The best fiction tells the truth, carefully edited..

DDHv wrote: It is interesting to compare the Confederate constitution with the US constitution

It's even more interesting, and pertinent to the Honorverse, to compare the principles that the CSA claimed they stood for compared to what they actually were doing by the end of the war.

Erls wrote:The problem, in my humble opinion, stems from the same thing that wrecked the Sollys.

The ability for Congress to pass the buck to administrative agencies is what will wreck the USA eventually. I'm not saying bureaucrats are bad people - for the most part they are the same as everyone else. But, their power is almost unchecked in the amount of discretion they have. Because 'the people' demand that Congress do things, Congress passes very broad laws and then let all of the important things be filled in by bureaucrats.

If courts gave agencies zero deference, and 'voided for vagueness' any Congressional statute that was not explicit in the details, we would see a vastly different government. First, Congress critters would have to go on the record for or against specific, detailed laws. That means that broad conversations will have to be across America regarding every important topic, with nothing happening until a broad consensus is formed (because otherwise people get voted out of office). Additionally, this would lead to a drastic decrease in Federal law making and a corresponding increase in State level lawmaking - at a level closer to the people and more accountable.

When politicians are allowed to pass the buck to someone else, and then campaign against those people to get re-elected they will. Remove that ability and force them to vote 'yes' or 'no' for the details of every new law or regulation and you'll see a drastically more responsible Congress. It will no longer be 'fun' for many of them, and they'll go find some other way to be parasites on the rest of us.

won't work. there are lots of detailed laws passed by congress with little oversite, one of the most well known is obamacare. over 1000 pages, and as nancy palosi said "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."

It's been more than 4 years and we still don't know what's in the bill.

There are something like 30,000 more pages of administrative rulings and rules issued by the bureaucracy that actually make it work.

To show the US now has something approximating the Solarian League government look no further than the slow moving trainwreck that is the Veteran's administration.

1. Remember the scandal where veteran's were told they were put on a waiting list for treatment but weren't and later died? No one lost a job over it, they shuffled people around. Example the director of the worst VA hospital got transfered to running the healthcare for all veterans that retired in the Philippines. Yep real punishment there sitting on the beaches in the tropical sun with your government bought home.
http://www.headlines-news.com/2016/02/2 ... hilippines

2. You have a person working for the VA in Puerto Rico that was the get away driver for a robbery, nope can't fire that person either, they did it on their own time so it was ok as per federal law:

“In accordance with federal law, criminal prosecution or conviction for off-duty misconduct does not automatically disqualify an individual from federal employment,” Shulkin said. “As is true in private-sector employment, a federal employee generally cannot be terminated for off-duty misconduct unless there is a clear connection between the misconduct and the individual’s employment.”

http://www.govexec.com/federal-news/fed ... ys/127771/

3. You have a person convicted of credit card fraud in 1998, $70K worth of fraud, and drug offenses in 2005 and 2006 get hired and then promoted to a position where they oversee a department that deals with purchasing...with taxpayer funded credit cards. Nope can't see how this can go wrong, especially since that department is already known for having a fraud problem. Oh this is in the same VA as the get away driver.
http://www.independentsentinel.com/va-e ... d-robbery/

But hey let a Vet get convicted of a crime and he will have his benefits reduced.

Louis R wrote:Just to make it absolutely clear, herewith the text of Article Five:

Article 5 wrote:The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

As you can see, not only can state legislatures not directly propose amendments, the population has no direct say in the process at _any_ point. Get 2/3 of America's sitting politicians on board and anything goes. Literally. Not even equal representation in the Senate is impossible to change under those conditions.

No for the 2/3 requirement of anything goes. Especially in the case of equal representation in the Senate. Why? Because you overlooked the additional 3/4 requirement of all state legislatures or state ratification conventions to vote in favor of a proposed amendment in order to ratify an amendment and make it part of the Constitution.

