Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Shutdown Poll
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Vicomte13" data-source="post: 73603264" data-attributes="member: 383685"><p>It will not pass, and really, it MUST not pass. The ability to shut the government down is literally the only power that the Legislature has to prevent the Executive from imperial rule, or the Executive has from preventing America from devolving into a straight parliamentary system contrary to the very structure of our system.</p><p></p><p>All the way back in colonial times, a hundred years and more before the Revolution, royal governors were appointed and sent by the King, and yet the colonies were not ruled tyrranously by them (for any extended period of time) because of a very important power that was possessed by the colonial legislatures: the power of the purse. The Royal Governor was the executive, clothed with immense power, to be sure, but HIS OWN PAYCHECK was paid by the colonial legislature. When royal governors became abusive, the colonial assemblies would literally cut them off - refuse to pay them anything: no salary, no stipend, nothing. They could continue to rule South Carolina, or wherever, at their OWN expense, but no public money was forthcoming. In 160 years of colonial rule, this ALWAYS brought the royal governors to heel, right up until the last few years before the Revolution, when the Crown starting funding Governors in some cases, and setting up its own external courts, and essentially providing royal governors and officials a way to rule as they pleased WITHOUT the check of the power of the purse.</p><p></p><p>Right now, Congress acts as a check on the President, and the President acts as a check on Congress, because neither can rule without the other. Congress has no power to issue orders to ANY executive officer, and the President can't raise a penny on his own. </p><p></p><p>Congress very nearly gained control over the executive departments after the Civil War - that's what Andrew Johnson was impeached over, and - fortunately for us - Johnson defied the law they enacted, maintained Presidential control over his cabinet, and survived impeachment. Had he been impeached, Congress would have successfully converted the Presidency into an elected version of the British monarchy, with all powers ultimately vested in the Congress. </p><p></p><p>The actual stakes of the current political fight are quite low and rather stupid. $5 billion is chicken feed within our budget and economy. "The Wall" is almost entirely symbolic. It will very modestly assist Border enforcement, at a small cost. The politicians on both side speak of this thing as though it were the New Deal or an issue of titanic national importance. Standing on it's own, it's a ridiculous triviality.</p><p></p><p>What it STANDS FOR, on the other hand, is of immense important. The Wall is the symbolic flag on the political battlefield, over which victory and defeat determines who the current dominant force on the political battlefield in America is. That is why you see so many human beings being such liars, exploding to such immense importance such an utterly trivial thing. </p><p></p><p>The Wall is trivial, but the POWER that is in conflict over the issue is, essentially, everything. to the partisans of both sides. Which is why the issue itself is such a litmus test of the degree of personal integrity in the face of political desire. Ocasio-Cortez is right when she mentions health care versus wealth accumulation as a REAL moral issue of flaming importance. The Wall ain't that, obviously, so when you see human beings hyperventilating over MORALITY when it comes to chump change and a symbol, you are seeing Exhibits A through Z of the degree to which partisan fever corrodes human intellectual integrity into a mass of toxic waste.</p><p></p><p>But that's where we are. For my part, I am unwilling to damage a constitutional structure that has served us quite well for the past three and a half century. It is IMPERATIVE that either the Executive OR the Legislative authority have the power to paralyze government and shut it down over ANY political matter that is of importance enough that they are willing to use the power of the purse or the power of the veto pen.</p><p></p><p>The administrative government is simply not important enough to be allowed an independent existence above the control of "petty" politics. Politics can be petty, but they are also the only way, on great issues, we can keep ourselves free. The people themselves, through their elected politicians, decide what is petty and what isn't. In the current regime, the People have decided that the partisan hatred, Democrat v Republican, is so great that they would rather paralyze and crippled the nation than allow the other side to win ANYTHING. So therefore we have a shut down government, at present, with all of the minor inconveniences that brings.</p><p></p><p>The ALTERNATIVE is to have a government that can run happily no matter what, and the weaker side at the moment unable to exact any real political price from overreach by the weaker side.</p><p></p><p>And THAT, left unchecked, is WHY we had an American Revolution, and why every civil war in the history of mankind has broken out.</p><p></p><p>Look at the partisan posters on this site. You can FEEL the hatred and utter contempt that drip off of them towards the other side. They view the other side as immoral, evil human beings. If given a choice between having to back down to the other side and let the other side rule, perhaps for years, or physically killing them - if they could - many of them would opt to take up arms and kill the other side, because the other side are immoral - the equivalent of Redcoats and Nazis - as far as these partisans are concerned.</p><p></p><p>Paralysis is better than civil war. Our national experience of 400 years of representative government on these shores has taught us that our system, with its built-in potential for paralysis, ultimately works out as long as it continues to function in all of its frustrating compulsion for compromise among enemies. Both times that our system erupted into civil warfare - the American Revolution and the Civil War - it was because that fundamental balance was upset. </p><p></p><p>It would be a deadly mistake to remove from our squabbling politicians the ability to shut down the government, paralyze everything, and make everybody miserable over political points. The ALTERNATIVE is that one side can completely overbear and utterly ignore the other, and government function normally. </p><p></p><p>Do that, and one side will ABSOLUTELY CERTAINLY dominate the other and utterly ignore it, without recourse to politics. Recourse to arms inevitably follows.</p><p></p><p>And while it would make the bitterest partisans happy if they could simply wipe the evil opposition from the face of the earth, most of the rest of us don't think highly enough of EITHER side of our politics to want either one to win all the marbles. </p><p></p><p>Which would you rather have: periodic paralysis and divided government, or unlimited and unbridled exercise of power by your least-favorite of the two political parties?