Monday, February 13, 2012
Senator McCaskill keeps doing great things
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
My Blog List
-
-
-
Links 4/18/20241 hour ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cartoon: The running mate12 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
State of the Union: Will Biden Resonate?5 weeks ago
-
In Memorium4 months ago
-
Kansas City NFL Draft Aerial Photos (5)11 months ago
-
-
Search4 years ago
-
-
who links to me?
Counter
The Gallery at night
Warning
Summer field
Late Summer Sunset
Chicago, downtown
under a bridge, by the lake
6 comments:
The line-item veto is a TERRIBLE idea, and it's unconstitutional, to boot.
Congress has the non-delegable power to spend, and the Presentment Clause doesn't give POTUS the right to pick and choose which parts of a law stays or goes. Congress needs to quit figuring ways to abdicate their responsibilities by expanding the role of the president. He's not a super-legislator.
In short, a line-item veto would require a Constitutional Amendment.
Claire McCaskill isn't a co-sponsor of the DOMA repeal bill. That's some bullshit, right there.
Dear Crusty,
While I agree that Congress was to have the power to spend, of course, as any Constitutional law class would (and did, for me) tell you, they keep giving up power to the Executive Branch and then complaining about it and their "powerlessness" later. This is one of those cases.
That said, someone, some person in our government needs to cut spending and wasteful spending items out of our budgets and Congress keeps coming back to this idea, of giving that power, too, to the President. I think not only that it's going to happen but that there will be no contesting it, either, and it will sail through. It will sail through with this president or the next and there won't be one case to the Supreme Court about it. Well, unless you file it.
And sure, Claire isn't sponsoring the repeal of DOMA but I'd nearly wager this--if she is re-elected, she will. We'll see. On all, of course.
I don't think she's perfect by any means. But she's good, at least.
RE: Spending Reform
To cut wasteful spending from the budget, there are other options besides pointlessly trying to cram through another unconstitutional law.
Congress could pass a law prohibiting "christmas tree" add-ons to unrelated bills.
Congress could pass a law attacking earmarks.
Hell, Congress could abandon these absurd "omnibus" budgets that invite this crap in the first place, and create several narrowly tailored spending bills.
RE: Claire McCaskill
You may be comfortable with Claire's refusal to take a stand to repeal the single most discriminatory federal law enacted in the past half-century based on your unfounded belief that she'll do so when it's more politically expedient.
However, I'm not quite so comfortable with someone playing politics with my rights. In fact, I think playing politics with ANYBODY'S rights is thoroughly despicable, and shouldn't be tolerated by decent people, under any circumstance, ever.
Whether she's "good" on any other issue is irrelevant to me, as long as she denies that I have every right to the same legal status, benefits, privileges and immunities she enjoys.
[FWIW, Claire will NOT vote for marriage equality. She's a segregationist on the record that marriage is some special right exclusively due heteros.]
Okay, here's the deal. In some ways, I do have high hopes for my/our legislators. The flip side is that, while I want my equal rights also, like you, I'm maybe too pragmatic or forgiving because of what's gone beforehand. I'm too understanding, maybe.
You're right about our rights, for sure. After watching films this month on what the Civil Rights protests did and demanded in order to get what they already should have had, I've decided we (I) need to ramp up what's not acceptable or excusable.
The thing is, I know I'm comparing Claire to the other Senator---Blunt--and thinking "Gosh, compared to him, she's doing good things" and that is one extremely low bar set for her, as you know.
I think I'm too much of a pragmatist on all this. But I do want to be realistic from where we came from, where we are and what we need and want done.
All this said, look at where Missouri citizens and, worse, the legislators are on our equal rights issues. They're neanderthals and going backwards. That's one more reason I give her more credit, too. It's not right in the big picture since we deserve true, equal rights, of course. Again, I'm being too forgiving, understanding and pragmatic, I suppose.
If we're willing to accept platitudes, dithering, and half-measures, that's what we'll get.
If we're willing to elect unprincipled officials who are comfortable with their bigotry and cannot learn from history, that's what we'll get.
We can't make progress by accepting the same old shit.
So I'm done voting for loathsome Democrats because they're marginally less stupid or insane or theocratic than the alternative. We're all guilty of it, and all it's accomplished is to feed the major party's race to the bottom.
My new baseline is this: if a candidate for national office cannot, or refuses to understand that the Constitution applies equally to everyone, I'm not voting for that candidate.
Period.
If the Obamas and McCaskills want to be actually DISTINCT from the Santorums and Blunts, then their positions must become "I'm determined to be unequivocally pro-equality," not, "Well, I'm somewhat less bigoted."
Two things: You write very passionately--and correctly, I have to say. I agree.
Second--you've made a convert out of me. That and, again, having seen what the Civil Rights protesters committed themselves to and demanded of their government and society in the 60's in order to get closer to true equality.
Thanks.
Post a Comment