My Nation
I've just created a new nation. I learned of this from Jordan, so I named my country in honor of him. He learned about this from Laura, but didn't name his country after her. That's probably because he hates women.
Keep track of my people here:
http://www.nationstates.net/jordan_raney
posted by Chris Hill @ 8/18/2006 12:25:00 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
It appears that government activity has been stagnant for at least 2 hours at the time of this comment. Napping?
A good government is one that does nothing when nothing is needed. Thus, my government may filibuster, because sometimes no legislation is good legislation.
Speaking of filibustering... Chris, could you please explain to me, if it's possible to do so, why filibustering is legal? It seems like it totally defeats the purpose of legislation to allow a member of the House or Senate to delay a bill through inane babbling. Am I missing something?
Also, I'd be interested to know how your 802.11g router works. I think I need to try to convince Dad that our house could use one - Mom keeps losing connection, and I would like to be able to use wireless on occasion.
Hope you're enjoying Florida,
-Steve
Brother (literally, not in the black sense),
1. The g-hub works wonderfully! Thanks for asking, and for the help. It does have a little trouble going through the thick walls here, but they "say" it should go 300 feet without them. Anyway, we get a good connection everywhere in our place ("good" is around 60% signal, but it's much faster than the internet so you don't notice anything). I got the router (D-link) from Best Buy for $40. They have some sale on it right now. It's usually $60. They have others for $40 usually, but the guy recommended D-link and even though I don't trust Best Buy employees, it usually costs more so I bought it.
2. Filibustering is legal by US Senate laws. I don't think it's legal in the House (someone correct me if I'm wrong - I think I'm thinking of keeping things in commitee). It evolved out of the laws that allow members of Congress (maybe it started in British Parliament?) to have the floor until they were done speaking. It is a political tool used to delay the bill until the right number of people are present to vote for whatever is desired by the filibusterers, or people are swayed to vote. It is a means for a minority view to have a chance, just like the electoral system. In this way, it prevents the tyranny of the majority - i.e., mob rule. I think it can be good for this reason, as well as the fact that it slows the legislative process down. Government acting fast to make laws is oftentimes a bad thing, especially if others are passionately against it. Filibustering helps keep Congress in check.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, filibustering used to have more stringent standards as to what was acceptable filibustering. I think in the past it was up to one individual and he couldn't even sit down. More recently the standards have dropped significantly, allowing for tag-team efforts. That is kind of stupid because it allows the minority to actually prevent anything from getting done indefinitely. It is no longer a tool to prevent mob rule--because of the drop in standards it is now a tool that merely allows the minority to prevent the majority from ever doing anything.
You may be right, Jordan. I think the issue is that members of Congress can yield the floor to whomever they like. I feel stupid, though, because I really don't know any of this for sure. Even if we understand everything we're talking about, I think it's better to allow the pass-on filibustering than to have none whatsoever.
Yep... I looked it up and found:
"In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits procedural filibusters, in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. This threat of a filibuster can be just as powerful as an actual filibuster."
I think it should be changed back to how it was so that someone has to be standing up and talking to have a filibuster. Otherwise you have people literally "filibustering" multiple things at the same time without the issues that are being filibustered even addressed. That is what has been happening with judicial nominees. They are only filibustered in the sense that democrats don't want them to be voted in--there isn't someone making a statement by making a day-long speech about it, rather the issue is just ignored because democrats want it to be. I guess my point is that I think the filibuster should be the center of attention when it is being used. The entire senate should be shut down as someone is giving a long speech to make a point--rather than the current state of things where we can have multiple filibusters going on and instead of any of them being addressed the senate just talks about other things instead. But yes, I agree it is better to have it (along with the problems that present as a result) than to not.
Jordan,
As always, we are in perfect agreement.
love,
Chris
Post a Comment
<< Home