Whereas, a person is endowed with natural rights by
birth, hence governments are instituted to secure these
rights; and foremost is the right to life, therefore the
right to preserve and defend one's life:
I. Each citizen, or legally recognized resident of these
united states, shall be free to utilize such devices, of
limited magnitude [the state can ban cannons], which
shall not reasonably constitute a threat to public safety
[no tear gas], as he deems necessary to secure his safety.
II.
i) No state shall restrict the design, possession,
manufacture, or trade of said devices; except as noted in (ii).
ii) For specified devices, deemed inherently hazardous,
a state may mandate such features or apparatus, as
deemed necessary to mitigate such hazards. [a gun must
include a safety lever] [a sword must be sheathed]
III. Each person may possess said devices in his home,
place of business, or other such premises of private
property; nor shall a state infringe upon the right to bear
said devices in the public square.
IV. For specified devices, wherein misuse or mishap may
reasonably constitute a threat to public safety, a state may
institute a system of licensing, the sole purpose of which
shall be to ascertain competence of the licensee, in the
use thereof.
V. No state shall keep records regarding manufacture,
possession, or trade of said devices.
VI. The Second Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed.
The obvious intent here is to protect gun ownership rights.
On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 1:04:51 AM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
Whereas, a person is endowed with natural rights by
birth, hence governments are instituted to secure these
rights; and foremost is the right to life, therefore the
right to preserve and defend one's life:
I. Each citizen, or legally recognized resident of these
united states, shall be free to utilize such devices, of
limited magnitude [the state can ban cannons], which
shall not reasonably constitute a threat to public safety
[no tear gas], as he deems necessary to secure his safety.
II.
i) No state shall restrict the design, possession,
manufacture, or trade of said devices; except as noted in (ii).
ii) For specified devices, deemed inherently hazardous,
a state may mandate such features or apparatus, as
deemed necessary to mitigate such hazards. [a gun must
include a safety lever] [a sword must be sheathed]
III. Each person may possess said devices in his home,
place of business, or other such premises of private
property; nor shall a state infringe upon the right to bear
said devices in the public square.
IV. For specified devices, wherein misuse or mishap may
reasonably constitute a threat to public safety, a state may
institute a system of licensing, the sole purpose of which
shall be to ascertain competence of the licensee, in the
use thereof.
V. No state shall keep records regarding manufacture,
possession, or trade of said devices.
VI. The Second Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed.
The obvious intent here is to protect gun ownership rights.
Sorry, what? It has been shown that having a gun in the home makes the >occupants less safe, not more. So how can gun ownership be supported to >"preserve and defend one's life".
"Rick C" wrote in message news:6eac1c00-eee4-4e01-994a-06cc710473can@googlegroups.com...
And having a car makes it more likely you will get into a car accident.
On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 1:04:51 AM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
Whereas, a person is endowed with natural rights by birth, hence
governments are instituted to secure these rights; and foremost is the
right to life, therefore the right to preserve and defend one's life:
I. Each citizen, or legally recognized resident of these united
states, shall be free to utilize such devices, of limited magnitude
[the state can ban cannons], which shall not reasonably constitute a
threat to public safety [no tear gas], as he deems necessary to secure
his safety.
II.
i) No state shall restrict the design, possession,
manufacture, or trade of said devices; except as noted in (ii). ii)
For specified devices, deemed inherently hazardous,
a state may mandate such features or apparatus, as deemed necessary to
mitigate such hazards. [a gun must include a safety lever] [a sword
must be sheathed]
III. Each person may possess said devices in his home,
place of business, or other such premises of private property; nor
shall a state infringe upon the right to bear said devices in the
public square.
IV. For specified devices, wherein misuse or mishap may reasonably
constitute a threat to public safety, a state may institute a system
of licensing, the sole purpose of which shall be to ascertain
competence of the licensee, in the use thereof.
V. No state shall keep records regarding manufacture, possession, or
trade of said devices.
VI. The Second Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed.
The obvious intent here is to protect gun ownership rights.
Sorry, what? It has been shown that having a gun in the home makes the >>occupants less safe, not more. So how can gun ownership be supported to >>"preserve and defend one's life".
The issue isn't whether a particular item of property makes you less or
more safe. The issue is whether you have a right to own property,
whether that be a car, gun or something else, as long as you don't use
that property to commit crimes against others. Some items of property
- e.g., gun, car, knife, poison, sledgehammer, barbells - can be used to inflict harm or even death on others. That doesn't mean you shouldn't
be allowed to own such property. The crime is in using such property
to inflict harm on others - not in merely owning the property.
--
"Rick C" wrote in message
news:6eac1c00-eee4-4e01...@googlegroups.com...
On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 1:04:51 AM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
Whereas, a person is endowed with natural rights by
birth, hence governments are instituted to secure these
rights; and foremost is the right to life, therefore the
right to preserve and defend one's life:
I. Each citizen, or legally recognized resident of these
united states, shall be free to utilize such devices, of
limited magnitude [the state can ban cannons], which
shall not reasonably constitute a threat to public safety
[no tear gas], as he deems necessary to secure his safety.
II.
i) No state shall restrict the design, possession,
manufacture, or trade of said devices; except as noted in (ii).
ii) For specified devices, deemed inherently hazardous,
a state may mandate such features or apparatus, as
deemed necessary to mitigate such hazards. [a gun must
include a safety lever] [a sword must be sheathed]
III. Each person may possess said devices in his home,
place of business, or other such premises of private
property; nor shall a state infringe upon the right to bear
said devices in the public square.
IV. For specified devices, wherein misuse or mishap may
reasonably constitute a threat to public safety, a state may
institute a system of licensing, the sole purpose of which
shall be to ascertain competence of the licensee, in the
use thereof.
V. No state shall keep records regarding manufacture,
possession, or trade of said devices.
VI. The Second Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed.
The obvious intent here is to protect gun ownership rights.
Sorry, what? It has been shown that having a gun in the home makes the >occupants less safe, not more. So how can gun ownership be supported to >"preserve and defend one's life".
And having a car makes it more likely you will get into a car accident. The issue isn't whether a particular item of property makes you less or more safe. The issue is whether you have a right to own property, whether that
be a car, gun or something else, as long as you don't use that property to commit crimes against others. Some items of property - e.g., gun, car,
knife, poison, sledgehammer, barbells - can be used to inflict harm or even death on others. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to own such property. The crime is in using such property to inflict harm on others -
not in merely owning the property.
On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 12:37:07 AM UTC-5, Rick wrote:
"Rick C" wrote in message
news:6eac1c00-eee4-4e01...@googlegroups.com...
And having a car makes it more likely you will get into a car accident.
On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 1:04:51 AM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
Whereas, a person is endowed with natural rights by
birth, hence governments are instituted to secure these
rights; and foremost is the right to life, therefore the
right to preserve and defend one's life:
I. Each citizen, or legally recognized resident of these
united states, shall be free to utilize such devices, of
limited magnitude [the state can ban cannons], which
shall not reasonably constitute a threat to public safety
[no tear gas], as he deems necessary to secure his safety.
II.
i) No state shall restrict the design, possession,
manufacture, or trade of said devices; except as noted in (ii).
ii) For specified devices, deemed inherently hazardous,
a state may mandate such features or apparatus, as
deemed necessary to mitigate such hazards. [a gun must
include a safety lever] [a sword must be sheathed]
III. Each person may possess said devices in his home,
place of business, or other such premises of private
property; nor shall a state infringe upon the right to bear
said devices in the public square.
IV. For specified devices, wherein misuse or mishap may
reasonably constitute a threat to public safety, a state may
institute a system of licensing, the sole purpose of which
shall be to ascertain competence of the licensee, in the
use thereof.
V. No state shall keep records regarding manufacture,
possession, or trade of said devices.
VI. The Second Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed.
The obvious intent here is to protect gun ownership rights.
Sorry, what? It has been shown that having a gun in the home makes the
occupants less safe, not more. So how can gun ownership be supported to
"preserve and defend one's life".
The
issue isn't whether a particular item of property makes you less or more
safe. The issue is whether you have a right to own property, whether that
be a car, gun or something else, as long as you don't use that property
to
commit crimes against others. Some items of property - e.g., gun, car,
knife, poison, sledgehammer, barbells - can be used to inflict harm or
even
death on others. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to own such
property. The crime is in using such property to inflict harm on others -
not in merely owning the property.
"therefore the right to preserve and defend one's life"
How can the need to preserve "one's life" justify owning a weapon that >statistically decreases your safety?
You seem to be wanting to discuss the entire issue of the right to own a
gun. I was just pointing out the self-contradiction of this proposal.
How can the need to preserve "one's life" justify owning a weapon that statistically decreases your safety?
You seem to be wanting to discuss the entire issue of the right to own a gun. I was just pointing out
the self-contradiction of this proposal.
On February 20, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
How can the need to preserve "one's life" justify owning a weapon that statistically decreases your safety?I saw a teevee news blurb, which said dog owners have lower blood
You seem to be wanting to discuss the entire issue of the right to own a gun. I was just pointing out
the self-contradiction of this proposal.
pressure and rates of diabetes.
So now I'm going to get a terrier, statistically it will improve my health.
If we're proposing amendments, here's mine:
Any delegation of lawmaking or rulemaking authority from Congress to any
part of the executive branch shall expire 730 days after being passed.
Any declaration of emergency by the President shall expire after 90
days, unless ratified by Congress, and may not be renewed, nor shall the President issue a new declaration of emergency for substantially the
same situation within 5 years of the original declaration.
How can the need to preserve "one's life" justify owning a weapon that statistically
decreases your safety?
You seem to be wanting to discuss the entire issue of the right to own a gun. I was
just pointing out the self-contradiction of this proposal.
I saw a teevee news blurb, which said dog owners have lower bloodSo now I'm going to get a terrier, statistically it will improve my health.
pressure and rates of diabetes.
I'm not sure how to reply to that statement. It fails to make the point you would appear
to be trying to make. In fact, it shows a profound lack of understanding of the issue
and supports my statement. Or do I misunderstand what you are saying?
On February 20, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
How can the need to preserve "one's life" justify owning a weapon that statistically
decreases your safety?
You seem to be wanting to discuss the entire issue of the right to own a gun. I was
just pointing out the self-contradiction of this proposal.
I saw a teevee news blurb, which said dog owners have lower bloodSo now I'm going to get a terrier, statistically it will improve my health.
pressure and rates of diabetes.
I'm not sure how to reply to that statement. It fails to make the point you would appearIt's been conclusively demonstrated, that in every automotive collision,
to be trying to make. In fact, it shows a profound lack of understanding of the issue
and supports my statement. Or do I misunderstand what you are saying?
both vehicles have brakes installed; 100% correlation, statistically speaking.
It's outrageous that D. of T. permits this situation to continue, why
haven't they banned brakes?
Whether brakes in your car, or a firearm in your house, you're less
safe. Statistics prove it.
On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 6:31:34 PM UTC-5, Barry Gold wrote:
If we're proposing amendments, here's mine:That seems to be a short sighted rule to me. What is magical about 90 days for an emergency? I suppose it is reasonable for Congress to ratify the response to the emergency. But the 5 year ban is a bit of overkill, no?
Any delegation of lawmaking or rulemaking authority from Congress to any
part of the executive branch shall expire 730 days after being passed.
Any declaration of emergency by the President shall expire after 90
days, unless ratified by Congress, and may not be renewed, nor shall the
President issue a new declaration of emergency for substantially the
same situation within 5 years of the original declaration.
On 2/21/2022 8:41 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 6:31:34 PM UTC-5, Barry Gold wrote:No. Without that, the President will just issue a new order after the 90
If we're proposing amendments, here's mine:That seems to be a short sighted rule to me. What is magical about 90 days for an emergency? I suppose it is reasonable for Congress to ratify the response to the emergency. But the 5 year ban is a bit of overkill, no?
Any delegation of lawmaking or rulemaking authority from Congress to any >> part of the executive branch shall expire 730 days after being passed.
Any declaration of emergency by the President shall expire after 90
days, unless ratified by Congress, and may not be renewed, nor shall the >> President issue a new declaration of emergency for substantially the
same situation within 5 years of the original declaration.
days has expired.
On reflection, however, 5 years seems arbitrary. I'll change that:
...nor shall the President issue a new declaration of emergency for substantially the same situation during the same presidential term.
(Comment: so if he is re-elected, he can try again, if he's
stupid/stubborn enough.)
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 5:52:38 PM UTC-5, Barry Gold wrote:extreme. It can prevent the use of the power when it should be used. Limit the use to once in six months or a year, something a bit more reasonable.
On 2/21/2022 8:41 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 6:31:34 PM UTC-5, Barry Gold wrote:No. Without that, the President will just issue a new order after the 90
If we're proposing amendments, here's mine:That seems to be a short sighted rule to me. What is magical about 90 days for an emergency? I suppose it is reasonable for Congress to ratify the response to the emergency. But the 5 year ban is a bit of overkill, no?
Any delegation of lawmaking or rulemaking authority from Congress to any >>>> part of the executive branch shall expire 730 days after being passed. >>>>
Any declaration of emergency by the President shall expire after 90
days, unless ratified by Congress, and may not be renewed, nor shall the >>>> President issue a new declaration of emergency for substantially the
same situation within 5 years of the original declaration.
days has expired.
On reflection, however, 5 years seems arbitrary. I'll change that:
...nor shall the President issue a new declaration of emergency for
substantially the same situation during the same presidential term.
(Comment: so if he is re-elected, he can try again, if he's
stupid/stubborn enough.)
FIVE YEARS is overkill. An entire presidential term is also overkill. Even a year can be overkill. Yeah, the powers of the President should be limited from abuse, but you have to allow someone to actually use the power. Once in four years is
It is also a concern that Congress would approve the Presidential use of this power only to find it being misused. If Congress extended the power for a significant period because of their concern the President would need to act swiftly during anotherperiod of peril, they could be authorizing excessive use. So the authority needs to be balanced, but not hamstrung.
Remember that the idea is to give the President the authority to act swiftly in event of a crisis. Limiting this to one use in four years for events of a similar nature would seem to doubt the reason of the President in the extreme.
On 2/23/2022 4:46 PM, Rick C wrote:It can prevent the use of the power when it should be used. Limit the use to once in six months or a year, something a bit more reasonable.
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 5:52:38 PM UTC-5, Barry Gold wrote:
On 2/21/2022 8:41 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 6:31:34 PM UTC-5, Barry Gold wrote:No. Without that, the President will just issue a new order after the 90 >> days has expired.
If we're proposing amendments, here's mine:That seems to be a short sighted rule to me. What is magical about 90 days for an emergency? I suppose it is reasonable for Congress to ratify the response to the emergency. But the 5 year ban is a bit of overkill, no?
Any delegation of lawmaking or rulemaking authority from Congress to any >>>> part of the executive branch shall expire 730 days after being passed. >>>>
Any declaration of emergency by the President shall expire after 90
days, unless ratified by Congress, and may not be renewed, nor shall the >>>> President issue a new declaration of emergency for substantially the >>>> same situation within 5 years of the original declaration.
On reflection, however, 5 years seems arbitrary. I'll change that:
...nor shall the President issue a new declaration of emergency for
substantially the same situation during the same presidential term.
(Comment: so if he is re-elected, he can try again, if he's
stupid/stubborn enough.)
FIVE YEARS is overkill. An entire presidential term is also overkill. Even a year can be overkill. Yeah, the powers of the President should be limited from abuse, but you have to allow someone to actually use the power. Once in four years is extreme.
period of peril, they could be authorizing excessive use. So the authority needs to be balanced, but not hamstrung.It is also a concern that Congress would approve the Presidential use of this power only to find it being misused. If Congress extended the power for a significant period because of their concern the President would need to act swiftly during another
Remember that the idea is to give the President the authority to act swiftly in event of a crisis. Limiting this to one use in four years for events of a similar nature would seem to doubt the reason of the President in the extreme.It's not "limiting this to one use in four years". It's limiting it to
one use FOR THE SAME "EMERGENCY". If Congress hasn't ratified you the
first time, then the problem, whatever it is, can wait until the next presidential term.
But if a new emergency pops up, not "substantially the same" as the
first one, then the President is free to declare another emergency.
This amendment is intended to put an end to the current situation: there
have been 77 "national emergencies" since the National Emergencies Act
was enacted in 1976, and 40 are still in effect!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States
The idea is to prevent the President from simply declaring the same
emergency again if Congress refuses to ratify it. If Congress ratifies
it, it remains in effect until canceled by the President or by both
houses of Congress.
Of course. I get tired of all the typing. The point is... NO, emergency powers are for EMERGENCIES. The very nature of needing to act without Congressional approval is to avoid delays. It is not inconceivable that two similar emergencies can happenwithin one Presidential term. If it is an emergency, it needs to be handled through emergency powers.
On 2/23/2022 10:31 PM, Rick C wrote:
Of course. I get tired of all the typing. The point is... NO, emergency
powers are for EMERGENCIES. The very nature of needing to act without
Congressional approval is to avoid delays. It is not inconceivable that
two similar emergencies can happen within one Presidential term. If it
is an emergency, it needs to be handled through emergency powers.
Hmmm... So it needs to be reworded. If there is a NEW emergency that is >similar, the President should be able to declare the new one. But if it's
the same situation as before, then the President should not be able to >declare it again to get by the 90 day limit. [Note that there is NO time >limit once Congress has ratified the emergency!]
Can you think of a suitable wording?
"Barry Gold" wrote in message news:sv8hkr$kae$1@dont-email.me...
On 2/23/2022 10:31 PM, Rick C wrote:
Of course. I get tired of all the typing. The point is... NO,
emergency powers are for EMERGENCIES. The very nature of needing to
act without Congressional approval is to avoid delays. It is not
inconceivable that two similar emergencies can happen within one
Presidential term. If it is an emergency, it needs to be handled
through emergency powers.
Hmmm... So it needs to be reworded. If there is a NEW emergency that
is similar, the President should be able to declare the new one. But
if it's the same situation as before, then the President should not be
able to declare it again to get by the 90 day limit. [Note that there
is NO time limit once Congress has ratified the emergency!]
Can you think of a suitable wording?
I'm not sure I understand the point of the original 90-day limit. The purpose of giving the president emergency powers is that there are
situations where you have to act fast and can't wait for Congressional approval. So why not simply state that the presidential act remains in effect until Congress either passes a resolution confirming the action
or else passes a resolution ending the action.
In terms of your original wording:
Any declaration of emergency by the President shall remain in effect
until Congress passes a resolution either formally confirming the action
or formally ending the action. If Congress passes a resolution formally ending the action, the president may not issue a new declaration of
emergency for the exact same event.
On 2/24/2022 8:43 PM, Rick wrote:
"Barry Gold" wrote in message news:sv8hkr$kae$1@dont-email.me...
On 2/23/2022 10:31 PM, Rick C wrote:
Of course. I get tired of all the typing. The point is... NO,
emergency powers are for EMERGENCIES. The very nature of needing to
act without Congressional approval is to avoid delays. It is not
inconceivable that two similar emergencies can happen within one
Presidential term. If it is an emergency, it needs to be handled
through emergency powers.
Hmmm... So it needs to be reworded. If there is a NEW emergency that is
similar, the President should be able to declare the new one. But if
it's the same situation as before, then the President should not be able >>> to declare it again to get by the 90 day limit. [Note that there is NO
time limit once Congress has ratified the emergency!]
Can you think of a suitable wording?
I'm not sure I understand the point of the original 90-day limit. The
purpose of giving the president emergency powers is that there are
situations where you have to act fast and can't wait for Congressional
approval. So why not simply state that the presidential act remains in
effect until Congress either passes a resolution confirming the action or
else passes a resolution ending the action.
In terms of your original wording:
Any declaration of emergency by the President shall remain in effect
until Congress passes a resolution either formally confirming the action
or formally ending the action. If Congress passes a resolution formally
ending the action, the president may not issue a new declaration of
emergency for the exact same event.
My objection to your suggestion is that it is much harder to get action
from Congress than inaction. It looks like we have two parties, but in fact >there are dozens of factions that often caucus together, but on subjects >where that faction really cares, they will vote their interest, not the >party's.
In addition, the Senate has the filibuster (at least so far), which allows
as few as 41 Senators to indefinitely block any action.
FOr that reason, I want the declaration of emergency to require
ratification by an affirmative vote by Congress. As I said, if it's really
an emergency, Congress will realize it and run the approval through the
mill fairly quickly.
But if it's a fake "emergency", like Trump using the illegal immigrant >"problem" to steal money from the military budget for his (ineffective)
wall, then Congress will have nothing to do with it. Even during Trump's >first two years, with a Republican majority in both houses, they wouldn't >vote funding for his "big, beautiful wall" because they knew it was a waste >of money. (This didn't even require a Democratic filibuster to block it.)
"Barry Gold" wrote in message news:sv9ona$ci2$1...@dont-email.me...
On 2/24/2022 8:43 PM, Rick wrote:
"Barry Gold" wrote in message news:sv8hkr$kae$1...@dont-email.me...
On 2/23/2022 10:31 PM, Rick C wrote:
Of course. I get tired of all the typing. The point is... NO,
emergency powers are for EMERGENCIES. The very nature of needing to
act without Congressional approval is to avoid delays. It is not
inconceivable that two similar emergencies can happen within one
Presidential term. If it is an emergency, it needs to be handled
through emergency powers.
Hmmm... So it needs to be reworded. If there is a NEW emergency that is >>> similar, the President should be able to declare the new one. But if
it's the same situation as before, then the President should not be able >>> to declare it again to get by the 90 day limit. [Note that there is NO >>> time limit once Congress has ratified the emergency!]
Can you think of a suitable wording?
I'm not sure I understand the point of the original 90-day limit. The
purpose of giving the president emergency powers is that there are
situations where you have to act fast and can't wait for Congressional
approval. So why not simply state that the presidential act remains in
effect until Congress either passes a resolution confirming the action or >> else passes a resolution ending the action.
In terms of your original wording:
Any declaration of emergency by the President shall remain in effect
until Congress passes a resolution either formally confirming the action >> or formally ending the action. If Congress passes a resolution formally
ending the action, the president may not issue a new declaration of
emergency for the exact same event.
My objection to your suggestion is that it is much harder to get action >from Congress than inaction. It looks like we have two parties, but in fact >there are dozens of factions that often caucus together, but on subjects >where that faction really cares, they will vote their interest, not the >party's.
In addition, the Senate has the filibuster (at least so far), which allows >as few as 41 Senators to indefinitely block any action.
FOr that reason, I want the declaration of emergency to require >ratification by an affirmative vote by Congress. As I said, if it's really >an emergency, Congress will realize it and run the approval through the >mill fairly quickly.
But if it's a fake "emergency", like Trump using the illegal immigrant >"problem" to steal money from the military budget for his (ineffective) >wall, then Congress will have nothing to do with it. Even during Trump's >first two years, with a Republican majority in both houses, they wouldn't >vote funding for his "big, beautiful wall" because they knew it was a waste >of money. (This didn't even require a Democratic filibuster to block it.)
It would be easy to modify this to say that in the case of a resolution ending a presidential emergency, normal cloture rules do not apply. In that way, a truly "fake" presidential emergency could be ended by simple majority rule.
On 2/24/2022 8:43 PM, Rick wrote:
"Barry Gold" wrote in message news:sv8hkr$kae$1...@dont-email.me...
On 2/23/2022 10:31 PM, Rick C wrote:
Of course. I get tired of all the typing. The point is... NO,
emergency powers are for EMERGENCIES. The very nature of needing to
act without Congressional approval is to avoid delays. It is not
inconceivable that two similar emergencies can happen within one
Presidential term. If it is an emergency, it needs to be handled
through emergency powers.
Hmmm... So it needs to be reworded. If there is a NEW emergency that
is similar, the President should be able to declare the new one. But
if it's the same situation as before, then the President should not be
able to declare it again to get by the 90 day limit. [Note that there
is NO time limit once Congress has ratified the emergency!]
Can you think of a suitable wording?
I'm not sure I understand the point of the original 90-day limit. The purpose of giving the president emergency powers is that there are situations where you have to act fast and can't wait for Congressional approval. So why not simply state that the presidential act remains in effect until Congress either passes a resolution confirming the action
or else passes a resolution ending the action.
In terms of your original wording:
Any declaration of emergency by the President shall remain in effect
until Congress passes a resolution either formally confirming the action
or formally ending the action. If Congress passes a resolution formally ending the action, the president may not issue a new declaration of emergency for the exact same event.
My objection to your suggestion is that it is much harder to get action
from Congress than inaction. It looks like we have two parties, but in
fact there are dozens of factions that often caucus together, but on
subjects where that faction really cares, they will vote their interest,
not the party's.
In addition, the Senate has the filibuster (at least so far), which
allows as few as 41 Senators to indefinitely block any action.
FOr that reason, I want the declaration of emergency to require
ratification by an affirmative vote by Congress. As I said, if it's
really an emergency, Congress will realize it and run the approval
through the mill fairly quickly.
But if it's a fake "emergency", like Trump using the illegal immigrant "problem" to steal money from the military budget for his (ineffective)
wall, then Congress will have nothing to do with it. Even during Trump's first two years, with a Republican majority in both houses, they
wouldn't vote funding for his "big, beautiful wall" because they knew it
was a waste of money. (This didn't even require a Democratic filibuster
to block it.)
On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 9:36:23 AM UTC-5, Rick wrote:
"Barry Gold" wrote in message news:sv9ona$ci2$1...@dont-email.me...
It would be easy to modify this to say that in the case of a resolution
On 2/24/2022 8:43 PM, Rick wrote:
"Barry Gold" wrote in message news:sv8hkr$kae$1...@dont-email.me...
On 2/23/2022 10:31 PM, Rick C wrote:
Of course. I get tired of all the typing. The point is... NO,
emergency powers are for EMERGENCIES. The very nature of needing to
act without Congressional approval is to avoid delays. It is not
inconceivable that two similar emergencies can happen within one
Presidential term. If it is an emergency, it needs to be handled
through emergency powers.
Hmmm... So it needs to be reworded. If there is a NEW emergency that
is
similar, the President should be able to declare the new one. But if
it's the same situation as before, then the President should not be
able
to declare it again to get by the 90 day limit. [Note that there is
NO
time limit once Congress has ratified the emergency!]
Can you think of a suitable wording?
I'm not sure I understand the point of the original 90-day limit. The
purpose of giving the president emergency powers is that there are
situations where you have to act fast and can't wait for Congressional
approval. So why not simply state that the presidential act remains in
effect until Congress either passes a resolution confirming the action
or
else passes a resolution ending the action.
In terms of your original wording:
Any declaration of emergency by the President shall remain in effect
until Congress passes a resolution either formally confirming the
action
or formally ending the action. If Congress passes a resolution
formally
ending the action, the president may not issue a new declaration of
emergency for the exact same event.
My objection to your suggestion is that it is much harder to get action
from Congress than inaction. It looks like we have two parties, but in
fact
there are dozens of factions that often caucus together, but on subjects
where that faction really cares, they will vote their interest, not the
party's.
In addition, the Senate has the filibuster (at least so far), which
allows
as few as 41 Senators to indefinitely block any action.
FOr that reason, I want the declaration of emergency to require
ratification by an affirmative vote by Congress. As I said, if it's
really
an emergency, Congress will realize it and run the approval through the
mill fairly quickly.
But if it's a fake "emergency", like Trump using the illegal immigrant
"problem" to steal money from the military budget for his (ineffective)
wall, then Congress will have nothing to do with it. Even during Trump's
first two years, with a Republican majority in both houses, they
wouldn't
vote funding for his "big, beautiful wall" because they knew it was a
waste
of money. (This didn't even require a Democratic filibuster to block
it.)
ending a presidential emergency, normal cloture rules do not apply. In
that
way, a truly "fake" presidential emergency could be ended by simple
majority
rule.
No, not so easy. That would give the President the authority to end >filibusters for 90 days. A filibuster stops ALL actions in the Senate, not >just a single bill.
I would also point out your terminology is not correct. Cloture is the >action of overriding a filibuster, not the filibuster itself.
I will also say that this change would be in conflict of the idea of >separation of powers, giving the President the authority to massively alter >the operation of Congress. In fact, in a situation like we have today, it >would allow the President to declare some emergency every 90 days to >eliminate the filibuster entirely completely changing the way the Senate >operates and likely ending the filibuster permanently.
"Rick C" wrote in message
news:7bf0daea-42cf-4dad...@googlegroups.com...
On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 9:36:23 AM UTC-5, Rick wrote:
"Barry Gold" wrote in message news:sv9ona$ci2$1...@dont-email.me...
It would be easy to modify this to say that in the case of a resolution
On 2/24/2022 8:43 PM, Rick wrote:
"Barry Gold" wrote in message news:sv8hkr$kae$1...@dont-email.me...
On 2/23/2022 10:31 PM, Rick C wrote:
Of course. I get tired of all the typing. The point is... NO,
emergency powers are for EMERGENCIES. The very nature of needing to >> >>>> act without Congressional approval is to avoid delays. It is not
inconceivable that two similar emergencies can happen within one
Presidential term. If it is an emergency, it needs to be handled
through emergency powers.
Hmmm... So it needs to be reworded. If there is a NEW emergency that >> >>> is
similar, the President should be able to declare the new one. But if >> >>> it's the same situation as before, then the President should not be
able
to declare it again to get by the 90 day limit. [Note that there is
NO
time limit once Congress has ratified the emergency!]
Can you think of a suitable wording?
