US Presidential Elections

[Enoch]

To that point I will counter by posing the same challenge to you as I did to Sand: Write one letter to your State Senator and another to one of your US Senators and see which one responds to you. The answer there should be self evident. The legislators and bureaucrats elected from the smallest voter pools will be most in tune with the needs and issues facing the people from those pools.

Sure, but is that always a good thing? A legislator who spends all of his time writing back to every nutball who sends him a letter isn't doing a whole lot of reasoned consideration of larger policy issues. There is a continuum between a totally responsive rulemaker with zero subject matter expertise, and a non-responsive expert rulemaker. Local and state governmental officials tend to be closer to the former, and federal bureaucrats delegated power via legislation tend to be closer to the latter. And, depending upon the nature of the policy being discussed, one will generally be more effective than the other.

 

I have no argument with that concerning issues like pollution and transportation where more than one state is affected. However when it comes to Education, Health Care, social issues, etc, what is good for the New York Goose does not work for the California Gander. For example Florida raises money through property tax and sales tax. The Department of Education Organization Act of 1980 then requires the state to pay part of that to Uncle Sam to fund the Department of Education which turns around and pays that money back to the States to fund education programs. Really is just feeds a bureaucratic machine who's appetite for money knows no limit. Now the DOE has the ability to withhold money (that the state raised in taxes) from the state if the State Secretary of Education (who is elected) does something the US Sec Education (who is NOT elected) does not like. Now with the No Child Left Behind act it is even worse. Now the DOE can target a single school in a single school district for a funding cut. Enoch, the local school board whose members were all locally elected has been effectively neutered buy a Washington Bureaucrat who is not elected therefore accountable to no one. I realize you are a Washington guy but as a lawyer, as an educated American, can you not see how someone would have a problem with that? To make matters worse, the US Constitution does not mention the word "Education" or allude to ANYTHING that can be construed as Education, so where does the Federal Government get this power? From nowhere, it takes it and what can one do? Nothing, really especially since five of the nine wise souls on 1st ST in DC have no heartburn with the Federal Government exceeding Constitutional limitations.

I really don't know much about Education's funding and programs (in federal parlance, the Department of Energy = "DOE" and the Department of Education = "Education"), and it may well be that they're promulgating some poor policies (I'm not the biggest fan of NCLB, either). But on a theoretical level, I don't really think that entirely local control over educational standards and funding is a particularly good idea. Sure, it made sense a century ago, when geography determined a person's employment future to a great extent, but nowadays, the educational needs of children don't differ a whole lot based on their location. And education is a vitally important part of ensuring the future of America's international economic competitiveness , so I don't see much wrong with federal legislators and bureaucrats having the authority of prevent local elected officials from sabotaging this by retaining lousy teachers, overcrowding classrooms, or indulging in the periodic curricular lunacy of the Kansas School Board. Also by drawing on a national or state-wide source of funding, communities can avoid the vicious cycle of bad schools --> low land values --> low tax income --> bad schools.

 

More local control has the advantage of quicker response time to fix policy failures, and it preserves the experimental benefits of federalism (i.e., states and localities being "policy laboratories" where ideas are tested before being applied more broadly). But some federal oversight added to the mix is very helpful to bring substandard jurisdictions in line, and to distribute resources in a more effective way than local tax funding does.

Edited February 25, 2008 by Enoch

[Enoch]

Do the states have any strings that they can pull back for balance of power? Senate/congress?isn't it the legislative branch that can change balance this back out? So they do have power if they can agree upon the issue correct?

 

Has the federal government always had power to trump the states government when not even at war?

The States can file suit in federal court if the federal action was in fact beyond it's constitutional powers. States have won suits like this before (see, for example, New York v. United States). They can also try to influence members of Congress to change laws and cede more authority to them.

 

As to the second question, yes. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Art. IV, clause 2) ensures that the federal Constitution and all laws made under its authority (i.e., by Congress) are the "supreme law of the Land." State laws that contravene federal laws are a dead letter.

Edited February 25, 2008 by Enoch

[Meshugger]

Nader on running for president at meet the press:

 

Part - 1

Part - 2

 

Boy, he is angry. And he's also pushing my buttons on a couple issues. Finally, the guy is 74? Three years older than McCain? Maybe being a part of the 'green' party has kept him pretty healthy

[Pop]

Nader got 2.7% in 2000 under the Green Party nomination, but only .3% in 2004 as an independent. People voted for him in 2000 because he based his campaign around the similarities of Bush and Gore. Now, I think everybody knows that the differences are painfully clear. If anything, he's more a threat to McCain's pool of independent voters than Obama's.

[Walsingham]

Yeah. I was going to say, why are we treating Nader's effect as zero sum? Surely a third party candidate can activate unused votes, rather than simply stealing?

[Dark_Raven]

Looks like Obama is a islamist terrorist.

[Meshugger]

Looks like Obama is a islamist terrorist.

 

lulz, whut?

[Dark_Raven]

Looks like Obama is a islamist terrorist.

 

lulz, whut?

A picture that shows Obama dressed as a muslim.

[Walsingham]

Looks like Obama is a islamist terrorist.

 

lulz, whut?

A picture that shows Obama dressed as a muslim.

 

Hvae you been mainlining pop-rocks or something today, DR?

[Dark_Raven]

Looks like Obama is a islamist terrorist.

 

lulz, whut?

A picture that shows Obama dressed as a muslim.

 

Hvae you been mainlining pop-rocks or something today, DR?

Looky

[Sand]

A picture that shows Obama dressed as a muslim.

 

So, every single muslim is a terrorist now?

 

I saw the pic and he looks like no freaking terrorist, Dark Raven. He looks like an American in traditional Kenyan garments. Make sense since his father was Kenyan. You are grasping at straws on this one.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Sand

[Dark_Raven]

A picture that shows Obama dressed as a muslim.

 

So, every single muslim is a terrorist now?

 

I saw the pic and he looks like nor freaking terrorist, Dark Raven. You are grasping at straws on this one.

Nope. He's going down. Time for him to quit the elections.

 

More information.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Dark_Raven

[Sand]

Nope. He's going down. Time for him to quit the elections.

 

I think that this is a poor tactic of Billary, trying to play on people's fears instead of running a honest campaign. Obviously she can't win otherwise.

[Walsingham]

Looks like Obama is a islamist terrorist.

 

lulz, whut?

A picture that shows Obama dressed as a muslim.

 

Hvae you been mainlining pop-rocks or something today, DR?

Looky

 

I know precisely which picture you are referring to, and I repeat the question. You're bouncing off the walls today.

[Dark_Raven]

:aiee:

[Sand]

Even if he was Muslim, what would be the big deal?

[Dark_Raven]

Why yes, yes it would.

[Sand]

How?

 

Religion is a private affair between oneself and one's deity of choice. As long as a person doesn't go around killing people or try to force others to convert I say let people worship what gods they may.

[Nick_i_am]

'Aye ain't been votin' for no goddamn mus-o-lim' is what Gabs is getting at.

[Walsingham]

'Aye ain't been votin' for no goddamn mus-o-lim' is what Gabs is getting at.

 

Muesli?

[Nick_i_am]

Breakfast choise of the extemists!

[spartan117]

Nope. He's going down. Time for him to quit the elections.

 

I think that this is a poor tactic of Billary, trying to play on people's fears instead of running a honest campaign. Obviously she can't win otherwise.

 

The rumors about Obama have been echoed on Internet message boards and chain e-mails.

 

Who's Billary? No, Hillary isn't being a bad person here. Obama often doesn't provide evidence of how he will fulfill his claims. I do not beleive that Obama is "bad" or a terrorist, just not the right choice for america. As for the quote from the article: irony!

[Xard]

This pic thing was utterly despisable thing by Billary. Damn bitch.

 

Go go Obama!

[Walsingham]

This pic thing was utterly despisable thing by Billary. Damn bitch.

 

Go go Obama!

 

If it was her on purpose I think it was a damned silly idea. Yes it will turn off a number of voters, but frankly they'd probably turn against him anyway. In the meantime she looks like she can't even play straight within her own party. I think being petty plays worse than doing a photo op.

[spartan117]

This pic thing was utterly despisable thing by Billary. Damn bitch.

 

Go go Obama!

 

Again, whos Billary? Is this some joke on these forums?