What ecstacy use by teens and national amber alert has to do with each other, I'll never know, but this is a fine example of bill riders running roughshod over freedom:
http://www.clevescene.com/issues/200...l/1/index.html

Also I heard on the radio yesterday that another rider on the bill makes it harder for judges to use there discretion in sentencing. According to the radio program judges are up in arms about and some have even stated they will resign if it becomes law.

<font color = lightgreen>*sigh* Yet another example of the reality of the status quo in Washington. If you can't get something passed into law based on its own merits, then attach it to a piece of popular legislation and slide in through on the sly. No one would dare vote "no" to a National Amber Alert. [edit: it looks like 25 House members either voted no or abstained] It shouldn't have taken them this long to put together a national program, anyway....

I think the author of the article you cited is a little misinformed, Timber Loftis. I don't see any other article that states that a National Amber Alert has indeed been passed by both houses, only that the House passed its version which then went to the Senate (10 April). Most likely it will sit in a conference committee for several months while legislators parse words. *sigh* Maybe individual states will pick up the ball....</font>

Umm... yeah. It's a huge issue with the ABA and judges. Yet more lessening of the judicial powers. Y'know we've flip-flopped since the days of the founding fathers.

Originally the power structure was: 1. Judiciary (at least after Marbury v. Madison, and because few statutes existed leaving the common law the main recourse), 2. the Congress, 3. the President (basic function was foreign relations).

Now, the structure is: 1. President (all agencies fall under him and apparently he does not even need congress to make war - oh, and don't forget the power of the proclamation), 2. Congress, 3. Judiciary (controls very little law now, as Congress keeps passing statutes to change the common [judge-made] law - in fact every judicial decision of prominence these days results in knee-jerk legislation).

Anyway, the sentencing rider keeps judges from going easy on criminals (such as 1st offenders). It is essentially more promulgation of mandatory minimums, which are a horrible thing in the first instance. And, it was put on a security bill which everyone would vote for no matter the riders hanging on at the end.

Oh well, such power shifts are just one more step toward the inevitable. Every modern free society has been through its period of tyranny. We are going to be there soon enough. I hope the world is ready. :(

<font color = lightgreen>I agree. Part of the problem is that too many people are reacting out of fear.

<font color = white>"We want to be free of crime, so create mandatory sentences for every crime to keep criminals off the streets"</font> which, of course, means building more jails all the time and leads to ridiculous situations (you forgot to pay for a coke, which is theft and has a mandatory sentence of 1 year in jail and no chance of probation).

<font color = white>"We are afraid of rampant drug use, so do whatever you need to do to keep us safe from drugs"</font> which, of course, means allowing police into your house or car if they think there might be drugs. Oh, and don't withdraw $1,500 from your account if you normally don't, because that would be flagged as an "unusual transaction" which could indicate your desire to purchase drugs, not take a vacation.

<font color = white>"We are afraid of terrorists, so do whatever you need to do to keep us safe from terrorists"</font> which, of course, is why we have things like the Patriot Act. [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] If I disappear from the board all of a sudden, don't ask.....

Anyway, in another thread somewhere (I can't recall which one) I had pointed out one inherent flaw in democracy (size limitation). This serves to point out another flaw--there is nothing more dangerous to a democracy than an uninformed or overly-emotional voter.</font>

Amen, Azred. Preach it. I will attend this sermon any day. ;) Where's Thorfinn? Now there's a guy who really wants to rip down the government.

"The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill

<font color = lightgreen>Just let me don my collar and miter. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] If you liked the sermon, then give. Give 'til it hurts! Now give 'til it quits hurting! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Anyway...

antryg, my fellow Metroplexer, I have only one thing to say: *meep*

Why doesn't the Judiciary reclaim some of its power, anyway? Since Presidential executive orders carry the weight of law couldn't they be found unconstitutional? That would replace the limits on the Executive. Just a thought....</font>

I don't know what the rant is about! Nearly every bill that goes through congress has riders on them. Most of the riders are pork for the home town. No one party is free from these sins, except Sen. Byrd is without a doubt the master of pork. Also much of the unwanted legislation is pushed through in this maner. It gives meaning to the term 'honest politician'.

<font color="#fcdbe4">Line Item Veto is the only way I can think to stop this crap...but then you would just be giving the president more power and eh would obviously only use the LIV to strike out stuff he didn't agree with.

Anyone have any suggestions for a solution or is this just a grump fest?? [img]smile.gif[/img] not that there is anything wrong with a grump fest...I certainly start enough of them :D </font>

<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>

Right, but if we didn't let them use the "other purposes" BS language part, that purpose statement would certainly limit them, wouldn't you say?

While we are at it, we could also tag on a requirement that they explain the Constitutional justification for the act. Congressman Ron Paul and I forget the guy from Arizona have tried to introduce it for several years, but it never gets very far. Imagine that...

Useless to require this in the days of rampant commerce clause jurisprudence. It would need a similar back-step in commerce clause breadth and power to compliment it.

BTW - you know all this does is limit the feds. States have general police power. The states powers are only limited by what the constitution reserves for the fed, and states can step in to fill in any power you take from the feds - and likely would. How would you address that?

Useless to require this in the days of rampant commerce clause jurisprudence. It would need a similar back-step in commerce clause breadth and power to compliment it.

BTW - you know all this does is limit the feds. States have general police power. The states powers are only limited by what the constitution reserves for the fed, and states can step in to fill in any power you take from the feds - and likely would. How would you address that? </font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#fcdbe4">I may be too idealistic on this, but I believe that at the state and local levels, the general populace has a real and much greater control over their politicians...If the people seriously don't like a policy it can be gone in the next election....not quite that easy at the fed level. </font>

In Vermont and Montana (which has more cows than people, I'll note), yes, in California, less likely.

<font color="#fcdbe4">Well if we are fortunate, the San Andreas will take care of that for us :D (it was a joke...don't send me hate mail)</font>

I don't know. A Californian voter has a much better chance of ousting Feinstein or Davis than a Hoosier does...

The point, IMO, is that California can send, what, 54 representatives to South Dakota's 1, and if you accept the morality of 50%+1, it would be trivial to tromp all over the rights of South Dakotans. As a matter of fact...

But I would also agree that the smaller bodies are not necessarily any more responsive. Fighting Washington, DC, is pretty painless, though not effective. Unless you are a 6-year old Cuban refugee, it is pretty hard to get a high enough profile to get any attention from DC whatsoever. Not so when you are fighting town hall -- you get all kinds of "special attention"...

True enough about the special attention - getting your local constabulary and governance up in arms sucks. I get a LOT of business from clients who make this mistake.

Oh, and the Dakota comment. I'm sure I need not tell YOU about this very interesting thing called the Great Compromise that resulted in a bicameral legislature represented by.... hey, where'd everybody go? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]