h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

To save a lot of space go to http://www.h2g2.com/F15357?thread=75975 where me and the colonel have been doing the British Constitution thing, you will find evrything I'd like to say in reply to his post on the UK v US govermnt there.

The federal government is a contract amoung the states, not amoung the people. The states have been losing their say in how their own affairs are governed by massive bribes offered by the central government.

I think the best answer to this is to give the states a say in how the federal government is run. The best way to do that is to go back to haveing the legislatures appoint US senators.

I think the states should be our focus for what happens in this country. They are supposed to be our labratories for 'democracy'. They can't fufill that function if their actions are dictated by the central government.

Now, I do favor electing the president by popular vote. Even though we are a nation made of of seim-autonomous states, we are one nation. I think that every president should be able to say that she had the support of at least half of those who choose to vote at one point. I think that would make her presidency stronger.

I do agree with you about one thing, I like having a non-president as we have had for the last six years. I just wish it didn't cost so much.

I disagree. You can't have a democracy if the federal government is a contract with the states. I don't think that was the original intent, anyway. The federal government is a contract with the people of all the states. That's why it is important to balance state sovereignty with the needs of the nation as a whole.

States are not "dictated" to, at least in the Constitution. Amendment 10 guarantees that the federal government has no powers not spelled out in that document, and all other powers are retained by the states and by the people. However, the federal government has tended to get heavy-handed with some of the states. Consider California, who approved 3 propositions by popular vote in 1996, only to have them struck down by the feds. One was for medicinal marijuana. One was to eliminate free public services for illegal immigrants, and I forget what the other was. All three were approved by the people through entirely legal, normal channels, and they were issues that were very important to us. It's just another sign that the federal government has exceeded its authority, as spelled out in the Constitution, and a major reason why I vote Libertarian.

But the Senate was intially appointed by the legislatures. I think it is what they wanted.

I am a big supporter of the Tenth Amendment, and I think the federal government does dictate terms to the states. The federal government controls the states by requiring state actions in return for cash. This happened with the speed limits being lowered to 55, and now it's happeneing with the .08 DUI standard. I expect their are numerous examples of the federal government meddling with the states through funding.

I think the states should have representation at the federal level.

The states do. The Senators and Representatives are *supposed* to be looking out for the state. Unfortunately, they are the ones who keep doing all these rediculous things... they're the ones who write the budget, after all. Would it change if the state legislatures appointed the Senate? I really don't think so, but I think it would make the Senate more partisan and less democratic.

And it is worth noting that, in California, the speed limit was raised to 65 in 1996. That one wasn't struck down. The CHP swore we were going to be sorry, that blood on the highway would be the result. 4 years later, we're still looking for it.

If senators are elected directly by the people, why should they care what the state government wants or needs? All they need is a 50% vote of a population that probably doesn't realize what the state government is being forced to live with.

If the legisltures elected senators, I think there would be fewer bribes like the 55 mph speed limit for highway money and there would be fewer unfunded mandates.

What I want is a concentration of power at the state level rather than the national level. I think this would help bring that about.

okay, here's my .02:
The popular vote went to Gore, but by an incredibly thin margin. Bush and his army of daddy's lawyers are raging about fraud. What fraud? I saw a picture of that ballot, and I think I would be confused...things are NOT lined up. But as far as who the president is, frankly, I really don't think it matters much UNLESS the Senate, the congress, and the president are all one party, and then, there's always the philabuster. I admit to having voted for none of the above, including Nader (talk about government control!). I voted for John McCain. A brave and unelectable man, given to being honest, and certainly not for sale. A huge breath of fresh air in D.C., but not a snowball's chance in hell he will ever be President. Too Bad.
As far as state reps doing the work of the state, who said that Conrad Burns, a man who called an Arab statesman a raghead, for crying out loud, ever represent ME? How could either he or Denny Rehberg, an ultra-conservative right winger, ever suppose that I am all about insulting foreign dignitaries, suppressing the rights of women, and claiming that huge tax cuts to corporations who are raping our environment are more important that adequately funding our universities?
stepping off the soapbox now....

This post has been removed.

I don't think we can conclusivly show that the popular election did go to Gore. Many ballots weren't counted because they wouldn't make a difference in the election by state. There was some kind of amazing number of absentee ballots in California which could have more than made up for Gore's lead in the counted vote.

With all this talk of the American Election, I keep thinking about the Canadian election looming: there are four parties, all of whom are unpopular, and one of which is potentially dangerous: Liberals (the 'Ruling Class') and the (Progressive) Conservatives usually divide the vote between them; the new Alliance party, whose leader, Stockwell Day, is beginning to sound as though he's both mad and a fascist; the Bloc Quebecoir, which isn't going to do more than annoy people outside Quebec.

Since nobody's bothered to change the system in 200 years, we still end up with individuals who may be decent people in their own right but who are hamstrung by the system they're working within....and by now there's some question about the individuals, too (which is amazing in Canada: people here genuinely believe the government is there for the benefit of the people....in addition to expecting it to act like a doting parent most of the time, too).

Anyone remember Ambrose Bierce's take on politics? (I'm going from memory here "The substitution by election of the ignorant masses by the corrup few." (that's CLOSE anyway, and you get the idea).

Fruitbat

Has anybody heard or seen what the results were of the Broward County recount were? I haven't been able to find it. I was wondering if it would even make a difference.

WASHINGTON D.C. - Following an emergency meeting Friday morning, Congress unanimously voted to excise Florida from the United States of America.

The move was a reaction to the confusion and irregularities in the state's voting numbers that have totally disrupted the 2000 Presidential election.

