Founding Fathers would be horrified at today’s Senate
Wow.
Last night, U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina sent a message to his fellow senators, informing them that between now and Election Day, he intended to block votes on any legislation that he did not personally approve beforehand.
And under the arcane, archaic and anarchic “rules” of the Senate, one solo senator actually has the power to do so. Those rules are artifacts of a collegial Senate that disappeared long ago and is never returning, especially if DeMint and others have their way.
For months now, DeMint has made it pretty clear that he intends to challenge Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for de facto if not official control over the Republican Senate caucus come January. This current power play is just another step in that effort.
McConnell, you see, is much too accommodating for DeMint and others like him. In the four years that McConnell has served as Republican leader, they have turned to the filibuster to block Senate votes a mere 257 times, which is hardly nine times more than the total from 1919 to 1960.
And with more than 100 vacancies on the federal judiciary, a vacancy level that is making it difficult to conduct court business, the Senate has confirmed “fewer judges … during President Obama’s first 20 months in office than during any administration since Richard Nixon’s,” which further proves that McConnell is an Obama lackey.
And just to be clear: Filibusters, holds and other devices used to block votes in the Senate are not constitutional provisions. To the contrary, the Founding Fathers who drafted the Constitution distrusted requirements for a legislative supermajority, and limited their use to only a handful of very specific cases and well-defined cases, such as passage of treaties, impeachment and removal of a member.
Alexander Hamilton
“To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser,” Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist No. 22, explaining why he and other drafters rejected its use in most cases.
In Federalist No. 75, Hamilton wrote that “all provisions which require more than the majority of any body to its resolutions, have a direct tendency to embarrass the operations of the government, and an indirect one to subject the sense of the majority to that of the minority… And the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed, is a history of impotence, perplexity, and disorder.”
In Federalist No. 58, the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison, himself takes up the cudgel against requirements for more than a majority to conduct business.
James Madison
“In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed,” he warned. “It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.”
Smart guy, that Jamie. He would no doubt react in horror to what DeMint and others are attempting to do to his creation, particularly since they claim to be acting in defense of the very Constitution that they trod upon.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
568 comments Add your comment
Hillbilly Deluxe
September 28th, 2010
10:43 pm
If I started making less money and couldn’t live in the lifestyle I was used to, I give serious consideration to scaling back my lifestyle. That’s just me talking, though.
TaxPayer
September 28th, 2010
10:43 pm
The only thing you know is they make more money than you and you’re entitled to some of it.
Actually, it’s the roads and bridges that they rely on that are entitled to some of it and the military that are entitled to some of it and the folks checking airplane passengers that are entitled to some of it and the folks in Congress and even the folks in the White House that are entitled to some of it, for starters.
Mick
September 28th, 2010
10:44 pm
**Puhleaseee……… Go sell that crap somewhere else**
Simpleton.
md
September 28th, 2010
10:46 pm
“You know, the envy of the prosperous toward those too poor to pay income taxes is truly something amazing to see.”
Can you show us where you saw it, or are you assuming???
RB from Gwinnett
September 28th, 2010
10:46 pm
“If I didn’t know better, I’d suspect that RB was Nathan Deal’s accountant.”
Jay, do you have a point you’d like to debate or are you going to take the liberal line of “can’t debate so belittle and call names”? Is that something you learned in “Journalism” school?
Mick
September 28th, 2010
10:48 pm
**If I started making less money and couldn’t live in the lifestyle I was used to, I give serious consideration to scaling back my lifestyle**
Congrats HD, I don’t think I’ve ever read a mean spirited post from you ever. Not to mention serving up some great tunes that I might not have ever been exposed to, keep on trucking man…
md
September 28th, 2010
10:50 pm
I do find it interesting that so many find it except able that those with more should pay more “just because they can”.
Isn’t that the very definition of class warfare?
Sounds like a war where one side is losing and will eventually never win.
Mick
September 28th, 2010
10:50 pm
rb
Excuse me but you have been the one tossing out the invectives. Do you not realize this?
Kamchak
September 28th, 2010
10:51 pm
You simpletons just don’t get it do you? You might do yourself a favor by thinking for a change.
Shorter RB: I can’t walk this back.
