Boehner: Congress 'Ought To Be Judged On How Many Laws We Repeal'

[Stardreamer]

George W Bush's "No Child Left Behind" act was one of the worst pieces of legislation regarding education. Also get rid of the Patriot Act. Those are a couple he scan start with.

Speaking of the Patriot Act, an attempt to place hard limits on the NSA surveillance programs was narrowly defeated today but instead of being along party lines like most legislative efforts have been lately, it turned out to be a division between a pair of odd coalitions; the pro-defense conservatives and pro-Obama liberals (you could say the big government wings of the parties) fighting to prevent passage. The libertarian right and liberals opposed to Obama's continued support of the Bush era intelligence programs supporting passage. Rather interesting to see and disappointing that the civil liberty alliance failed.

 

[Rolyo85]

Do you think that a Congress that let those things simply expire would have remained in power long? The concept itself came out of a sci-fi novel I had read years ago, the concept is that laws should be difficult to pass and easy to repeal, if a law is truly good and serves the people, it will be sustained; if not it is best gotten rid of quickly.

Sounds good as an idea, but in reality we see how easily led and how ignorant giant chunks of the population are. This country would turn medieval within five years...

 

[Stardreamer]

Sounds good as an idea, but in reality we see how easily led and how ignorant giant chunks of the population are. This country would turn medieval within five years...

Granted, many of the greater political concepts like total democracy and total socialism, sound really good on paper but prove very problematic in execution.

 

[tigerfan482]

Do you think that a Congress that let those things simply expire would have remained in power long? The concept itself came out of a sci-fi novel I had read years ago, the concept is that laws should be difficult to pass and easy to repeal, if a law is truly good and serves the people, it will be sustained; if not it is best gotten rid of quickly.

Do you see how difficult it is now to get any law passed (or repealed for that matter)? All they would have to do is let certain laws expire and then just act as roadblocks to them ever getting passed again. That's the one thing Republicans ARE good at. And in that time, when a law such as not being able to kill someone on federal land sits in limbo, we're stuck with a situation in which we've made things like murder legal.

 

[Stardreamer]

Do you see how difficult it is now to get any law passed (or repealed for that matter)? All they would have to do is let certain laws expire and then just act as roadblocks to them ever getting passed again. That's the one thing Republicans ARE good at. And in that time, when a law such as not being able to kill someone on federal land sits in limbo, we're stuck with a situation in which we've made things like murder legal.

And perhaps the people would finally see how messed up the parties involved are we would get some serious leadership put in place.

 

[tigerfan482]

And perhaps the people would finally see how messed up the parties involved are we would get some serious leadership put in place.

Letting people be killed to make a political point is a great idea. Except in America, unless they're the one being killed, people wouldn't care. No third or fourth or fifth party is ever going to get elected because they're just a different brand of extreme. Besides, unless you're advocating going to a dictatorship, this is the best you're going to get. The current government is exactly what the electorate has chosen to put in there. It's the people's choice and they've made their decision. There are too many varying and extreme opinions out there anymore to get any kind of consensus government. We're going to continue down this path of getting nothing done because no one wants to give up anything that affects them and wants everyone else to make the sacrifices. When everyone is looking out for number one, which they always do, you're never going to get anything done that benefits the whole.

 

[CowboyBob]

They can repeal all these "Stand Your Ground" laws too.

More bad legislation.

 

[Benvolio]

Do you see how difficult it is now to get any law passed (or repealed for that matter)? All they would have to do is let certain laws expire and then just act as roadblocks to them ever getting passed again. That's the one thing Republicans ARE good at. And in that time, when a law such as not being able to kill someone on federal land sits in limbo, we're stuck with a situation in which we've made things like murder legal.

Killing on Federal land is illegal, but it is a State law murder, not a Federal one. Murder, like most crimes, is among the areas of legislation not delegated to the Federal government, but reserved to the states. A problem with making such things a violation of both Federal and State law is the individuals can sometimes be tried twice for the same act. Some people want the Feds to retry Zimmerman, by calling the same act a civil fights violation.

 

[Ninja108]

THey want to roll back all the advances the country has made and take us back to the 1950's.

 

[CowboyBob]

THey want to roll back all the advances the country has made and take us back to the 1950's.

Yes, the Leave it to Beaver days where the wife remained home in the kitchen wearing her pearls, earrings and high heels in a freshly laundered apron.

There's quite a few that want to take us back to 1910. Before women got the vote, homosexuals were unspeakable and minorities knew their place.

 

[rareboy]

So what was the answer to my question?

Benvolio. Tell us. How many laws has Congress repealed?

