Current Topics
Coronavirus: The Plague of The 21st Century?
by pondering_it_all
0 seconds ago
RoundTable for Summer 2020
by Ujest Shurly
Today at 01:53 AM
Bob Woodward's book details Trump's chaotic and dysfunctional White House
by pdx rick
Yesterday at 08:13 PM
Global warming predictions
by pondering_it_all
Yesterday at 07:51 PM
The Boogaloo Bois
by pondering_it_all
Yesterday at 08:17 AM
How the world sees U.S. and Trump
by jgw
09/16/20 09:01 PM
Is it too soon to be talking 2020?
by perotista
09/16/20 07:13 PM
The Trump campaign is broke
by pdx rick
09/15/20 12:20 PM
Barr is acting as ‘personal henchman’ of Trump
by Greger
09/13/20 09:33 PM
West Coast Burning
by jgw
09/13/20 04:42 PM
Half of troops have an unfavorable opinion of President Bone Spurs
by Greger
09/08/20 08:25 PM
Portland. A Turning Point?
by Irked
09/08/20 04:02 AM
Covid Long Haulers
by jgw
09/07/20 06:23 PM
The Republican Platform
by jgw
09/03/20 07:15 PM
A post, on facebook, by my granddaughter that covers it all pretty good!
by pondering_it_all
09/02/20 07:27 PM
The Democratic Fight
by jgw
09/02/20 06:09 PM
voters who don't
by pondering_it_all
09/01/20 08:35 AM
There needs to be a ‘real reckoning’ for Trump’s abuses if Biden wins
by pdx rick
08/31/20 12:43 AM
WV woman goes to Mexico with her daughter and series of TOP SECRET U.S docs
by pondering_it_all
08/30/20 08:06 PM
Steve Bannon, 3 Others Arrested and Charged With Wire Fraud, Money Laundering
by Greger
08/29/20 03:29 PM
Forum Stats
6292 Members
60 Forums
16993 Topics
302745 Posts

Max Online: 294 @ 12/06/17 12:57 AM
Google Adsense
Page 2 of 15 < 1 2 3 4 ... 14 15 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#316188 - 10/02/19 01:02 PM Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? [Re: logtroll]
Ujest Shurly Offline
journeyman

Registered: 10/16/16
Posts: 661
Loc: Sterling Heights, MI, USA
Senator Hatrack: "Is Public law 62-5 a Constitutional Admendment? No, it isn't therefore it isn't lawfull."

Ummm, you may need a brief refresher, on how a bill becomes law. Here is a short video to help you: How a bill becomes a law Since Public Law 62-5, was passed by Congress it is lawful, maybe not righteous, but it sure is lawfull.


Senator Hatrack: "Why would Congress pass a law that reduces it's power? By limiting the number of Representatives to 435 the power each one of them has was greatly increased!"

Just how has Public Law 62-5 reduced the power of Congress? Public Law 62-5, does not reduce the power of Congress, if anything it maintains the power and ensures each Representative has the same power as all other Representatives.


Senator Hatrack: "The people who live in Washington, D.C. are represented by delegates with limited voting power."

Wrong! Wash D.C, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, The Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Guam do not have a Representative with voting powers (yes, their voting powers are limited, they can only vote on procedural matters and on committees, they can not vote on legislation or anything on the floor). Nor, do these territories have a Senator. They are Americans without the right to vote in Federal elections, but they have the burden to pay taxes, etc. They suffer, Taxation without representation ...! Does that sound familiar?
(James Otis, 1761: Taxation without representation is tyranny.)


Senator Hatrack "This unconstitutional bipartisan law has worked well for members of Congress to the detriment of the American people."

Prove, Public Law 62-5 is unconstitutional. Prove, it has worked well for members of Congress. Prove, it is a detriment to the American People.

edited to clarify certain points as underlined.


Edited by Ujest Shurly (10/02/19 01:30 PM)
_________________________
Vote 2020!

Life is like a PB&J sandwich. The older you get, the moldery and crustier you get.

Now, get off my grass!

Top
#316218 - 10/03/19 01:50 PM Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? [Re: logtroll]
chunkstyle Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 10/02/07
Posts: 2356
Were simply livestock to be rendered by the wealthy.
First Epstein.
Now Buck: Ed Buck Indicted After Two Overdose Deaths in West Hollywood Apartment

Top
#316221 - 10/03/19 04:29 PM Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? [Re: logtroll]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17424
We live in a representative democracy. Since adoption of the Permanent Reappointment Act of 1929, however, we have become less "representative", thus less "democratic".

Top
#316228 - 10/03/19 07:58 PM Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? [Re: Ujest Shurly]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1655
Originally Posted By: Ujest Shurly
Senator Hatrack: "Is Public law 62-5 a Constitutional Admendment? No, it isn't therefore it isn't lawfull."

Ummm, you may need a brief refresher, on how a bill becomes law. Here is a short video to help you: How a bill becomes a law Since Public Law 62-5, was passed by Congress it is lawful, maybe not righteous, but it sure is lawfull.