WyldByllHyltnyr
September 28th, 2010
10:51 pm
Now, Jay, let’s remove your rose coloured glasses and look at the unvarnished truth. The Founders would be appalled by the Democratic agenda. They, too, would probably filabuster.
RB from Gwinnett
September 28th, 2010
10:54 pm
“If I started making less money and couldn’t live in the lifestyle I was used to, I give serious consideration to scaling back my lifestyle”
Give us some examples of what you think a $500K earner should cut from their budget. Please be careful not to include things that will put others out of work in the process.
AmVet
September 28th, 2010
10:56 pm
Enter your comments hereEnter your comments here”…can’t debate so belittle and call names…”
Go sell that crap somewhere else.
You simpletons just don’t get it do you? You might do yourself a favor by thinking for a change.
Hurry back with some actual numbers and not your bleeding heart opinions.
If you can’t form a more relevant arguement for a tax increase than that, stay out of the discussion. You’re not qualified to be here. Go share your opinion at the Simpson’s blog or something.
Are you really that stupid? Seriously?
Tired of hearing this stupid arguement.
Again, you are either the LIAR trying to fool the dunces or you are the dunce being fooled by the LIE. Take your pick.
All from the very adult RB in the last hour alone.
If not such an asinine ass, this guy would be pretty funny…
RB from Gwinnett
September 28th, 2010
10:59 pm
Mick, all I’ve done is point out many of the lies being told by the liberals for the purpose of fooling the masses. I’m sorry if that hits a little close to home for you.
Do us a favor. Why would democrats call a reduction in the INCREASE of spending on education a “cut in education spending”? It’s still being INCREASED over current year, isn’t it? If not to scare their minions, what would be the purpose of spreading that lie?
Do you even realize you’re being lied to?
Mick
September 28th, 2010
11:00 pm
amvet@10:56
Right on….http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gedqNpd_90g
md
September 28th, 2010
11:00 pm
“Maybe I’m inferring to much here, but this is offensive.”
Yes, you are inferring too much here. If you go back a few months, you will notice that I think societies priorities are upside down. Those that put their life on the line such as police, firemen, soldiers, etc should be making the big bucks, and the movie stars, athletes, and the rest of us should be on the lower end of the scale.
But that isn’t reality.
And since we choose everything we do, it’s nothing more than an excuse for the most part.
Mick
September 28th, 2010
11:02 pm
**all I’ve done is point out many of the lies being told by the liberals for the purpose of fooling the masses.**
Do you not realize that I can make the exact same argument about the conservatives? How’s about dropping the labels and thinking for yourself?
Hillbilly Deluxe
September 28th, 2010
11:02 pm
Give us some examples of what you think a $500K earner should cut from their budget. Please be careful not to include things that will put others out of work in the process.
High end cars could go, boats could go, could move in to a smaller house and rent out the current one, if I couldn’t sell it. No more eating out, no more vacations, no more new clothes, other than a few off the rack essentials, jewelry could go (although in reality I don’t own any, always thought it was a waste) if you had stocks or bonds, etc, those could be sold. That’s just what popped into my head. I’m sure if I saw their budget I could come up with some more.
Mick
September 28th, 2010
11:03 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gedqNpd_90g
md
September 28th, 2010
11:04 pm
HD,
I do believe that is his point – when you cut back on all those things, someone may very well be out of a job.
RW-(the original)
September 28th, 2010
11:05 pm
Hillbilly D,
Can we put you to work on the federal budget? Once you get done there those other folks should be just fine.
AmVet
September 28th, 2010
11:06 pm
Mick, most of these uber-angry cons would rather talk about Lenin, than listen to Lennon…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYLdmi_U99w
Hortense
September 28th, 2010
11:07 pm
In response to your opinion regarding Eddie Long.I fully agree with all the things that were said.We need to listen to our children and support then instead of supporting high powered individuals .If Eddie Long was not guilty he would have said so the first day his accusers came out.What kind of church followers are those who uphold wrongs.He should not be allowed to continue on the pulpit until this is all cleared up.This is the reason why so many of our young men end up in the system because when they are hurt we all turn our backs on them.Shame on those church followers.
