"Papal History for when Congress shuts down." Topic

YouTube link

I am completely on board with locking the bastards in, removing the roof and serving them … fast food!

Take that!
Harrumph!

OR -- the Democrats could stop playing games and vote for a clean CR to reopen the government and play their pork spending games later…

OR we could lock them all up until they do their duty.

IR they can come up with an actual budget, as required, instead of those pork filled "continuing resolutions".

Sure. Blame those evil Democrats. 🙄 Did you ever blame Republicans for their intransigent behavior when they were out of power during previous lockdowns?
No. Of course you didn't. It's a rhetorical question.

Believe it or not, I had a nice conversation on air with our local talk show host Sue Henry. We discussed the logical fallacy of "what about-ism". It's the automatic knee-jerk "Oh yeah? What about Biden?" Or the opposite but identical "Oh yeah? What about Trump?" Logic and reason fly out the window.

I thought that Trump/Republicans/MAGA had control of both your houses now – Congress & Senate, so why he cant get his funding bills passed?!

In earlier times:
"OR -- the Republicans could stop playing games and vote for a clean CR to reopen the government and play their pork spending games later…"

It's a standard dumb partisan fallback. When you use the "tu quoque", or "Ih yeah? What about…" logical fallacy, you implicitly accept the accuracy of the accusation and try to deflect it back with "What about Biden?"

A curse on both their houses. Both parties have failed us.
What are the first five words of the First Amendment? "Congress shall make no law…" Would that they had stuck with that!
I have searched the Constitution high and low. Somehow the term "continuing resolution" escapes me. Also needing 60 votes in the Senate. Where is the term "filibuster" mentioned? 🤔🤷

@nsolomon99
An Australian perspective! 👍
Because the Constitution gives the Congress the authority to right their own rules.

As Mark Twain said, "History doesn't repeat itself, but often it rhymes."
Isn't that exactly how the Republicans chose the Speaker of the House? 😄

@nssolomon. Rules of the Seante means for most measures, to pass takes 60 votes. Republicans control 53 (I think), so some Dems must cross over for the CR to be passed.

John the OFM. Don't disagree with you that both parties have done this, but the current shutdown is because the DEMs are saying give us the trillions we want to we'll shut the govt down. The Republicans are saying pass the CR and we can discuss your issues. Pretty clear to me who is causing this today.

pzivh43,
Both parties have failed the People, but in the case of healthcare the Republics had many chances (majorities) to pass a "better law" than ACA, but couldn't. People clinging to ACA or in the lessor of 2 evils category. They don't get much with ACA, but they get nothing at all otherwise.
Agree, rules of senate are a nonstarter.
"We the people.." How quaint. Was it ever meant seriously?

"A curse on both their houses," you said. Quite so — though I'd settle for one good renovation and an eviction notice for the lobbyists.

I thought that Trump/Republicans/MAGA had control of both your houses now – Congress & Senate, so why he cant get his funding bills passed?!

Filibuster, eh? The Democrats have declared a Filibuster which means you need 60 votes to pass the funding bill. The Senate make up is 53 GOP to 47 Democrat, which means 7 Democrats need to support keeping the government open.

They do not, instead wanting to force $ 1.5 TRILLION in new spending into the budget bill, which includes hundreds of millions to the World Bank and other pet projects, in addition to hundreds of billions of $$$ in spending that wipe out Medicaid reforms which ended funding for illegal aliens and nonvalid recipients (including people with high incomes but who are also drawing on Medicaid), and added work requirement to able-bodied people of working age.

A curse on both their houses. Both parties have failed us.
What are the first five words of the First Amendment? "Congress shall make no law…" Would that they had stuck with that!
I have searched the Constitution high and low. Somehow the term "continuing resolution" escapes me. Also needing 60 votes in the Senate. Where is the term "filibuster" mentioned?

I don't disagree

I'd settle for one good renovation and an eviction notice for the lobbyists.

Again, I don't disagree

Kick the lobbyists out.

Set term limits.

That would solve many problems.

Declare that every Senator forfeit's a months pay for each day the Country is shutdown. Cut off their freebies. Lost for good. Also no pay for their droves of aides.