It takes 38* of 50 states to ratify an amendment. An amendment can be blocked by only 13* of 50 states.

There is only the Honorverse's proverbial chance of a snowflake in Hell that enough state legislatures will vote to ratify an amendment that would remove equal representation by state in the Senate.

Currently, 7 states have only 1 Representative in the House**, 5 have 2 Representatives, 3 states have 3 Representatives, and 6 states have 4 Representatives. The average number of representatives per state is 8.7***, not rounded off. Just the number of states with 1 or 2 Representatives is 12*. It only takes one more state* to block an amendment that would disadvantage the smaller (in terms of population) states. The smaller states will never be in favor of a change that will reduce their power directly not only in the Legislative branch (the Senate) of the government, but the Executive branch (the Presidency****) as well.

* These numbers will change as the total number of states change.

** Representation in the US House of Representatives is determined by (formula) a states population relative to the total population of the states (not the nation, citizens of the US who are residents of a territory, as opposed to a state, do not count in this formula), which never gives a state never less than one Representative.

*** 435 representatives / 50 states.

**** The total number of votes each state has in the Electoral College (which actually directly votes for the President) is the total number of Representative and Senatorial seats allocated to the state.

DDHv wrote:

Erls wrote:The problem, in my humble opinion, stems from the same thing that wrecked the Sollys.

The ability for Congress to pass the buck to administrative agencies is what will wreck the USA eventually. I'm not saying bureaucrats are bad people - for the most part they are the same as everyone else. But, their power is almost unchecked in the amount of discretion they have. Because 'the people' demand that Congress do things, Congress passes very broad laws and then let all of the important things be filled in by bureaucrats.

If courts gave agencies zero deference, and 'voided for vagueness' any Congressional statute that was not explicit in the details, we would see a vastly different government. First, Congress critters would have to go on the record for or against specific, detailed laws. That means that broad conversations will have to be across America regarding every important topic, with nothing happening until a broad consensus is formed (because otherwise people get voted out of office). Additionally, this would lead to a drastic decrease in Federal law making and a corresponding increase in State level lawmaking - at a level closer to the people and more accountable.

When politicians are allowed to pass the buck to someone else, and then campaign against those people to get re-elected they will. Remove that ability and force them to vote 'yes' or 'no' for the details of every new law or regulation and you'll see a drastically more responsible Congress. It will no longer be 'fun' for many of them, and they'll go find some other way to be parasites on the rest of us.

Yes, but for reasons stated in this thread, this is not likely to happen. It is interesting to compare the Confederate constitution with the US constitution

Thank you Douglas... This idea led to a fascinating exercise which is too long overdue. In fact, I had never thought of been taught to study the constitution of the confederacy in history classes that were written "by the winners" even as it is... I have only given one quick read through and need to ponder this.

I will also remind anyone who wants to think about such things of that proven survival skill... when they cannot pass the buck, they lie about someone else to deflect the interest.

Used to have a boss who stated it like this... "When you cannot dazzle them with brilliance; baffle them with bullshit"

"Not even equal representation in the Senate is impossible to change under those conditions."

There is a substantial legal argument -- you need a vote that matches the rule being changed -- that changing that requirement uniquely requires unanimous agreement of the 50 states.

phillies wrote:"Not even equal representation in the Senate is impossible to change under those conditions."

There is a substantial legal argument -- you need a vote that matches the rule being changed -- that changing that requirement uniquely requires unanimous agreement of the 50 states.

read the federalist papers. the senates purpose was NOT to give the smaller states a voice.

The house of representatives was designed to give the people a voice. the senate was designed to give the states a voice, and keep the federal government from taking over or bullying the states. That was the reason that it was the state legislatures that elected the senators, not the people.

There is a whole host of laws that are unpopular at the state level that would not have happened if the 17th amendmant hadn't happened.

Erls wrote:The problem, in my humble opinion, stems from the same thing that wrecked the Sollys.