I'm not sure I understand the point of the original 90-day limit. The >> >> purpose of giving the president emergency powers is that there are
situations where you have to act fast and can't wait for Congressional >> >> approval. So why not simply state that the presidential act remains in >> >> effect until Congress either passes a resolution confirming the action >> >> or
else passes a resolution ending the action.
In terms of your original wording:
Any declaration of emergency by the President shall remain in effect
until Congress passes a resolution either formally confirming the
action
or formally ending the action. If Congress passes a resolution
formally
ending the action, the president may not issue a new declaration of
emergency for the exact same event.
My objection to your suggestion is that it is much harder to get action >> >from Congress than inaction. It looks like we have two parties, but in
fact
there are dozens of factions that often caucus together, but on subjects >> >where that faction really cares, they will vote their interest, not the >> >party's.
In addition, the Senate has the filibuster (at least so far), which
allows
as few as 41 Senators to indefinitely block any action.
FOr that reason, I want the declaration of emergency to require
ratification by an affirmative vote by Congress. As I said, if it's
really
an emergency, Congress will realize it and run the approval through the >> >mill fairly quickly.
But if it's a fake "emergency", like Trump using the illegal immigrant
"problem" to steal money from the military budget for his (ineffective) >> >wall, then Congress will have nothing to do with it. Even during Trump's >> >first two years, with a Republican majority in both houses, they
wouldn't
vote funding for his "big, beautiful wall" because they knew it was a
waste
of money. (This didn't even require a Democratic filibuster to block
it.)
ending a presidential emergency, normal cloture rules do not apply. In
that
way, a truly "fake" presidential emergency could be ended by simple
majority
rule.
No, not so easy. That would give the President the authority to end >filibusters for 90 days. A filibuster stops ALL actions in the Senate, not >just a single bill.
I would also point out your terminology is not correct. Cloture is the >action of overriding a filibuster, not the filibuster itself.
I will also say that this change would be in conflict of the idea of >separation of powers, giving the President the authority to massively alter >the operation of Congress. In fact, in a situation like we have today, it >would allow the President to declare some emergency every 90 days to >eliminate the filibuster entirely completely changing the way the Senate >operates and likely ending the filibuster permanently.
No, you misread what I said. I said throw out the whole 90-day thing. My suggestion is that the presidential act remains in effect until Congress either passes a resolution confirming the action or else passes a resolution ending the action. The resolution to end the action could be by a simple majority vote to eliminate the filibuster from coming into play.
I'm not intimately familiar with Senate rules, but I believe the issues of cloture and such are simple, Senate rules. They can always be changed by simple majority rule. But I don't think you understand that the filibuster is fundamental to theoperation of the Senate.
I don't think there exists a mechanism that allows the ending of a filibuster (cloture) for your special case and maintains filibuster for other issues. The point is they can use the filibuster to prevent some other bill from coming to a vote,effectively shutting down the Senate. That's what a filibuster does, gridlocks the Senate. It's not about one bill, or one vote. It is using the rules of the Senate to endlessly "debate" a topic, shutting down further operation of the Senate. The
I think Senators have filibustered by reading phone books before.
What you can modify is the rules of cloture, which is the mechanism for ending a filibuster. Just not the way you are thinking.
On 2/25/2022 1:58 PM, Rick C wrote:operation of the Senate.
I'm not intimately familiar with Senate rules, but I believe the issues of cloture and such are simple, Senate rules. They can always be changed by simple majority rule. But I don't think you understand that the filibuster is fundamental to the
effectively shutting down the Senate. That's what a filibuster does, gridlocks the Senate. It's not about one bill, or one vote. It is using the rules of the Senate to endlessly "debate" a topic, shutting down further operation of the Senate. The issueI don't think there exists a mechanism that allows the ending of a filibuster (cloture) for your special case and maintains filibuster for other issues. The point is they can use the filibuster to prevent some other bill from coming to a vote,
I think Senators have filibustered by reading phone books before.
What you can modify is the rules of cloture, which is the mechanism for ending a filibuster. Just not the way you are thinking.It looks like a little bit of explanation is needed.
To understand the filibuster, you need to know a little bit about parliamentary rules of order. (Roberts's is the most famous, but there
are several others.) The key concept is the "floor".
The floor is where a motion is while it is being
considered/debated/voted on. There can be only one motion "on the floor"
at a time. When a bill to increase taxes is on the floor, you can't just bring up a bill to change the National Labor Relations Act. First you
have to dispose of the tax bill.
This rule was strictly enforced until 1970. If 35 Senators were
sufficiently against the (e.g. tax) bill, they would just keep talking.
When one got tired or had to go to the bathroom, another would take it
up, and so on and so on.
Before 1970, "Cloture" (a fancy word for "closing debate", aka "The
Previous Question" in Robert's Rules of Order) required a 2/3 vote. And
a filibuster worked the way Rick C described.
But there was a cost to this: that bill was still "on the floor" of the Senate. So no other bill could be considered. No business got done*. No matter how important the new bill was (e.g., next year's budget with the clock ticking down toward the end of the fiscal year), it had to wait
until the current bill was either "tabled" (put aside indefinitely) or
voted down or passed.
For practical reasons, this couldn't go on forever. Maybe one side would
give in, "Okay, we'll let you pass this one," or "Okay, we give up,
we'll table the bill." Or maybe they would decide, "Okay, we'll let you
pass this if you make these changes."
If they didn't, the government would shut down or something else bad
would happen, and the voters would get upset and some Senators would not
get reelected.
So there was a real incentive to find a compromise of some sort -- or
for one side to decide that maybe it wasn't that important to pass (or defeat) the bill after all.
But in 1970, the Senate changed the rules. It's called "dual track".
When a minority wants to block a bill, they simply announce that they
plan to filibuster it. Then the bill is put aside, and the Senate can consider other bills.
In return for that change, the vote for Cloture was reduced from 2/3 to
60% (60 Senators instead of 67).
* Committees could still discuss bills, amend them, hold hearings, etc.,
and eventually send the bill back to the whole Senate for consideration
-- or not: bills can also "die in committee".
So the Senate is no longer gridlocked when a bill is being filibustered.
This led to the "strategic filibuster". In effect, any group of 41 or
more Senators can kill a bill they don't like. Sometimes the bill gets changed enough that 60 Senators will vote for it. More often, the
majority just gives up.
Some time after this came the "nuclear option".
The way this works is:
1. Somebody makes a motion for "cloture" (ending debate on the bill)
2. A vote is held. 55 (e.g.) Senators vote for Cloture, and 45 against.
The presiding officer (VP as President of the Senate, or the President
Pro Tem) rules that the motion fails.
3. One of the majority group uses a special motion: to appeal from the decision of the chair. That Senator claims that (contrary to the
Senate's Rules of Order), the cloture motion requires only a simple
majority vote.
4. A majority of Senators vote in favor of the appeal.
5. The cloture motion passes based on that appeal.
6. The bill is voted on and passed.
This option was first proposed by a Republican Senator, but the first
actual use was by the Democrats, when the Republicans were blocking not
just Supreme Court appointments but also appointments to positions in
the Executive Branch ("No, we won't let you appoint George Smith as
Assistant Undersecretary of HUD. Why? Because he once made a speec in
which he said..."
Later on, the Democrats also used it for appointments to lower courts (District Court and Court of Appeals).
Then, during the Trump Administration, the Republicans used it for
Supreme Court nominations. And that's how we got into the current mess.
It seems nearly certain that Ketanji Brown Jackson will be approved
using the "nuclear option." And the Republicans will get exactly what
they deserve for doing this in the first place, just as the Democrats
got exactly what they deserved for using the "nuclear option" for
executive positions and lower court judgeships.
Gold's 7th law applies here:
7. Any trick, stratagem, etc. that you use will be used against you by
the other side.
Probably sooner than you think.
It would be easy to modify this to say that in the case of a resolution ending a presidential emergency, normal cloture rules do not apply. In that way, a truly "fake" presidential emergency could be ended by simple majority rule.
On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 21:37:04 -0800, Rick wrote:
"Rick C" wrote in message
news:6eac1c00-eee4-4e01-994a-06cc710473can@googlegroups.com...
And having a car makes it more likely you will get into a car accident.
On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 1:04:51 AM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
Whereas, a person is endowed with natural rights by birth, hence
governments are instituted to secure these rights; and foremost is the >>>> right to life, therefore the right to preserve and defend one's life:
I. Each citizen, or legally recognized resident of these united
states, shall be free to utilize such devices, of limited magnitude
[the state can ban cannons], which shall not reasonably constitute a
threat to public safety [no tear gas], as he deems necessary to secure >>>> his safety.
II.
i) No state shall restrict the design, possession,
manufacture, or trade of said devices; except as noted in (ii). ii)
For specified devices, deemed inherently hazardous,
a state may mandate such features or apparatus, as deemed necessary to >>>> mitigate such hazards. [a gun must include a safety lever] [a sword
must be sheathed]
III. Each person may possess said devices in his home,
place of business, or other such premises of private property; nor
shall a state infringe upon the right to bear said devices in the
public square.
IV. For specified devices, wherein misuse or mishap may reasonably
constitute a threat to public safety, a state may institute a system
of licensing, the sole purpose of which shall be to ascertain
competence of the licensee, in the use thereof.
V. No state shall keep records regarding manufacture, possession, or
trade of said devices.
VI. The Second Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed.
The obvious intent here is to protect gun ownership rights.
Sorry, what? It has been shown that having a gun in the home makes the
occupants less safe, not more. So how can gun ownership be supported to >>> "preserve and defend one's life".
The issue isn't whether a particular item of property makes you less or
more safe. The issue is whether you have a right to own property,
whether that be a car, gun or something else, as long as you don't use
that property to commit crimes against others. Some items of property
- e.g., gun, car, knife, poison, sledgehammer, barbells - can be used to
inflict harm or even death on others. That doesn't mean you shouldn't
be allowed to own such property. The crime is in using such property
to inflict harm on others - not in merely owning the property.
--
So property like marijuana plants is also protected ?
Cool.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 399 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 99:27:54 |
| Calls: | 8,363 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,162 |
| Messages: | 5,897,781 |