"This is the last straw," said Utah senator Orin Hatch. "First Elian Gonzales, now this."

Several congressmen told reporters the decision has been a long time coming.

"We're all pretty much sick of Florida," said representative Barney Frank. "They've been a constant embarrassment for too long now." Added Frank, "They had Dan Marino for a while, but what have they done lately? Oh that's right, screw up our entire democracy. I forgot"

In a speech on the Senate floor, Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy commented that the loss of Florida's sizable elderly population will free up billions of dollars in social security funds.

"These are valuable funds which can now be redirected toward national defense. We can finally rebuild our demoralized, weakened military," said the Senator to roaring applause.

From her New York campaign headquarters, freshly elected senator Hilary Clinton echoes the sentiments of her future colleagues on Capitol Hill, calling Florida "a hurricane-addled hellhole full of scheming Cuban immigrants."

"Learn f***ing English already, you banana boat bums," Clinton added.

As a result of the Florida screw-up, the House and Senate decreed a new election will take place in early December. This time, ballots in each state will be tabulated by robots.

"It is clear that our human vote-counting system is too inherently flawed,"said Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. "The presence of these new, superior robot mast - err, I mean - tabulators will ensure 100% accuracy."

"Remember," said Hastert, "every vote counts, especially if it's counted by robots."

Dynamiting will begin in Florida next Wednesday, after which the state will be completely geographically separated from the United States.

"After that, they're on their own," said Hastert. "I hope they sink. F***ers."

Actually, I was thinking of Palm Beach County, and I found the answer in 3 different places within 5 minutes of clicking on the post button. It weas 180 votes, so it wouldn't matter if they were counted.

I guess this means we'll lose the house and Senate in 2002.

Can anyone say "civil rights"?

That's my main argument against giving the states power again over the federal government. They proved themselves wonderfully inept at protecting the rights of American citizens, from the inception of our nation to the present day. From slavery to Jim Crow, women and the voting franchise, abortion and birth control, states love to trample on our rights just as much as the much-feared feds. Besides many of the most popular programs are funded with federal taxpayer dollars--that means all Americans, not just the ones in any particular state where that program may happen to be based, have a say.

For example, Montanans would love to have control over the National Forests in our state. "Tree huggers, the UN, and those pesky black helicopters have too much say in forest policy, we live here, we know what's best. We need more logging and mining!!" But hey, never mind that they are supported by taxes paid by all Americans, New Yorkers, Californians, Georgians, etc. Everyone has a say in their management.

Not that the federal government has been a paragon of civil liberties (just look at the War on Drugs and the CIA, a blatantly unconstitutional agency whose budget cannot even be examined). But I'll take national laws protecting my rights over the states any day, thank you very much.

After all, how many states have the equivalent of a First Amendment in their own constitutions?

I agree. Weakening the central government in favor of the state isn't the answer. We'll simply make it easier for the states to trample over our rights. Weakening the central government in favor of the people is the way to go.

Hum along, everyone...

"You say you want a revolution,
Well, you know,
we all wanna change the world..."

Really, I'm just interested.

Here's an update for anyone who hasn't heard. The recount window allowed by the Florida State Supreme Court is over. Florida's Secretary of State has certified Bush the winner by 537 votes.

There will now be legal battles over the certification. These suits will be expedited through the state and federal courts. According to federal law, all issues regarding Florida's electoral votes must be resolved by December 12th. Florida must officially appoint its electors by that date, or else it will not be allowed to send electors at all.

If a state has problems or attractive features, it's not that hard to move inbetween states. It's harder to leave the nation when the central government is out of control.

The federal government has the ability to restrain the states from trampling on individual rights through the 14th Amendment. I would prefer to live in a country where there is a check on the government that does most of the actual work of governmnet. As the federal government takes on more and more extra-constitutional powers, the only check on their power is themselves.

Out of curiosity, how is the CIA unconsitutional?

The 14th Amendment has been in place for over 130 years, and yet that did not stop 90% of the abuses I listed. States have been given (and I know, it was the Federal Government that gave them the leeway) enormous latitude in abusing personal rights. It's patently unfair and dishonest just to say "move somewhere else". Why? First of all, your own stance on personal rights as illuminated in earlier postings. Secondly, individual rights should be supported across the board, no matter which state a citizen resides in.

States rights supercede personal rights based on geographical location? I don't think so. That was what Dr. King struggled against, and it is what all Americans should support today. I should not lose my right to gun ownership, abortion, sexual preference, birth control, science education, freedom FROM religion, etc. simply because I enter say, Mississippi, Connecticut, or Kansas.

Why is the CIA unconstitutional? The Constitution, if read literally, (and that seems to be the position you advocate) allows the Federal Government to provide for our national defense. That would be our military. What it doesn't say is our national "offense". Any agency that is funded SECRETLY--Congress and the American public are not allowed to know the amount and the requests in its budget--for purposes of committing atrocities worldwide goes against everything our Founding Fathers stood for, my friend. From The School for the Americas, where El Salvadoran death squads--among many others--were taught how to torture their fellow countrymen, to the infiltration and overthrow of democratically elected governments (Vietnam, Haiti, Colombia, Chile, Panama, Guatemala, Cuba, the list goes on and on...), to the War on Drugs, a "war" that has violated the First through the Tenth Amendments of the American public, the CIA has proven itself over and over again to be the most corrupt and unaccountable power in the Federal Goverment. The IRS wishes they had only a fraction of the power the CIA has.

If this is not a unconstitutional abuse of power, then you'd better come up with a good excuse why not.

Ok the CIA has acted in a unconstitutional manner in the past but dose that make the CIA itself unconstitutional body ?