nafod wrote:Gene wrote:People tried to work with the system. TEA Party and so on. The system worked on them. Committee assignments, preferences on bills, IRS exemptions. The System defended itself.
People wanted INSTANT CHANGE and NO COMPROMISE in a constitutional system set up by the founders that forces cooperation within the house, within the senate, between the house and senate, between the legislative and executive, and don't forget the judicial. It is designed that way. It is a Ouija board with lots and lots of hands on it. By design.
Mind explaining how the US Supreme Court got the power to effect "social change"? Roe vs Wade "legalized abortion", Wickard vs Filburn turned the Commerce Clause from a restricted power into a license for Congress to dictate what ever it felt like doing.
Here is Elena Kagan being asked by Tom Coburn if she would rule it Constitutional for Congress to force everyone to eat fruits and vegetables each day.
[youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSoWGlyugTo[/youtube]
Kagan's response - "It's a dumb law". She refuses to say that she'd strike it down.
How about Administrative Law? The recent EPA decisions about "Climate Change" all come from a series of Court cases that they inspired. The EPA has activists on the payroll sue them in Court. The shitty science looked good to Federal judges. Now it's the "Law of the Land". They do their thing, based upon a distortion of the Clean Air Act. Congress was not involved.
The last time I recall that anyone voted on Climate Change was the Kyoto treaty. The Senate voted 0-97 against.
What about the Executive Order process? Where in the Constitution did FDR get the power to author Executive Order 9066? This was the executive order which tossed people of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps.
If you're gonna cite "the System" mind explaining these Progressive work arounds, some of which did not exist until Woodrow Wilson, the creator of the Idea of the "Living Constitution" created them?
nafod wrote:So whoever sold them the bill of goods that no cooperation is the best way (talk radio takes a big face shot on this) did a huge disservice. They sent people with a strategy that would cause failed government, and then complain when the government fails.
If the TEA Party didn't want to cooperate they wouldn't have run for political office. That they refuse to go along to get along is part of a fine tradition.