Why have two houses?
The House of Representatives allows for simple majority votes. It allows issues to be brought forth and passed based on a simple majority representation of the population. That can be good, but it can also let one state, such as California, have an overwhelming voice that drowns out smaller states - such as Rhode Island.
The Senate ensures that each state has equal representation - and an equal voice - in our federal government. With unlimited debate, the senate can slow down government - and make it harder for changes to occur. It also makes sure that any new laws are perceived to be good for the absolute majority of states prior to passage.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Basic Points Forgotten by the Left about the latest First Amendment Ruling ...
(1) Everyone who is affected by legislation and taxes deserves to have a voice and be heard.
(2) Please re-read the first amendment ... in it's entirety. Not only the part about NO laws abridging free speech, but also the last sentence which describes one of the primary purposes of this amendment.
(3) Newspapers are for-profit corporations. Last time I checked, every editorial issued supports or argues against a position and or candidate. Since its editors work for a for-profit corporation, should their voice also be silenced? If your answer is no, which I assume it will be, then why do you feel that their voice should be heard over others? What gives them that right, but not others? Shouldn't the law have equal application across all spectrums?
(4) Why do you assume, in an age where we have more access to information than any other time in history, that people are too stupid to see through advertising and make there own decisions? Are you advocating that we should make decisions for people by limiting the information that is published?
(5) Why is it that when the constitution is upheld, and EVERYONE is given an equal opportunity to voice their opinion, all of the sudden it's anti-democracy?
(6) This will make politicians more accountable for their actions - all of them. They can no longer legislate against a particular group with no fear of political retribution. Why is political accountability suddenly a bad thing?
(2) Please re-read the first amendment ... in it's entirety. Not only the part about NO laws abridging free speech, but also the last sentence which describes one of the primary purposes of this amendment.
(3) Newspapers are for-profit corporations. Last time I checked, every editorial issued supports or argues against a position and or candidate. Since its editors work for a for-profit corporation, should their voice also be silenced? If your answer is no, which I assume it will be, then why do you feel that their voice should be heard over others? What gives them that right, but not others? Shouldn't the law have equal application across all spectrums?
(4) Why do you assume, in an age where we have more access to information than any other time in history, that people are too stupid to see through advertising and make there own decisions? Are you advocating that we should make decisions for people by limiting the information that is published?
(5) Why is it that when the constitution is upheld, and EVERYONE is given an equal opportunity to voice their opinion, all of the sudden it's anti-democracy?
(6) This will make politicians more accountable for their actions - all of them. They can no longer legislate against a particular group with no fear of political retribution. Why is political accountability suddenly a bad thing?
Saturday, January 23, 2010
1st Amendment Rights Upheld?
On January 21, 2010, our Supreme Court essentially overturned McCain Feingold's Campaign Finance Reform, and an older ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads.
First things first. The 1st Amendment ...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
It's pretty clear that we have a guarantee of no laws abridging the freedom of speech. But more importantly, look at the last line .... "and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
It's pretty clear that the courts did the right thing by upholding our constitution.
What's more important is that it now levels the playing field. Newspapers are for profit corporations. They have continuously swayed elections ... including the election of Obama. Unions, also freed by the ruling, had been swaying elections by sending hundreds of millions to PAC's, and by sending throngs of members to support their candidates - and in many cases, inhibit the oppositions support by physical force.
Businesses are affected by legislation and taxes. If anything, it can be said that larger corporations are affected MORE, because a slight tax increase could potentially cost them tens of millions, to an average persons hundreds or thousands.
This ruling allows them to now speak out and voice their opinion on these policies that affect them, giving them an equal voice - and finally, the ability to vocally "petition the government for a redress of grievances."
It reinstalls a series of checks and balances that have been missing in big government for years. Now, when government acts against business owners, they have to do it knowing there are consequences. That the people they are acting against can finally speak up and fight back.
That may scare some government officials. And that's good. Government should always fear the people, the people should not have to fear the government.
First things first. The 1st Amendment ...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
It's pretty clear that we have a guarantee of no laws abridging the freedom of speech. But more importantly, look at the last line .... "and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
It's pretty clear that the courts did the right thing by upholding our constitution.
What's more important is that it now levels the playing field. Newspapers are for profit corporations. They have continuously swayed elections ... including the election of Obama. Unions, also freed by the ruling, had been swaying elections by sending hundreds of millions to PAC's, and by sending throngs of members to support their candidates - and in many cases, inhibit the oppositions support by physical force.
Businesses are affected by legislation and taxes. If anything, it can be said that larger corporations are affected MORE, because a slight tax increase could potentially cost them tens of millions, to an average persons hundreds or thousands.
This ruling allows them to now speak out and voice their opinion on these policies that affect them, giving them an equal voice - and finally, the ability to vocally "petition the government for a redress of grievances."
It reinstalls a series of checks and balances that have been missing in big government for years. Now, when government acts against business owners, they have to do it knowing there are consequences. That the people they are acting against can finally speak up and fight back.
That may scare some government officials. And that's good. Government should always fear the people, the people should not have to fear the government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)