
       Horrors, appealing to popular principles.  Can we perhaps as the
question of whether the Constitution might have been written to appeal
to the principles, rather than, as you appear to believe, it was written
with something else in mind and "propoganda" put out by its supporters.

       But let's be honest about something, here.  When was the last time
you brought up all the valid points against your own arguments?

       Or are they simply propogranda?  We can't know what Phill *really*
means because he's obviously using arguments designed to convince.


       If they're true or false, regardles of why they were said, why
on earth did you make a point of calling them "propogranda?"  That
would seem to be irrelevent.


       Oh, I have no argument with questioning them.  I don't believe
they no longer apply, but that's because I think most of them were
good arguments.  I'm not entirely happy about the situation, because
they were obviously only applied to a minority of the time, but I don't
think that alone is sufficient to invalidate them.


       Since the U.S. constitution is the basis for the U.S. political
system, most changes in it would require Constitutional change.  In this
particular case, however the fillibuster is a matter of procedure
and tradition.  It only *should* have been made part of the Constitution. :-)


        In principle no?  That they had less power of that they should have
had less power?


        Phill, we're discusing the power of legislative houses.  While
the Prime Minister *is* member of Parliament, he is more analgous (although
badly) to the U.S. President.

        Now, please explain to me how the U.S. House of Representatives
is "in principle" more powerful than the House of Lords (or the Senate)
but in practice is less.  Are you suggesting that the writers of the
Constitution *really* intended for them to be more powerful, but gosh
darn the thing was ratified before they realized they'd forgotten to put
those extra restrictions on the Senate in?


      Not at all.  As any entry level political science course will tell
you, people who want laws implemented will always choose the level of
government to "attack" which presents them with the best chance of
getting what they want.  With national "interest groups" it is simply
a very rational thing to do to want the Federal government to enact a
law rather than the states.  Less people to persuade, and less 
"contributions" to make.  

      Why do those concerned about abortion primarily concentrate at
the Federal level?  Simply because if they win that battle all the little
state battlefields are won by extension.  The same extends to insurance,
medicine, and most other questions.

      Local government has not "failed" in that it hasn't done what it
should, but that it is dominated by local interests.  Thus non-local
interests who want localities to abide by their rules can't get their
rules past the local government.  Thus, since they've got more clout,
only in the wrong place, they appeal to the next higher level because
it can impose its will on the lower.

      I mean, let's get real here.  Do we *really* need the Congres
of the United States deciding that x traffice light should be on thus-
and such pattern?  Or that *carjacking* needs to be a federal as opposed
to a local crime?

      The more people want the more Congress will take power to "sell"
it to them for their votes.  I don't think the rise of "special interests"
is coincidence with the increased power of Congress.


       Bingo.  The higher up the governmental ladder the less actual
need matters, because political power can be concentrated at higher
levels, while people with less cloud only find themselves reduced to
in effectiveness.


       Then why not simply leave New York's education to New York?  I
remain unconcinved that there is any state in the Union which is not capable
of educating its own children if that's what they want to do.  And if
you leave it to them, you only have to worry about the "pork" in that
state.  And since industries can't concentrate their political power
and wealth, rather they must divide it among the states to try and get
what they want, individual voices have more relative impact.

       The problem with the fillibuster is not that you must "buy off"
states, but that the Congress has acquired too much power to sell pork.


       But why on earth should we want to redirect it?  You said yourself 
that you have to sell pork to get things through Congress.  If Congres
has less authority to sell pork and retains its authority to enact
national legislation within its granted jurisdiction, the pork problem
is significantly reduced.


       The current blocks essentially state that inaction is preferable
to action, thus it the system is weighted against action.  Considering
the government the usually the institution with the sole power to
enforce its decisions by force, I consider bias against making those
decisions a good thing.


       The difference with the lower pyramid is that a) they have
more legal, legitimate authority in most matters under our Constitution
than the federal government, and b) at those lower levels power is
harder to concentrate.  And c) you get the benefit of not imposing
new deicisons on everybody at once.  You get to see them tried out
without a national decision.  Congressional action usually treats the
entire country as a whole, yet even with similar problems in different
areas, different solutions may be called for.

       And while I often don't agree with the decisions my local
and state reps make, at least I have a better option of going to
the city council and shooting my mouth off.  I'd much rather the
majority of laws be made by accessible people who hang around and end
up having to put up with them rather than somebody far off in
Washington with half a million or more constituents.

       I'm curious what you base your assumption that lower levels
are more corrupt.  


       Phill, *you* brought up the Federalist papers.  We were
arguing the fillibuster and whether or not a minority of Senators
should be allowed to hold up a bill.  You claimed the Senate was
suppose to be a far less powerful House, and I contended there was
nothing in the Constitution or other writings which indicated this.
Which was when you brought up that we can't decide what the founders
wanted based on the Federalist papers.  You argued against them,
I never argued from them.  I have primarily referred to the Constitution,
which places only very small restrictions on the Senate than for
the House.


       The U.S. Constitution is a nuts-and-bolts document.  The Delcaration
of Independence was the high-brow reasoning.  (There are a couple of other
examples, though, such as the reasoning for the power to tax, and the
reasoning for the power to grant permits, both in Article I, Section 8.)


       To a certain extend I do believe the veto has become something
it wasn't intended.  However, I also believe it is inevitable considering
the Congress' own abuse of their power to make bills say whatever they
want them to say.  Unlike most people I think we shouldn't be worrying
about the veto, which is fine, but of the problem in Congress which
almost necessitates its abuse.


       *BUSH?*  Phill, that's absurd.  Bush had *37* vetos, one of
which was over-ridden.  Go read up on FDR if you think that's
anything resembling a record.


       Why not?  What is inherently wrong with biasing the system
against action?  Historically governemnt action in the U.S. when
dealing with issues with a bare minority and a large minority have
not been successful.  When you're in a position of imposing federal
power on diverse people, why should the federal government not have to
got through something more than a bare majority


       Now we're switching from a general question of a fillibuster
to a specific bill.  I don't see how it make a difference.


       Sure it's arguable.  Theyr'e *arguing* it.  However, requiring
60% to bring it to a vote ensures that they'll have to have a *good*
argument.  Something that isn't based solely on party lines.


       No, I am completely happy with a system which requires a minority
for *action*.  Since U.S. history is a history of carving up population
groups and implementing piece-meal on minorities, I feel minorities
should have sufficent clout to prevent action they feel strongly enough
about.  And 41% is hardly a tiny minority.  I don't advocate the minority
being capable of initiating actionm but I see no problem with biasing
the *federal* system against action.
