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>