About Me

Name: Always To The...
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Now

Kill The Lame Duck

Governance: It is an anachronism a constitutional amendment tried to kill. It lets defeated legislators wreak political and economic havoc without consequence. Like the dodo, the lame duck should be extinct.

Elections are supposed to have consequences, one of them being occasionally throwing the rascals out. Yet here the rascals we threw out on Nov. 2 are still running the roost and deciding the fate of our republic in ways we have already rejected.

Enter the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ratified on Jan. 23, 1933, it was designed to end forever the excesses of lame duck sessions, but because of the way it was written utterly failed to accomplish one of its main purposes.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No Libertarians

The Founders weren’t libertarians
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Another Washington Whitewash

As we predicted, a "bipartisan" Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission next month will deliver a highly partisan report blaming Wall Street and Republicans for the mess — not government. Last year, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid sold the congressionally appointed panel as a ... More »
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Equality

Congressional panel: It’s time to let women serve in combat

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Or Just A Repeal Of One?

Do we need a “repeal amendment”?

The problem of federal overreach is real, but this looks like a poor solution to it.  Those who want to see government restrained by the states would do better to repeal the 17th Amendment.  Instead of requiring popular votes for Senators, go back to the original purpose of the Senate and let the states choose how to pick their Senators instead.  Some might keep the popular vote in place, but those states concerned about federal encroachment on state sovereignty might return to having appointments made by the state legislatures, or governors confirmed by the legislatures.  That would make the state itself the constituent of each Senator, and they could overrule the populist inclinations of the House by thwarting encroaching legislation.

That, too, has its drawbacks.  Senators would be much less accountable to voters, having won their position not by popular ballot but through the favor of a governor or legislature.  Party discipline would evaporate, which has its good points as well; Senators would not be accountable to a party, but to the interests of their state governments.  Factions would form on the basis of regional politics and ideology rather than party, and the upper chamber would be much less susceptible to popular movements.  Consider that in this past election, a Tea Party would have captured as many seats in the House as it did this year, but the results in the Senate would be much different.  One would never see a Rand Paul, and possibly not a Marco Rubio, either, and Russ Feingold would probably still have his seat.  Ron Johnson, a political outsider, would never have even been considered in Wisconsin for that position.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Or Is It Just Mostly Dead?

Is Keynesianism dead?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »