I was reading this article, by Todd Purdum from Vanity Fair, looking for something else, when I came across this paragraph
"Sure, Obama has made his share of mistakes, rookie and otherwise. But don’t count him out—not just yet. For the fault, dear readers, lies not in our stars, nor even in our rock-star president, but in ourselves: in our impatience, our intemperance, our lack of perspective, our susceptibility to the easy untruth and the quick fix. Barack Obama only rarely falls victim to any of these vices, and, with luck, he may yet save us from ourselves."
Is this worship of a governmental leader healthy for a democratic/republic style government?
I have overheard people say things such as, "if congress just got out of Obama's way then he could fix everything." or "it's Nancy and Harry that are messing things up and making Obama look bad, they should just get out of the way."
Is this article and others attacking the very foundation of our government or am I over-reacting?
Here is the article. It is very amazing on how he believes Obama can do no wrong.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/01/purdum-on-obama-201001
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Bigger is Better?!?!
Read an article about expanding the size of congress. Congress has 435 people in it as of right now and that has been the case since 1929. (the us population at that time was 121,700,000 which meant for every one congressmen there were 280,000 people.) Today, on average, for every one congressmen there are 689,600 people. In places like Montana there is only one congressmen for 900,000 people, but two in Rhode Island which is about 400,000 per a congressmen. This means Montanans are underrepresented.
Should we expand the US congress?
At the beginning of the nation, we had 67 congressmen each representing only 30,000. But for today's sake, why not we make it 300,000 or some where around there. That would mean we need to add about 1,000 more congressmen.
What do you think?
Should we expand the US congress?
At the beginning of the nation, we had 67 congressmen each representing only 30,000. But for today's sake, why not we make it 300,000 or some where around there. That would mean we need to add about 1,000 more congressmen.
What do you think?
Monday, May 25, 2009
17th amendment
Interestingly there have been 16 amendments to the constitution since it was signed. 6 of those amendments happened between 1900-1933 (which is considered the progressive era). ((double interesting is even within that period they repealed one amendment with another; 18th and 21st.)) There are really two amendments in that period that i don't like, but i want to focus on the 17th. The 17th states,
AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
I bolded the change in the constitution. before senators were elected by the state legislators and not by popular vote. The thought behind having the state legislators appointing the senator is that the senator would be more loyal to the state. The the thought behind the change was to stop corruption and give the power to the People. Now, normally i am for giving more power to the People, however my disdain towards the national government is stronger. What has happened, and really its true intent, was the senators became more loyal to the national government than to their state. example, chris dodd (d-ct) received far more money from his campaign from people outside his state than from people inside his state. If a state has a senator in the senate for a long time, like so many senators, the senator losses the touch with the People from his/her state. Second, you have people from other states that fly into a certain state (because of x y and z) and win the race but have very little loyalty to the People of the state.
what if we did go back to the state legislators appointing the senators (now congress would still be popular vote within their district)? Would this then pull the senate closer to the states and further away from washington? the argument that the old system caused corruption is over, since now we have many cases of corruption from this 'new' system. by having the senators closer to their states, would this then give power back to the People of each state?
AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
I bolded the change in the constitution. before senators were elected by the state legislators and not by popular vote. The thought behind having the state legislators appointing the senator is that the senator would be more loyal to the state. The the thought behind the change was to stop corruption and give the power to the People. Now, normally i am for giving more power to the People, however my disdain towards the national government is stronger. What has happened, and really its true intent, was the senators became more loyal to the national government than to their state. example, chris dodd (d-ct) received far more money from his campaign from people outside his state than from people inside his state. If a state has a senator in the senate for a long time, like so many senators, the senator losses the touch with the People from his/her state. Second, you have people from other states that fly into a certain state (because of x y and z) and win the race but have very little loyalty to the People of the state.
what if we did go back to the state legislators appointing the senators (now congress would still be popular vote within their district)? Would this then pull the senate closer to the states and further away from washington? the argument that the old system caused corruption is over, since now we have many cases of corruption from this 'new' system. by having the senators closer to their states, would this then give power back to the People of each state?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)