The ability for Congress to pass the buck to administrative agencies is what will wreck the USA eventually. I'm not saying bureaucrats are bad people - for the most part they are the same as everyone else. But, their power is almost unchecked in the amount of discretion they have. Because 'the people' demand that Congress do things, Congress passes very broad laws and then let all of the important things be filled in by bureaucrats.

If courts gave agencies zero deference, and 'voided for vagueness' any Congressional statute that was not explicit in the details, we would see a vastly different government. First, Congress critters would have to go on the record for or against specific, detailed laws. That means that broad conversations will have to be across America regarding every important topic, with nothing happening until a broad consensus is formed (because otherwise people get voted out of office). Additionally, this would lead to a drastic decrease in Federal law making and a corresponding increase in State level lawmaking - at a level closer to the people and more accountable.

When politicians are allowed to pass the buck to someone else, and then campaign against those people to get re-elected they will. Remove that ability and force them to vote 'yes' or 'no' for the details of every new law or regulation and you'll see a drastically more responsible Congress. It will no longer be 'fun' for many of them, and they'll go find some other way to be parasites on the rest of us.

Good observations... have you also noticed that a large number of the bills that are are actually passed amount to no more than "feel good" declarations so they can tell the folks back home that they voted for this or that.
This way they can claim credit but when we actually look at the wording or the intent of the bill it accomplishes nothing.

Bureaucrat = King of the desk... These people pass the buck with the best of them... "you have to get in that line" (after waiting 45 minutes in 'this line')... you need to fill out these forms in triplicate (or) this is the wrong form <smirk>
I suggest that our government is more and more a set of puppets and the Super PACs are the puppet masters.
We the people are becoming an increasing annoyance.
Jobs moved from the rust belt to the sun belt to off shore and as long as the money goes with it into increasingly protected, non taxable accounts the Super PACs members are happy. Too bad about the rest of you who are caught behind the curve trying so hard to keep your nose above the water line.
This is a shared attitude which I see reflected in the Mandarins as well as today's elected federal officials which prompted me to start this thread.

boballab wrote:To show the US now has something approximating the Solarian League government look no further than the slow moving trainwreck that is the Veteran's administration.

1. Remember the scandal where veteran's were told they were put on a waiting list for treatment but weren't and later died? No one lost a job over it, they shuffled people around. Example the director of the worst VA hospital got transfered to running the healthcare for all veterans that retired in the Philippines. Yep real punishment there sitting on the beaches in the tropical sun with your government bought home.
http://www.headlines-news.com/2016/02/2 ... hilippines

2. You have a person working for the VA in Puerto Rico that was the get away driver for a robbery, nope can't fire that person either, they did it on their own time so it was ok as per federal law:

“In accordance with federal law, criminal prosecution or conviction for off-duty misconduct does not automatically disqualify an individual from federal employment,” Shulkin said. “As is true in private-sector employment, a federal employee generally cannot be terminated for off-duty misconduct unless there is a clear connection between the misconduct and the individual’s employment.”

http://www.govexec.com/federal-news/fed ... ys/127771/

3. You have a person convicted of credit card fraud in 1998, $70K worth of fraud, and drug offenses in 2005 and 2006 get hired and then promoted to a position where they oversee a department that deals with purchasing...with taxpayer funded credit cards. Nope can't see how this can go wrong, especially since that department is already known for having a fraud problem. Oh this is in the same VA as the get away driver.
http://www.independentsentinel.com/va-e ... d-robbery/

But hey let a Vet get convicted of a crime and he will have his benefits reduced.

Thank you Boballab!

This is what I am thinking about... if you have connections you live like a duke... otherwise, you stand on the corner with a nine day beard asking for spare change.
Senators and congress-members tell you they feel your pain but they do nothing to ease it... Farmers and small business owners are in a sinking boat. Joe factory worker is unable to pay his bills and the wall street bankers get bailouts before the ink dried on the newspapers that told the nation that they failed.

Something has to give and I am thinking it is us.