Mick
September 28th, 2010
11:11 pm
amvet
Killer tune….one of my favorite albums of all time….a great time in my life-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7ThzeFA8lg
Hillbilly Deluxe
September 28th, 2010
11:12 pm
I do believe that is his point – when you cut back on all those things, someone may very well be out of a job.
Well, no matter what you do, it’s going to affect somebody. Nobody lives in a vacuum. The 500k wage earner can count off a trip as a business expense and conduct very little business while doing it (although the rules for this are a bit stricter than they once were). I’ve seen many of my bosses and co-workers go on business paid trips that were essentially write-off vacations. They went to a meeting, for one hour each day, for it to qualify as a business expense. That money that they don’t pay is made up somewhere else. So a guy digging ditches for $8-$10 bucks an hour, who probably never gets to take a vacation, is paying taxes to subsidize that. I once worked for a man who went on one of these trips and while he was there (Orlando), he went clothes shopping for his wife and kids and bought $1700 worth of stuff that he wrote off to the business.
So I’ll shed no tears when somebody has to cut back. I’ve had to do it many times and they ain’t no better than me.
RB from Gwinnett
September 28th, 2010
11:13 pm
Amvet, why don’t you go ahead and call me “hateful”, “mean spirited” or “full of hate” or whatever this weeks liberal label is for anybody who stands up to the liberal BS that’s been spewed here this evening? You people think you can lie like rugs and then you cry like children when somebody points out the sheer stupidity of the stuff you come up with. It’s amazing the total lack of knowledge of how business works, how small business peoples incomes are earned and spent, and how the economy works from people who are more than happy to sign up for a “screw the other guy” tax. Unbelievable.
Can one of you please explain how Obama villified the insurance companies over healthcare and then passed a bill that requires 30MM more people to become their profit providing customers? And the sheep think the man’s a genius for doing it!!! ( you can add sheep to your list now )
AmVet
September 28th, 2010
11:15 pm
Me three, Mick!
I remember driving through the English countryside, circa 1975, listening to that cassette over and over and over.
One more from one of the great albums of all time…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLqINBp_b4w
AmVet
September 28th, 2010
11:18 pm
NO RB, the ONLY thing I did was demonstrate on a public forum what a full blown hypocrite you are.
And one day, if you get enough maturity, you’ll be embarrassed that you couldn’t even admit it.
I saw a bumper sticker once that describes this situation perfectly:
You are what you hate.
Mick
September 28th, 2010
11:19 pm
**anybody who stands up to the liberal BS that’s been spewed here this evening?**
Dude, you take yourself way too seriously…so we disagree….no problem…after all, that is america….there’s enough blame to go around on both sides of the aisle and that’s where we are today…..no excuse to get bent out of shape over….life is too short, carpe diem..
Mick
September 28th, 2010
11:22 pm
amvet – hypnotic and very different mood music-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDI_PSJebUY
RB from Gwinnett
September 28th, 2010
11:24 pm
High end cars could go, boats could go, — go where? who’s going to buy them?
could move in to a smaller house and rent out the current one, if I couldn’t sell it. — Sell it to who? Another rich person who’s struggling to pay their own mortgage?
No more eating out, — a few waiters out of work and the retaurant owner now can’t afford his $8K tax increase.
no more vacations, — a few maids are now out of a job, hotel owner is going under and can’t pay his tax increase, airline baggage guy unemployed, rental car employee terminated, guy who makes rental cars laid off,
no more new clothes,– store employee laid off, store owner struggling to pay his tax increase
other than a few off the rack essentials, — so it’s ok with the clothing police if he buys cheap crap?
jewelry could go — jewelry store employee gone, store out of business, strip mall owner struggling to pay his taxes because he lost the rent formerly being paid by jewelry store
if you had stocks or bonds, etc, those could be sold. — to WHOM??????? You?
That’s just what popped into my head. I’m sure if I saw their budget I could come up with some more.
From the looks of your list, there are some obvious things I could point out about your understanding of our economy, but I suspect everyone else already gets it and you’re not going to, so……
David Granger
September 28th, 2010
11:25 pm
Good column, Jay…I suspect you’re probably right. They would be appalled at today’s Senate. (Were you equally disappointed and outspoken about it when it was the Democrats doing all the filibustering?)
