This nation as we know it.

[Tider@GW_Law]

Well, the constitutional limitations on Federal powers means most problems are simply not Federal issues. By preventing the Federal government from having the authority over the issue, the Founders hoped to isolate the Federal government from such a corrupting process.

The Constitution allows the Federal government to exercise certain powers, and denies the Federal government powers not enumerated. If you use the yardstick of last year's budget, then the losers and winners will feel the losses and the wins. I would argue that this is a corrupted measuring stick, however. This leads to our current political situation in which one party screws over the country for the benefit of their donors. Then the other party says, "Hey, we want to screw over the country for the benefit of our donors for a while."
John Taylor of Caroline wrote about this extensively.

If the Federal judiciary would fulfill its constitutional role and negative Federal acts that go beyond Article I, Section 8, the Federal judiciary could insulate the budget process from the pressures of elected office. Were the Federal judiciary to throw out such laws, the elected officials could tell their donors, "I tried to enact your [desired but unconstitutional] program, but those darn judges threw it out. Dadgum it. Can I have some money nevertheless?"

I like to start from where we are, as opposed to where we could have been. No sense in pretending we have a time machine.

It's a bit late to rely on the federal judiciary to bring about the kind of sweeping changes you reference. Too much precedent to the contrary there.

I think the first phase of the solution lies in addressing the bolded statement above - though also with the recognition that the First Amendment and precedent recognizing money as speech prevents the elimination of lobbyists and such.

 

[Tidewater]

I like to start from where we are, as opposed to where we could have been. No sense in pretending we have a time machine.
It's a bit late to rely on the federal judiciary to bring about the kind of sweeping changes you reference. Too much precedent to the contrary there.

Stare decisis is Latin for "You are not allowed to fix our errors." But, as Lord Coke said, "The intention is the legislators is law," so I prefer to look at judicial decisions in violation of the intention of law-givers as rulings in error that have yet to be overturned.

I think the first phase of the solution lies in addressing the bolded statement above - though also with the recognition that the First Amendment and precedent recognizing money as speech prevents the elimination of lobbyists and such.

I believe that, unless the electorate corrects this, the dismal science of economics will correct this for them when continued unhampered deficit spending crowds out other desired spending. That won't be pleasant, however.

 

[BamaBrass]

It's just sad that 50% of America is BLIND. Do they not know that there are consequences to everything? Do they not know thre is a domino effect to everything?

 

[Tider@GW_Law]

Stare decisis is Latin for "You are not allowed to fix our errors." But, as Lord Coke said, "The intention is the legislators is law," so I prefer to look at judicial decisions in violation of the intention of law-givers as rulings in error that have yet to be overturned.

I believe that, unless the electorate corrects this, the dismal science of economics will correct this for them when continued unhampered deficit spending crowds out other desired spending. That won't be pleasant, however.

As a classics minor myself with 3 years of Latin, it actually means "let the decision stand" or "stand by the decision," but I can see where you're coming from.

Can't argue with your second point. Uncorrected, the only question is in regards to the timeframe.

 

[Tider@GW_Law]

It's just sad that 50% of America is BLIND. Do they not know that there are consequences to everything? Do they not know thre is a domino effect to everything?

Those who really understand the situation know that the money will be spent - the significant difference between the parties is where the money goes (e.g., defense contractors vs. healthcare providers).

 

[rizolltizide]

Latin smack.

 

[SavannahDare]

Latin smack.

Yeah... Because it really matters to split those hairs when it comes to a dead language. :biggrin2:

 

[Tider@GW_Law]

Yeah... Because it really matters to split those hairs when it comes to a dead language. :biggrin2:

When you invest 6 semesters in a dead language you use it whenever possible. I'm still several thousand hair-splits short of recouping my investment.

 

[SavannahDare]

When you invest 6 semesters in a dead language you use it whenever possible. I'm still several thousand hair-splits short of recouping my investment.

We'll consider ourselves warned.