst was the War - and it only took a number of months.
Again, the use of the word "emergency" may be the issue.
No problem Judy . Causation and the affects of the facts are legitimate debate issues in the study of history .
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:05 AM. |