And I also suspect that…as appalled as they might be at the Senate…that would pale in comparison to their disgust at the Supreme Court…ruling that, although the law TECHNICALLY says one thing, it really needs to say what we WANT it to say, so…(Wink! Wink!)…we’re going to allow certain things…affirmative action, confiscation without due process…to be done.
Hillbilly Deluxe
September 28th, 2010
11:28 pm
there are some obvious things I could point out about your understanding of our economy,
Whatever, Dude.
It’s past my bedtime. Nite all.
Mick
September 28th, 2010
11:28 pm
amvet – here’s one that was cut from that album-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV7pZPqjaIk
RB from Gwinnett
September 28th, 2010
11:31 pm
“Dude, you take yourself way too seriously…so we disagree….no problem”
Mick, if all we did was disagree, there wouldn’t be a problem, but the truth is you and people who think like you are actually trying to implement some of these stupid ideas at the expense of the rest of us. That’s where we have a problem. Socialism is a proven failure everywhere it’s been tried, yet you and your cohorts are trying your darndest to get us there as fast as possible. Legislation that takes thousands of dollars out of somebody else’s pocket is not “disagreeing” any longer.
AmVet
September 28th, 2010
11:34 pm
Enter your comments hereMick. I always loved those “Harrison-like” brass parts in his songs. He was just so cool and so far ahead of everybody else in some ways.
I’m glad we had him, even if it was for just a short while.
I think he made us all better human beings.
Time to call it a day, friends…
Mick
September 28th, 2010
11:35 pm
rb
Man, you are just so superior in your little mind. Fear and paranoia will eventually destroy ya. Go fishing, climb a mountain, ain’t no librul gonna take that away from you….peace
Don't Forget
September 28th, 2010
11:59 pm
Not trying to tick anyone off but it’s amazing how little some of the conservatives on here know about business and profitability and the way Jay has totally owned you guys tonight. Sorry I missed it.
md
September 29th, 2010
12:02 am
“Not trying to tick anyone off but it’s amazing how little some of the conservatives on here know about business and profitability and the way Jay has totally owned you guys tonight.”
Always time for you to explain it for us. Go ahead, take a stab at it if you think Jay even had a clue.
md
September 29th, 2010
12:10 am
Jay thinks there is a group of people in this country that all fall under the label “poor”, and are all the same regardless of circumstances.
That should tell you something.
Should a student that chooses to study 24/7 and do no partying and makes A’s have to share those A’s with a poor little student that chooses to party 24/7 and do no studying and makes F’s??
We choose everything we do, and effort IS part of the equation. Enabling the “poor” is not the cure, it is the disease.
Don't Forget
September 29th, 2010
12:49 am
md, jay summed it pretty well in his posts. As to the A student F student argument you miss the point. If the F student goes out and learns his/her job and plays an important role in the success of the organization he/she deserves to be compensated for doing a good job. No organization is successful without people performing at every level. But the current environment only rewards the upper levels while ignoring the contributions and the ideas from the lower levels. An economic system should reward based on performance and contribution to profit. That is not the case now and virtually all the income gains go to the top. I’ve seen top level management dictate workforce reductions without any plan on how to get it done. They rely on the resourcefulness of their people to get it done and then take all the credit for the savings. You see, some people are “more equal” on the animal farm.
RW-(the original)
September 29th, 2010
1:09 am
Jay has totally owned you guys tonight.
Was that when he said that any employe added bottom line profit to a business, when he demonstrated that he had no idea of the difference between marginal and effective tax rates, or when he totally misrepresented the effect of letting all tax reductions on upper income earners expire?
Actually I’m watching The Wrestler at the moment and I think his recommendation of that movie way back when is possibly the most egregious of all those errors tonight.
stands for decibels
September 29th, 2010
5:48 am
The FIRST $250K is taked at the same rate for everybody. If you make $300K, ONLY the last $50K is taxed at the higher rate.
I continue to be astonished at how many of my fellow citizens seem unable to grasp this concept.
Yesterday, one of the “Daves” was claiming in all seriousness that the reason the number of people making less than 1 million went down, was because these individuals deliberately reduced their income so they wouldn’t go above a magic mark where all of their taxes get taxed. or something.