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Vicomte13, post: 73603264, member: 383685"] It will not pass, and really, it MUST not pass. The ability to shut the government down is literally the only power that the Legislature has to prevent the Executive from imperial rule, or the Executive has from preventing America from devolving into a straight parliamentary system contrary to the very structure of our system. All the way back in colonial times, a hundred years and more before the Revolution, royal governors were appointed and sent by the King, and yet the colonies were not ruled tyrranously by them (for any extended period of time) because of a very important power that was possessed by the colonial legislatures: the power of the purse. The Royal Governor was the executive, clothed with immense power, to be sure, but HIS OWN PAYCHECK was paid by the colonial legislature. When royal governors became abusive, the colonial assemblies would literally cut them off - refuse to pay them anything: no salary, no stipend, nothing. They could continue to rule South Carolina, or wherever, at their OWN expense, but no public money was forthcoming. In 160 years of colonial rule, this ALWAYS brought the royal governors to heel, right up until the last few years before the Revolution, when the Crown starting funding Governors in some cases, and setting up its own external courts, and essentially providing royal governors and officials a way to rule as they pleased WITHOUT the check of the power of the purse. Right now, Congress acts as a check on the President, and the President acts as a check on Congress, because neither can rule without the other. Congress has no power to issue orders to ANY executive officer, and the President can't raise a penny on his own. Congress very nearly gained control over the executive departments after the Civil War - that's what Andrew Johnson was impeached over, and - fortunately for us - Johnson defied the law they enacted, maintained Presidential control over his cabinet, and survived impeachment. Had he been impeached, Congress would have successfully converted the Presidency into an elected version of the British monarchy, with all powers ultimately vested in the Congress. The actual stakes of the current political fight are quite low and rather stupid. $5 billion is chicken feed within our budget and economy. "The Wall" is almost entirely symbolic. It will very modestly assist Border enforcement, at a small cost. The politicians on both side speak of this thing as though it were the New Deal or an issue of titanic national importance. Standing on it's own, it's a ridiculous triviality. What it STANDS FOR, on the other hand, is of immense important. The Wall is the symbolic flag on the political battlefield, over which victory and defeat determines who the current dominant force on the political battlefield in America is. That is why you see so many human beings being such liars, exploding to such immense importance such an utterly trivial thing. The Wall is trivial, but the POWER that is in conflict over the issue is, essentially, everything. to the partisans of both sides. Which is why the issue itself is such a litmus test of the degree of personal integrity in the face of political desire. Ocasio-Cortez is right when she mentions health care versus wealth accumulation as a REAL moral issue of flaming importance. The Wall ain't that, obviously, so when you see human beings hyperventilating over MORALITY when it comes to chump change and a symbol, you are seeing Exhibits A through Z of the degree to which partisan fever corrodes human intellectual integrity into a mass of toxic waste. But that's where we are. For my part, I am unwilling to damage a constitutional structure that has served us quite well for the past three and a half century. It is IMPERATIVE that either the Executive OR the Legislative authority have the power to paralyze government and shut it down over ANY political matter that is of importance enough that they are willing to use the power of the purse or the power of the veto pen. The administrative government is simply not important enough to be allowed an independent existence above the control of "petty" politics. Politics can be petty, but they are also the only way, on great issues, we can keep ourselves free. The people themselves, through their elected politicians, decide what is petty and what isn't. In the current regime, the People have decided that the partisan hatred, Democrat v Republican, is so great that they would rather paralyze and crippled the nation than allow the other side to win ANYTHING. So therefore we have a shut down government, at present, with all of the minor inconveniences that brings. The ALTERNATIVE is to have a government that can run happily no matter what, and the weaker side at the moment unable to exact any real political price from overreach by the weaker side. And THAT, left unchecked, is WHY we had an American Revolution, and why every civil war in the history of mankind has broken out. Look at the partisan posters on this site. You can FEEL the hatred and utter contempt that drip off of them towards the other side. They view the other side as immoral, evil human beings. If given a choice between having to back down to the other side and let the other side rule, perhaps for years, or physically killing them - if they could - many of them would opt to take up arms and kill the other side, because the other side are immoral - the equivalent of Redcoats and Nazis - as far as these partisans are concerned. Paralysis is better than civil war. Our national experience of 400 years of representative government on these shores has taught us that our system, with its built-in potential for paralysis, ultimately works out as long as it continues to function in all of its frustrating compulsion for compromise among enemies. Both times that our system erupted into civil warfare - the American Revolution and the Civil War - it was because that fundamental balance was upset. It would be a deadly mistake to remove from our squabbling politicians the ability to shut down the government, paralyze everything, and make everybody miserable over political points. The ALTERNATIVE is that one side can completely overbear and utterly ignore the other, and government function normally. Do that, and one side will ABSOLUTELY CERTAINLY dominate the other and utterly ignore it, without recourse to politics. Recourse to arms inevitably follows. And while it would make the bitterest partisans happy if they could simply wipe the evil opposition from the face of the earth, most of the rest of us don't think highly enough of EITHER side of our politics to want either one to win all the marbles. Which would you rather have: periodic paralysis and divided government, or unlimited and unbridled exercise of power by your least-favorite of the two political parties? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Shutdown Poll
Top
Bottom