 

[cm98059]

Letting people be killed to make a political point is a great idea. Except in America, unless they're the one being killed, people wouldn't care. No third or fourth or fifth party is ever going to get elected because they're just a different brand of extreme. Besides, unless you're advocating going to a dictatorship, this is the best you're going to get. The current government is exactly what the electorate has chosen to put in there. It's the people's choice and they've made their decision. There are too many varying and extreme opinions out there anymore to get any kind of consensus government. We're going to continue down this path of getting nothing done because no one wants to give up anything that affects them and wants everyone else to make the sacrifices. When everyone is looking out for number one, which they always do, you're never going to get anything done that benefits the whole.

I believe that there are a lot of people who would vote for a sensible third party candidate if:
1. There was a sensible third party candidate running in the campaign.
2. The media was not pushing a two party agenda by limiting debate only to the Republicans and Democrats.
3. This country was not indoctrinated in this fallacy of a two party system.

 

[tigerfan482]

Killing on Federal land is illegal, but it is a State law murder, not a Federal one. Murder, like most crimes, is among the areas of legislation not delegated to the Federal government, but reserved to the states. A problem with making such things a violation of both Federal and State law is the individuals can sometimes be tried twice for the same act. Some people want the Feds to retry Zimmerman, by calling the same act a civil fights violation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)
Murder is dually sovereign. It can be prosecuted under federal or state law. And there is nothing in the Constitution limiting the power of Congress to legislate laws against murder because doing so is in he interest of establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, and promoting the general welfare of the US. And your example of being tried twice is flawed. If the federal government brings up charges against Zimmerman, it won't be for second degree murder. It will be for civil rights violations which, while related to the crime for which he was tried, is a different charge. Additionally, the Supreme Court has ruled in United States v. Lanza that dual sovereignty laws don't fall under the Fifth Amendment protections against double jeopardy, so the problem doesn't even exist. Further, while the ability exists, it is limited internally by the Justice Department under the Petite Policy. Finally, the idea of dual sovereignty serves partly to prevent surreptitiously skirting federal laws by states. For instance, if a state decided it wanted to legalize drugs and it would allow any federal agent attempting to enforce federal drug laws to be killed in "self-defense", the dual sovereignty of murder would allow for the federal government to still prosecute the killing if the state declined to.

I believe that there are a lot of people who would vote for a sensible third party candidate if:
1. There was a sensible third party candidate running in the campaign.
2. The media was not pushing a two party agenda by limiting debate only to the Republicans and Democrats.
3. This country was not indoctrinated in this fallacy of a two party system.

I would agree, but we have yet to see a really sensible third party candidate. The problem with the third party candidates we've seen are that they really aren't a third party in terms of ideas - they're just one of the two major parties with a slightly tweaked (and generally more radical) agenda.

 

[cm98059]

I would agree, but we have yet to see a really sensible third party candidate. The problem with the third party candidates we've seen are that they really aren't a third party in terms of ideas - they're just one of the two major parties with a slightly tweaked (and generally more radical) agenda.

Which is why I said "a sensible third party candidate". I think if a third party put forth a viable third party candidate, there would be a rush from the other two parties to support this candidate.

 

[Benvolio]

The reason there cannot be a third party for long is inherent in the direct election of the President. A third candidate inevitably draws votes away from the other one most nearest the third in policies. Nader drew liberal votes away from Gore, not Bush. Most of those voters would have preferred Gore over Bush. Perot voters would have preferred Bush to Clinton. So the third party elects the candidate least liked by the switch voters.
If a third party were very successful it would simply destroy one of the parties, leaving us with a two party system. The Whigs disappeared after the Republican success.
All this is inherent in the system and is unavoidable without some big change in the election mechanism.

 

[cm98059]

We need sweeping changes in our electoral system. We need to eliminate the electoral college for on thing, it had it's time, but in this day and age of electronic communications it has outlived its purpose.

 

[frankfrank]

Any movement to remove the Electoral College is doomed to failure, without question. The Senate will NEVER produce the two-thirds majority required for passage (not would the House, ruled by Republicans who fully realize the Electoral College slightly favors Republicans). Even then, forget 3/4 of the states ratifying it.

This is unfortunate, too. It is such a flawed system that no U. S. state has a similar mechanism for electing its Governor.

 

[chrisrobin]

THey want to roll back all the advances the country has made and take us back to the [STRIKE]1950's[/STRIKE] 1930's

Main objective of the Republicons (other than to fuck Pres. Obama) is to nullify the New Deal.

 

[rareboy]

So Congress has yet to repeal one law.

And John Boehner thinks that the Republican Congress should be judged on that.

Okaaaaaaaaaaayyyyy.