<font color="#fcdbe4">Byrd is definatley the Master...Only HE could get the headquarters for the US Coast Guard relocated to a land locked state :D </font>

Here's a solution: amendments to bills must relate to the purpose of the bill and cannot propose unrelated spending whatsoever.

The line item veto is nice, but has one minor flaw: the pork from the President's projects stays in, the other party's pork gets cut.

Of course, enough of that sort of activity in line-items over time would play horribly politically for a president- so it might actually keep him more honest.

<font color="#fcdbe4">That is what I thought TL, however trying to get congress to pass a bill that would limit their option on a Bill is like....trying to get them to admit that they "could" actually stop those automatic pay raises if they really wanted to [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

Or trying to get them to enact campaign finance reform.

Everyone thinks these things are good ideas, just not today, because we have these companies who want a favor right now. We'll do it next session. Maybe. ;) If there's no election anytime soon for anyone anywhere. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Right, like you could ever take a random bill, and get a random sample of 10 politicians to agree exactly on what the purpose of the bill was without makeing it into a gigantic issue.

[ 04-30-2003, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Seraph ]

Did you know that this was specifically included in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America? The South had been railroaded in so many issues via riders that they specifically wanted to prevent that from ever happening in their country...

BTW, I don't agree that the judiciary is weaker than it was at the time of Marbury. It is arguably weaker than legislature at present. As far as I know, no law has ever been passed that imposed a $25 BILLION fine on offenders. The administration is unquestionably stronger, since they will try to force all people to submit to administrative review process, and not too many people have the resources to stand firm and demand their day in court.

IMO, part of the reason for the huge increase in power in the administration was to offset the massive power grab done, for instance, through virtually the entire Warren court. Something had to increase to balance the increased power of the court, since the court was not about to "interpret" away any of its power.

No, the judiciary is unquestionably stronger than it was in the days of Marbury, as are all the other branches. I agree that we are on a road to tyranny, but I disagree with you as to the cause -- IMO, it was the 50%+1 mentality of mob rule that gave people the notion that they had any right to boss others about on matters that were absolutely none of their business...

The "purpose" of a bill is usually the first section and is well-stated (to the degree anything is in Congress), so such a rule would work pretty well (to the degree anything does in Congress). Making water bottles at raves pariphenalia would certainly not pass this test in the Amber Alert bill instance, for example.

Thorfinn, it is obviously true that the government is more powerful now than it was then. My statement was that the court is less powerful relative to the other branches. The executive is HUGELY powerful.

Oh, Congress has, and *can,* pass bills calling for the level of fines and costs you mentioned. Try telling a client who never filed EPCRA papers on one tank in its factory that it faces upwards of a $425 million fine if you just look to the statute. It was actually the regs that make this one something I'll likely negotiate down to under $10K. All the enviro bills have your basic $25K per day (actually, I think recently became $27.5 K per day) fine for an ongoing violation. Adds up quick.

And, the courts often interpret away their power. You are not uninformed on this, it would seem, so I take it you're being snippy. Jurisdiction (whether the court can hear the case) is the FIRST question, and is often challenged. And is often won on. And, it's a judge question, not a jury question. There are a LOT of reasonable rules about jurisdiction, and the courts are pretty honest on this one all-in-all. Oh, let's not forget that our anti-federalist Chief Justice of the Supreme Court just *loves* to gnaw on this issue. Altogether an unfair comment you made there.

The closest thing I could find to a "purpose" for the PROTECT Act (aka Amber Alert, enhance)(S.151) bill was "An Act to prevent child abduction and the sexual exploitation of children, and for other purposes."
It seems to me that the "RAVE bill" (S.226) would clearly fall in the "other purposes" catagory.

<font color="#fcdbe4">Seeing as how "Other purposes" means anything under the sun [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>