Mr. D
September 29th, 2010
6:02 am
Standing filibuster….get talking. The Dems just roll over and take it. They need to stand up to these tactics by using the rules and make them hold the floor 24/7. Otherwise, the train needs to move forward with or without the minority. Demint is only as powerful as the majority lets he pretend to be.
stands for decibels
September 29th, 2010
7:14 am
when he demonstrated that he had no idea of the difference between marginal and effective tax rates
I’m not sure when that magic moment occured, RW, but I found those charts rather interesting, given that their “Total Effective Tax Rate” rather clearly shows that the people yabbering about how “47% pay no income taxes” are just pants-on-fire liars.
Jay
September 29th, 2010
7:18 am
Yup, RW’s post is a gross distortion of the conversation, and I’m pretty sure he knows that.
Saul Good
September 29th, 2010
7:23 am
Yet they fail to see how they’ve earned the title of the “party of no”…
stands for decibels
September 29th, 2010
7:23 am
The financial assets charts, if accurate, are rather astonishing. I’m surprised at how little wealth median American households really have.
And conservatives really think that piratizing SS is s good idea? Given that the median household assets are slightly less than $29K; given that it only rises to $72K when you get to the 55-64 year old demographic–and this is with goo-gobs of existing tax incentives for people to save and invest for retirement already–you really think that people will take that additional 13% in income (or whatever it’d really work out to) and sock it away? And we’d never have to look after them again in their dotage?
Really?
stands for decibels
September 29th, 2010
7:25 am
I’m pretty sure he knows that.
All’s I can say in response is, TRUE BLUE CONSERVATIVES, WRITE IN KAREN HANDEL!
(heh.)
Doggone/GA
September 29th, 2010
7:27 am
“WRITE IN KAREN HANDEL!”
You know…no matter how that election turns out, the breakdown in where the votes went is going to be interesting
TaxPayer
September 29th, 2010
7:28 am
Did someone mention effective tax rates. How about this IRS data.
Joel Edge
September 29th, 2010
7:29 am
Wow
Lord knows we can’t have minority rule over the majority. Why is it liberals seem to champion majority rule only when it would benefit them. What happen to “The Tyranny of the Majority” song you people were singing. This is why I have stopped voting for Dems. Two faced rascals.
Doggone/GA
September 29th, 2010
7:32 am
“What happen to “The Tyranny of the Majority” song you people were singing.”
That has already been addressed upthread. Try reading back so you can keep up.
stands for decibels
September 29th, 2010
7:32 am
I’m still somewhat dumbfounded at that assets chart. Jay, did you see it?
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=549&Topic2id=49
again, IF ACCURATE… even the top 10%’s net worth is $404K. Granted, if you segregated that group by age and looked at them nearing retirement age it’d surely go up. But still. These are the wealthiest 10% of Americans, and even THEY are only set up to live semi-comfortably in retirement, if you assume a typical rate of ROI on those holdings.
And again–we’re going to piratize SS? Really? Really?
Do go on, Mssrs Boehner, DeMint, et. al. Pull the other one.
stands for decibels
September 29th, 2010
7:37 am
I should’ve added @7.32:
and even THEY are only set up to live semi-comfortably in retirement, if you assume a typical rate of ROI on those holdings AND include their SS monthly income. Which they’ll damn sure collect, and they’ll damn sure need.
TaxPayer
September 29th, 2010
7:41 am
Most of the income going to the top 400 tax returns is from capital. Salaries and wages accounted for only 6.5 percent of the top 400’s income in 2007, down from 7.4 percent in 2006 and 26.2 percent in 1992. The average salary rose from 2006 to 2007, however, just at a slower rate than overall income growth.
The biggest source of income was capital gains, which are taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent. Gains accounted for 66.3 percent of 2007 income for the top 400, up from 62.8 percent in 2006 and 36.1 percent in 1992.
Only 7 of the top 400 have shown up in the report every year, the IRS data showed. Of the 6,400 returns covered by the 16 years of the report, the IRS said that 2,515, or almost 40 percent, appeared one time.
The report shows that the number of the top 400 who paid an effective tax rate of 0 percent to 10 percent declined slightly, to 25 in 2007 from 31 in 2006. In 1992 only 6 of the top 400 paid an effective income tax rate of less than 10 percent.
Another 127 paid 10 percent to 15 percent in 2007, up from 113 in 2006.
