Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

How Much Should the Rules Change to Get the Laws You Want

Posted by on Feb. 6, 2013 at 9:02 AM
  • 23 Replies

 

Poll

Question: How far are you willing to go, if you could be guaranteed success of your favorite cause?

Options:

Only continue the status quo of the balance of powers, where SCOTUS checks the constitutional validity of laws, and the majority of states are granted Amendment powers.

Increase the size and scope of executive orders

Alter the constitutional process dramatically, create a direct democracy

Alter the constitutional process dramatically, create a complete or near-dictatorship

Alter the constitutional process dramatically, create a complete or near-totalitarian state

Secede


Only group members can vote in this poll.

Total Votes: 13

View Results

Many times on here we talk about what laws we favor or are against, yet the distinction is not alwawys made on how those changes should be allowed to happen.  So, here's a quiz for you.  First, pick your favorite cause, either one of the following or provide your own:

1.  Strict enforcement of Roe V Wade, no restrictions

2.  Overturn of Roe V Wade

3. Strict definition of Marriage as man and woman only

4. Marriage as defined between any two consenting adults.

5. Abolition of Income tax.

6. Adoption of a European-style Socialist state: health and education paid for, welfare available for all, parental leave and state-paid childcare, atleast 50 percent income taxes.

7. Pick something else or edit one of the above.

Next step:

How far are you willing to go, if you could be guaranteed success of your favorite cause?

Please vote, then post with your selected cause and any explanation.

Final question to ponder: do you feel more affinity with those who share your favorite cause, or with those who share your poll result?

 

by on Feb. 6, 2013 at 9:02 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Feb. 6, 2013 at 11:56 AM

 The issue I chose is number three, which I am most vocal about, the means to get there, to use our existing balance of powers, nothing more.

Anyone else?

MsDenuninani
by Bronze Member on Feb. 6, 2013 at 12:13 PM

I'm conflicted here.

I don't feel passionately enough about any of the issues you mentioned to fundamentally change the way the system works to achieve it -- but the closest for me would be on the issue of climate change, since I believe that as the evidence gets stronger and stronger that urgent, dramatic change is needed, we need to do something drastic.  But I don't believe we're there yet. And I don't have a specific law in mind.

Maybe a gun ban.  But that would have such horrible repurcussions and I still don't really think I should be able to say FU to 40% of the country because I just don't like guns.

At the end of the day, I have to have faith in the system.

Wait - I just thought of two.  Second post coming shortly.

MsDenuninani
by Bronze Member on Feb. 6, 2013 at 12:18 PM

So, I just thought of two issues that I would be willing to alter the system for in order to get them done.

1. Serious campaign finance reform.  I'd call it the "Corporations are not people, dammit" bill, and I would end SuperPACs. I'd support expanding executive power to get rid of SuperPACs, no further.

2. Redistricting reform. I'd support an executive order banning gerry-mandering.

Ironically, my two reforms would be designed to make the system work better. Which would make me a bit of a hypocrite, as I would be circumventing the system to do it. But that, I think, would be worth it.

jcribb16
by Primrose Foxglove on Feb. 6, 2013 at 12:35 PM
2 moms liked this

Numbers 2 and 3, as regarding the first option in the poll.  Great thought-provoking post!

Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Feb. 6, 2013 at 12:47 PM

 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

So, I just thought of two issues that I would be willing to alter the system for in order to get them done.

1. Serious campaign finance reform.  I'd call it the "Corporations are not people, dammit" bill, and I would end SuperPACs. I'd support expanding executive power to get rid of SuperPACs, no further.

2. Redistricting reform. I'd support an executive order banning gerry-mandering.

Ironically, my two reforms would be designed to make the system work better. Which would make me a bit of a hypocrite, as I would be circumventing the system to do it. But that, I think, would be worth it.

 Could they be pork-free, purely-for-their-purposes laws?  Gerrymandering, for instance, how could that be defined? And with Superpacs, how would you define them?  What about news networks, would they be allowed to air commentary on candidates, because, in effect, with the amount of money invested in Superpacs, surely banning them would free up some money which could be available to create all sorts of propaganda, including influencing news stations, paying individuals to post Youtube videos, researching psychology to put out the most faorable media for one's politcal ends. 

By the way, why not just seek to do it through the Amendment process? Do you think that's out of reach? Do you not believe that any abuse of power--no matter the ends-- will set a precedent for further abuses when the intentions aren't as pure?

autodidact
by Silver Member on Feb. 6, 2013 at 12:57 PM

why does number three mean that much to you? marriage is NOT just a church sacrement, in fact none is required for a marriage. 

MsDenuninani
by Bronze Member on Feb. 6, 2013 at 1:25 PM

  Could they be pork-free, purely-for-their-purposes laws? 

These ones would. I don't hate pork, but for the purpose of campaign finance reform and anti-gerrymandering laws, I'd prefer them to be pork-free.

Gerrymandering, for instance, how could that be defined?

I'd define gerry-mandering as the manipulation of district lines to benefit a political party.  I'd ban it. Now, I realize that doing so would not keep political parties from acting in self-interested ways in creating voting districts.  So perhaps a "ban" would not help.  Perhaps a mandate?  A law that would state that redistricting requires 75% of the minority party vote in order to pass?  Just thinking off the cuff here.

On SuperPACS:

Reallly, it's not a ban of superPACS I'd get rid of (because I think that would be unconstitutional under your right to assemble); it's a ban on SuperPAC donations.  I'd limit the amount of money one could donate to PACs.  News networks can air whatever they want -- they already do.  I'm of the belief that FOX News is just one giant SuperPAC masquerading as a news organization - and I support its first amendment right to do so.  (I should note here that it's not federal elections that bug me about PACs, it's their influence in state laws and legislatures, which is where I take most issue with lobbying groups as well.)

By the way, why not just seek to do it through the Amendment process? Do you think that's out of reach?

For me, the biggest issue we face today in this country is money in politics.  I think it's poisoning the system, and I think that special interest groups have a huge interst in the status quo.  I don't think the amendment system is out of reach, but it is increasingly clear today that the red states are getting redder and the blue states are getting bluer (and this is true on a district by district basis) and I see this as only getting worse, not better.

Do you not believe that any abuse of power--no matter the ends-- will set a precedent for further abuses when the intentions aren't as pure?

Yes, every abuse of power in the current administration sets up the next one to abuse it further, through precedent alone.  This has been going on regarding matters of war since at least Vietnam.  I'm not the cynic that I was during the Bush years (which I hope I remember through the inevitable next conservative presidency), so I do believe that intentions are generally always pure.  And I also hope, I really really do, that one day, a President will finally live up to the standards of transparency that he set out during his campaign.  But I doubt it.  Not because I think politicians are evil, but because I think the view from outside the Presidency looks a lot different from the view within it, and once you get it those daily reports of what's going on in the world, you act by your gut -- and your gut doesn't read the constitution.

 Quoting Meadowchik:

Quoting MsDenuninani:

So, I just thought of two issues that I would be willing to alter the system for in order to get them done.

1. Serious campaign finance reform.  I'd call it the "Corporations are not people, dammit" bill, and I would end SuperPACs. I'd support expanding executive power to get rid of SuperPACs, no further.

2. Redistricting reform. I'd support an executive order banning gerry-mandering.

Ironically, my two reforms would be designed to make the system work better. Which would make me a bit of a hypocrite, as I would be circumventing the system to do it. But that, I think, would be worth it.

 Could they be pork-free, purely-for-their-purposes laws?  Gerrymandering, for instance, how could that be defined? And with Superpacs, how would you define them?  What about news networks, would they be allowed to air commentary on candidates, because, in effect, with the amount of money invested in Superpacs, surely banning them would free up some money which could be available to create all sorts of propaganda, including influencing news stations, paying individuals to post Youtube videos, researching psychology to put out the most faorable media for one's politcal ends. 

By the way, why not just seek to do it through the Amendment process? Do you think that's out of reach? Do you not believe that any abuse of power--no matter the ends-- will set a precedent for further abuses when the intentions aren't as pure?


 

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Feb. 6, 2013 at 1:28 PM
1 mom liked this

I think you mean "Constitution of the United States of America", as opposed to "rules"?

Great post.  :)

Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Feb. 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM

 My reasons are not religious, although religious doctrine might support them. Later I can give you some linkage to posts containing them. (I believe one of the most recent longer posts on the subject is an example.)

Quoting autodidact:

why does number three mean that much to you? marriage is NOT just a church sacrement, in fact none is required for a marriage. 

 

Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Feb. 7, 2013 at 9:51 AM
1 mom liked this

What about you? Are you willing to change theform of government to get what you want? 

The reason I advocate so much for the hetero definition of marriage is because I think so much of should be part of the conversation is being ignored. It is important to me, along with other issues.

Here's another thread where I go into detail in the last several pages, but it comes down to two major reasons:

1) Hetero sexual relationships have such an enormous and significant impact of society that is is justified to set them apart, distinguishing them from all other relationships.

2) The same arguments that are used to support same-sex marriage, if followed consistently and logically, would necessarily lead to an abolition of legal marriage and, perhaps, the replacement of it with something else.  In that way, it is a paradox.

Quoting autodidact:

why does number three mean that much to you? marriage is NOT just a church sacrement, in fact none is required for a marriage. 

 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)