Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Gone are the days of making national news for the wrong reasons, such as “birthers” trying to keep the president’s name off the Democratic primary ballot or filing legislation to make it mandatory for certain bills to quote directly from the Magna Carta.
Or so we thought.
That was until we learned last week that three disgruntled Republican lawmakers – including two from Greater Nashua – actually thought it was a good idea to file a formal petition of removal and criminal complaints against 189 of their fellow representatives.
Specifically, Londonderry Rep. Al Baldasaro, Goffstown Rep. John Hikel and Merrimack Rep. Lenette Peterson filed an “emergency petition for redress,” calling for removing the 189 from office for “breaching their oath” and for their criminal prosecution for “violating federal law.”
The offense?
Voting for legislation that would reset the standard for self-defense to what had existed with little fanfare for more than three decades. They claim any change would violate their right to bear arms to protect themselves and their property.
On March 27, a divided House of Representatives voted, 189-184, to pass HB 135, a bill that would repeal the state’s “stand your ground” law, which was enacted in 2011 by the Republican-led Legislature.
Call me a kook, but I actually rather like the idea of all legislation having to cite some prior document. Maybe not Magna Carta (too old), but it would be nice if every bill had to specifically outline why and how it was compatible with the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.
In the UK, for instance, all legislation must set out how it relates to the Human Rights Act 1998 and specifically say so if it intends to derogate from it.
edited 19th Apr '13 9:34:25 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiThat strikes me as redundant. Lawmakers are supposed to be passing laws that are compatible with the Constitution to begin with. It gives the sense of being intended less to elucidate and more to intimidate. "Don't you dare pass any laws that aren't Constitutional!"
edited 19th Apr '13 9:37:00 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"You don't think we could do with a bit of that? I mean, when we have the administration(s) keeping their legal justification for military actions secret from the public, perhaps making every legislator justify their legislation as it relates to the rights of Americans seems like no bad thing. It also gives the public confidence in the government - sending a clear message that, yes, the government does care about their rights.
edited 19th Apr '13 9:40:14 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiI've learned to be wary of anyone who waves the Constitution around without specific reason. It's a standard tactic of reactionary political groups.
Either that or it becomes meaningless boilerplate. You aren't going to modify the behavior of lawmakers by forcing them to go through the same ritual every time they write up a law.
edited 19th Apr '13 9:42:04 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"If they had to explain how the law they were making was constitutional then it might reduce the amount of cases going before the Supreme Court. Since laws would already have been checked for vague constitutionalism when being made.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
Perhaps now, what with Obama being in the White House. Plenty of left-wingers did the same thing under Dubya.
Besides, I think you've probably seen enough of my politics from my postings on OTC to know that I am not a reactionary.
Oh, I'm not so sure. In the UK, for instance, the current ConDem government has been very wary of passing non-human rights compatible legislation thanks in part to the restrictions placed upon them by the current legislation. It's about inculcating a political culture of respect for fundamental individual liberties.
I'm not personally worried by the NDAA - but I am worried at the direction America (and Britain - we just strip people of their citizenship before we drone 'em) has taken post-9/11.
That too - if SCOTUS is anything like the ECtHR then its caseload must be murderous.
edited 19th Apr '13 9:47:59 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiMy point, Achaemenid, is that I highly doubt that requiring lawmakers to insert a boilerplate Constitutional justification for those laws would have inhibited their writing or passage.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
But it would have at least forced the administration to justify them publicly. Something that didn't happen. Bush in particular (Obama's been much better, though he has faults) just said: "I claim this power, because terrorists!" Perhaps it wouldn't have stopped them entirely, but it would have made things much easier for potential challengers - US laws only have effect insofar as they are compatible with the Constitution, then it provides an obvious point of attack.
Public confidence in them would also have been boosted.
edited 19th Apr '13 10:06:13 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiThe Texas fertilizer plant that exploded had no sprinklers or safety features
But apparently regulations are still "evil" and "anti business"
http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/key-pro-austerity-study-based-incorrect-math-181511810.html
Well this is interesting. As it turns out, the study used to back up the pro-austerity measures that are currently being pushed has a rather large mathematical error in it, skewing the values.
Avoiding security measures isn't "Freedom" it's stupidity. It is smart to try and prevent people from dying. It is smart to keep your product safe. The people who own the factory are probably in huge trouble because they lost all the stock they had and they have to deal with the issue of all the people affected.
edited 19th Apr '13 10:19:27 AM by Zendervai
I actually like @Achaemenid's idea. It would at least make lawmaker think about the Constitution.
Senator Leahy (D-VT) faults bipartisan immigration bill as not 'up to our values'
Dems call for federal commission on marijuana
I think I agree Achaemenid here.
We do require the executive branch to show where it got its power when it takes action. Executive orders cite existing law because they have to be based on delegated power from current law; that's why Truman's order was challenged in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
case, when Truman decided to simply order things around.
The legislature could do likewise. It is a body of enumerated (specifically cited) powers after all, where it can't act without permission of the constitution. The constitutional check doesn't have to be an absolute judicial review from the congressional side, but more of a practice that gets the congresspersons thinking. A bit of preventative thinking could save the trouble of having laws overturned later.
It might or might not have a significant impact on the behavior of the lawmakers, sure. But it couldn't hurt. Before Marbury v. Madison cemented judicial review, Congress was careful to consider if its own laws were compatible with the constitution. This was shown when Madison said the National Bank was unconstitutional, while Hamilton justified its legality.
I'm a bit iffy about the idea of diversity visas. If nothing else it implies that people from those areas can't get normal visas (more then is the normal level of impossibility) because they aren't able to meet the normal visa requirements, which I assume are being someone who would be good for the US.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranWell, it doesn't necessarily mean that the regulation officials themselves don't care, it probably means that the higher up lawmakers in the state legislature and so on don't give a shit about the regulatory offices being able to do their job effectively. Government is not a monolith, and the laws here in regards to a lot of things are pretty lax to begin with. Which safety regulators don't have that much control over.
George W. Bush: ‘I Hope’ Jeb Bush Runs For President In 2016
Bachmann, conservative groups ask Supreme Court to stop EPA climate rules
Appeals court upholds Mexican truckers' ability to operate in US

Well... We used to expect our elected officials to ignore the internet completely because it's just a "series of tubes" that has "no significant impact on society"...
That they're using memes is progress on that, at the least...
It could have been worse. Mitch McConnell could have sent a pic of his dick* to Harry Reid's cellphone, with the caption "suck it"...
edited 19th Apr '13 1:26:58 AM by Swish