Only 33 of the top 400 paid an effective tax rate of 30 percent to 35 percent, which is the maximum federal tax rate.
stands for decibels
September 29th, 2010
7:41 am
Did someone mention effective tax rates. How about this IRS data.
it’s yet another way of slicing/dicing, but yeah, that’s rather eye-opening too.
I assume the raw adjusted gross income of the bottom 90% is per capita, not per household, yes?
stands for decibels
September 29th, 2010
7:45 am
Also, the next time some Tea Partier gives you this one:
Socialism is a proven failure everywhere it’s been tried
Please, please, remember what Tea Partiers consider to be “Socialism.” And then laugh in their faces.
Doggone/GA
September 29th, 2010
7:48 am
“Please, please, remember what Tea Partiers consider to be “Socialism.” And then laugh in their faces”
I do, every time
Bob
September 29th, 2010
7:53 am
If the founders saw our gov playing robinhood they would be turning in their graves. The best thing for this country at this point is gridlock.
Saul Good
September 29th, 2010
7:57 am
“…The best thing for this country at this point is gridlock.”
Now THAT’S what I call a being a true “Patriot” is my friend…
Do you even realize how faulty that logic is?
Joel Edge
September 29th, 2010
7:58 am
“That has already been addressed upthread. Try reading back so you can keep up.”
Apparently not. We aren’t talking about basic freedoms here, sport. We’re talking about why Dems seem to think a majority gives them unlimited power. When the process is moving against them, they cry about tyranny. The post stands.
Doggone/GA
September 29th, 2010
8:00 am
“We’re talking about why Dems seem to think a majority gives them unlimited power”
Is that anything like this, from Dick Cheney? “You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due. ” to Paul O’Neill, then Treasury Secretary
stands for decibels
September 29th, 2010
8:01 am
We’re talking about why Dems seem to think a majority gives them unlimited power.
Well, at least you threw in a “seem” there, but please. Surely there’s a middle point–hell, I’d settle for a two-thirds or even three-quarters point–between completely acquiescing to the majority and using the hold and cloture vote privileges as ridiculously often as the Republicans have chosen to do.
stands for decibels
September 29th, 2010
8:02 am
Are any conservatives going to stand up and acknowledge that the “47% pay no taxes” lie is, in fact, a lie?
And that we are in no way configured fiscally to privatize Social Security?
Saul Good
September 29th, 2010
8:06 am
Obviously this belongs on the last thread downstairs:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100929/tv_nm/us_gay
But if and when the “Bishop” confesses to being gay/bi… he uses THIS as the very reason/blame:
“U.S. television getting more gay friendly
….The number of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) characters on prime time U.S. television is growing, with 58 regular LGBT roles on network and cable shows this season, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) said in a report on Wednesday.
GLAAD said that 23 LGBT characters account for 3.9 percent of regular characters in scripted network shows like Emmy-winning comedies “Modern Family” and “Glee” in the 2010-2011 TV season, which started last week….”
Yet at only 3.9% it’s still WAY below the percentage of the world’s population that’s homosexual. Perhaps the “Bishop” can blame his homosexual Hollywood friends for his actions… though he claims he is not one any longer (yeah right)..at least Ted Haggard somewhat “owned” up to it… it’s time for the “Bishop” to do the same.
RW-(the original)
September 29th, 2010
9:23 am
Well I certainly don’t think I distorted the conversation any further than it already was, but I’ll leave that to others to decide. I still say The Wrestler sucked though.
AmVet
September 29th, 2010
9:37 am
Jay, re your 7:18, it was a complete distortion of what transpired.
But that is usually a given.
David S
September 29th, 2010
9:51 am
Yes they would be horrified. It was their intention that the Senate be elected by the State Legislatures and not by the people at large. It was their intention to give the States a representation in the Congress so that the Federal government would not have the power to undermine the authority given them by the Constitution. In the early 1900’s, along with the horrible income tax, the illegal Federal Reserve, prohibition and other giant mistakes, the progressives took away the Legislative election of the Senate and the country has been going downhill ever since.
With both houses elected by the people, there is no point in even having a Senate, since there is no balance of power and the States have been totally enslaved by the federal government.
Yes, the Founding Fathers would be appalled, but not for the pathetic reasons you give.