No, Public Law 62-5 is not lawful. It isn't because it isn't a Constitutional amendment! To explain why it isn't lawful, even it was passed following the proper procedure for a bill to become a law, say Congress passes Public Law XX-X. This law says that members of the Senate now hold office for life. Congress can only change the length of a Senator's term with a Constitutional amendment. Public Law 62-5 changed the number of Representatives in Congress. Since it was NOT a Constitutional amendment it isn't lawful, regardless of the fact that it was passed using the proper procedure for a bill to become a law.


Originally Posted By: U jest Shurly
Senator Hatrack: "Why would Congress pass a law that reduces it's power? By limiting the number of Representatives to 435 the power each one of them has was greatly increased!"

Just how has Public Law 62-5 reduced the power of Congress? Public Law 62-5, does not reduce the power of Congress, if anything it maintains the power and ensures each Representative has the same power as all other Representatives.

Public Law 62-5 does not reduce the power of Congress. It does just the opposite, it increases the power of members of Congress. That is why I asked the question why would Congress pass a law that reduces it's power? It wouldn't!

Originally Posted By: U jest Shurly
Senator Hatrack: "The people who live in Washington, D.C. are represented by delegates with limited voting power."

Wrong! Wash D.C, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, The Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Guam do not have a Representative with voting powers (yes, their voting powers are limited, they can only vote on procedural matters and on committees, they can not vote on legislation or anything on the floor). Nor, do these territories have a Senator. They are Americans without the right to vote in Federal elections, but they have the burden to pay taxes, etc. They suffer, Taxation without representation ...! Does that sound familiar?
(James Otis, 1761: Taxation without representation is tyranny.)
When a question is expanded after it has been answered of course the answer will be wrong. My answer to your question do the citizens of Washington, D.C., and only Washington, D.C., have Representatives in Congress is correct, yes, they do.


Originally Posted By: U jest Shurly
Senator Hatrack "This unconstitutional bipartisan law has worked well for members of Congress to the detriment of the American people."

Prove, Public Law 62-5 is unconstitutional. Prove, it has worked well for members of Congress. Prove, it is a detriment to the American People.
Is it a Constitutional amendment? No, it isn't. Because only a Constitutional amendment can change the number of Representatives in Congress, Public Law 62-5 is unconstitutional. The purpose of the House of Representatives and their being up for election every two years was to keep in close contact with their constituents. That is why our Constitution says that is to be one Representative for every 30,000 people. The detriment to the American people is that it isolates our Representatives from us. What citizen has the time and money to go to Washington, D.C. to talk with their Representative? Public Law 62-5 makes our Representatives inaccessible to us and that is very detrimental to the American people!
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#316236 - 10/04/19 12:13 AM Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? [Re: NW Ponderer]
perotista Offline
journeyman

Registered: 09/05/19
Posts: 821
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
We live in a representative democracy. Since adoption of the Permanent Reappointment Act of 1929, however, we have become less "representative", thus less "democratic".


Hmm, I think you're right.
_________________________
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

Top
#316240 - 10/04/19 12:44 AM Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
perotista Offline
journeyman

Registered: 09/05/19
Posts: 821
The Constitution is explicit. "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every 35,000."

The only Constitutional way to change that is by Amendment. Article V.

I totally agree it is unconstitutional. But it isn't going to change until someone with standing can challenge PL 62-5 and get the SCOTUS to rule on it.
_________________________
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

Top
#316259 - 10/04/19 04:05 PM Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? [Re: perotista]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17424
This issue was addressed by the Constitutional Apportionment Amendment (Wikipedia), the only one of the original 12 Amendments never ratified.

Top
#316260 - 10/04/19 04:08 PM Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? [Re: logtroll]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17424
While I agree with the sentiment and the literal application of the Constitution in this regard, I do believe a House of 11000 members would be...a little large. Had that been reality, however, the Amendment might have passed.
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#316261 - 10/04/19 04:31 PM Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? [Re: NW Ponderer]
perotista Offline
journeyman

Registered: 09/05/19
Posts: 821
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
This issue was addressed by the Constitutional Apportionment Amendment (Wikipedia), the only one of the original 12 Amendments never ratified.

I didn't know that. Amazing what one can learn on a political site. It also proves one is never too old to learn.
_________________________
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

Top
#316262 - 10/04/19 04:37 PM Re: Are both "sides" equally corrupt? [Re: NW Ponderer]
perotista Offline
journeyman

Registered: 09/05/19
Posts: 821
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
While I agree with the sentiment and the literal application of the Constitution in this regard, I do believe a House of 11000 members would be...a little large. Had that been reality, however, the Amendment might have passed.


I don't know the history of this. But I do think gathering 2/3rds vote required in both chambers would have happened. Then one needed 3/4ths of the states. Perhaps some of the smaller population states might have opposed, again I don't know.

But apparently there were enough senators for cloture. Cloture back in those days required 67 senators, not 60. 60 votes came about in 1975.

If I'm correct, I wonder why congress or the house decided to skirt the amendment process which was clearly called for.
_________________________
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

Top
Page 2 of 15 < 1 2 3 4 ... 14 15 >

Who's Online
0 registered (), 39 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Superfly, GreatNewsTonight, danarhea, RoughDraft274, CPWILL
6292 Registered Users
A2