Bet it ends quickly.

JMcCarroll +1
35thOVI +1

Moreover -- I think ALL Bills should be SINGLE SUBJECT, and NO Congressional Bill should be longer than the Constitution itself, which, including all Amendments is only 13 pages long.

Talk about a "Rules Lite" system, eh?

That means ALL Bills must be 13 pages or less when typed in a standard modern format (for example, 12-point Times New Roman, double-spaced, 1-inch margins.

I am in favor of removing all members of congress from office and barring them from ever holding an office in the congress again if they fail in meeting their primary goal of producing a budget by the end of a fiscal year. No shutdowns, instead an automatic continuation of the budget until new congress members can be elected and start their work. If the replacement congress fails to pass a budget within 90 days, then they are also fired and bared from ever holding office in congress again. Rinse and repeat until we get a congress that wants to work together for the country (or at least values their job over petty differences).

Declare that every Senator forfeit's a months pay for each day the Country is shutdown. Cut off their freebies. Lost for good. Also no pay for their droves of aides.

Bet it ends quickly.

How can a sane person disagree?
The only problem is… who will "pass the law"? The Declaration?
The same Congress? A president (who has neither the power nor authority but thinks he does)and is getting what he wants? (Give me a pass on that part, okay? 😄)

No. A "Convention of the States". To rewrite the Constitution.
Supposedly "we the people" have more than enough States to call one.
Remember the Constitutional Convention of 1787? It was supposed to ONLY fix Federal revenue. Hah! It threw out the Articles of Confederation entirely and started all over.

Among my humble suggestions:
Term limits. 12 years look okay to you? That's two Senate terms, and 6 House terms. They may not overlap.
Mandatory balanced budgets.
I like them, and their aides losing pay if not passed.
Require Congressional approval for ALL military deployments.

How abotaking away the power of POTUS to pardon or commute the sentence of felons? I hear Diddy is next.

How about we also take away the POTUS ability to pre-pardon criminals before they have been brought up on charges?

"The only problem is… who will "pass the law"? The Declaration?"

🤔 The same ones who pass term limits of course! Duh!

Of course people who voted NO to not pass the stopgap, could be voted out in their next elections, (Rand Paul and almost all Democrats), but we know the voters won't do that. That would be too easy. 😂

I like the idea of term limits, but absent political competition where I am in California because of One Party Rule the practice of term limits have evolved into a sort of neo-hereditary office within a "family" of political loyalists.

Why have an internal party struggle between candidates for an office when you can only hold that office for 4-6 years? Why frm your own campaign and committe and raise $$ from donors and go against the Party leadership when all you have to do is mark time and wait and be bequeathed your Office?

In the absence of any political competition, what has happened is that Democrats vie to prove their political loyalty and maneuver to be designated as the Heir of the Seat. When the current office holder must leave office because of term limits they are annointed and given the system usually win easily. The old office holder in turn has been proving their loyalty up the ladder to the next rung – and so they step up, as another loyalist fills their seat, and so on.

Political ossification. All that matters is party loyalty, cronyism and virtue signalling.

How about we also take away the POTUS ability to pre-pardon criminals before they have been brought up on charges?

The precedent was set by Charlton Heston as Cardinal Richileu in The Three (Four) Musketeers.
"The holder of this letter has done what he(she?) has done.
(Signed) Richileu"

Seriously though…
Can that "power" be challenged in a Court? Maybe in a Law Review at some prestigious Law School. But any court would be so politically garbled, it would take at least 3 full presidential terms to litigate.

I used to fear a Convention of the States because the outcome would be so wild and unpredictable.
Mark Levin asserts that its scope could be limited to stuff like term limits, but look at what happened in 1787? They thought that too.
But, heck. I'm 75 now, and in reasonable health. It would be fun to watch the chaooin my declining years. 😄👍😱🍻🍺

As for political families…
Since when do we have a nobility? Kennedys? Bush? Clinton?

John Dingle D(Mi) served in Congress for what, 4" years? He dies and his daughter is immediately elected.