In article <C5JpL7.5Cz@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes: > >In article <1993Apr12.002302.5262@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes: > >|>>Come to that under the original plan there wasn't meant to be anything >|>>much for the federal government to do except keep the British out. >|> >|>       That's also untrue, but at least we're wandering a little closer >|>toward reality.  That the Articles of Confederation fell apart is enough >|>proof it was there for just a tad bit more. > >Well yes and no. The Federalist papers are propaganda and it is therefore >difficult to determine precisely what Maddison etc were up to from them.          There are a couple of ways to look at them.  One is, "We want you to support this Constitution, so we'll say anything that we think will appeal to you," or the more straightforward, "This is why we think what we've suggested in this Constitution is a good idea."         You clearly consider the former to be the primary situation.  >They >certainly emphasised a limited role for the federal government but this >was not necessarily their true position.         Well, I know Hamilton was a dyed in the wool monarchist, and  probably the authoritarian extreme to Jefferson's democratic impules. But what would you suggest as a means of determining their opinions on the government if we don't consider what they wrote about the government?         And is writing in support of something automatically "propoganda" to the point we must assume it is untrue or that they are saying what they don't believe?  >|>>And like the house of lords which it is copied from it was given pretty >|>>wide powers. Unfortunately they started to use them and thus the gridlock >|>>set in. >|> >|>       I wasn't aware the House of Lords had "wide powers."  I was under the >|>impression is was pretty powerless compared to the House of Commons, and >|>certainly didn't have almost equal their powers.  (The Senate is restricted >|>only that it may not introduce bills relating to raising revenue.) > >The Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords in the period in  >question.         If the Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords, than we'd almost have to state that the House of Representatives was also. (In fact, they both were, because the British government had much greater power than did the American system).         >|>       My reading of the Constitution and other writings gives me absolutely >|>no reason to believe the Senate wasn't intended to make use of their  >|>law-making powers.  In fact, grid-lock appears to have been designed >|>into the system, with the Senate being a more deliberative body to act >|>as a check on the more-often elected House. > >The system is meant to be slow to react, the problem is that it ended up >a bit too slow.         I disagree.  The system is not too slow, it was simply designed to handle less than it has demanded that it handle.  As somebody in Washington put it (whose name I forget), "Congress has become everybody's city council."         Congress is more than capable of quick action, and has more than enough power and time on its hands, if it confined itself to what its original jurisidiction was and allowed more local autonomy.         It is not a case of the system of government they created failing, but that it is operating under a set of conditions they specifically wanted to avoid.  Namely, a concentration of power.  It would seem then that the proper thing to do is not to reduce the power of either House in some attempt to grease the wheels.  All you'll get then is a system which moves quicker to do stupid things.  It would make more sense to make more decisions at a local level.  >|>       On what basis do you suggest that the Senate was supposed to be >|>some sort of rubber-stamp for the House?  You'll note that while the >|>President's veto may be over-ridden, the House can't do anything about >|>a "veto" by the Senate. > >The Presiden't veto was meant to be entirely separate. Until Bush abused it >in a quite extraordinary manner it was used more in accord with the intent >of being a check on unreasonable legislation.          Please explain to me how Bush abused the veto in an "extraordinary" manner.  >The veto was clearly regarded  >as a completely last gasp measure its use was meant to be restricted to >preventing the legislature interfering with the actions of the executive.         I fail to see where any restrictions, implied or otherwise, were placed on the veto.  It could just as easily have been read as a means to put a check on democratically popular but unwise (in the executive's opinion) policies.           There is no limit in the Constitution to the President's veto power regarding what a bill is for.  Previous Presidents have used the veto for any number of reasons, most usually having something to do with their agenda.  I am really curious how you single Bush out as *the* President who abused vetos.  >the Senate is not meant to be exactly a rubber stamp body, it is meant as >a check on unrestrained legislation. That is the extra measure built into >the constitution in favour of the status quo, 60% of the representatives >of the states is not a reasonable restriction.         Why is it not a reasonable restriction?  Because 51 Senators is the magic holy number upon which Laws must be based?  If 41 Senators feel safe enough with their state constituencies to stand up and  fillibuster isn't that *enough* to indicate there's a sufficient question as to whether a law is a good idea or not to re-evaluate it?         Why one earth *should* 51% be sufficient to enact a law which covers 250 million people in very, very diverse places and living in radically different conditions?  Why *shouldn't* a super-majority be required?         Any system in which the simple majority is given absolute power to ignore the minority then the minority *will* be ignored.  I do not see this as a positive thing.  And for all that I'm sure the Republicans are looking for pork as much as the Democrats, they've got some legitimate objections to the legislation in question.