Facebook
Google
GitHub
Linkedin
Exactly, my lobbying efforts are so much easier when I can spot the YES and NO votes of congress and I only have to influence the 10 people on the fence. It would be a disaster if I had to influence everyone.
EU Brexit - UK
- Thread starter Robin Mitchell
- Start date
- Status
No kidding.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?congress=114
Do we really need to vote for this instead of watching cat videos?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr4510
Last edited:
The Constitution does NOT give the people the right to vote for the president. It never did.
The Constitution only gives the people the right to vote for their representative to the House. (and of course state and local)
Until the 17th amendment, the people could not vote for the senate.
The 17 the amendment is what killed the Constitution.
And it started 100 hobby thiefdoms and 100 spoiled perverts. Instead of having the senate represent the states, like they are suppose to...they are only accountable to their donors.
The most corrupt political organization on earth.
The states lost their representation in our government. States rights are gone now.
This is what has allowed the fed to become so authoritarian.
The Constitution means nothing to a senator. A senator is accountable to no one.
AND if you think a senator is accountable to the voter................you have been successfully educated by the government.
We need to brexit DC.
The Constitution only gives the people the right to vote for their representative to the House. (and of course state and local)
Until the 17th amendment, the people could not vote for the senate.
The 17 the amendment is what killed the Constitution.
And it started 100 hobby thiefdoms and 100 spoiled perverts. Instead of having the senate represent the states, like they are suppose to...they are only accountable to their donors.
The most corrupt political organization on earth.
The states lost their representation in our government. States rights are gone now.
This is what has allowed the fed to become so authoritarian.
The Constitution means nothing to a senator. A senator is accountable to no one.
AND if you think a senator is accountable to the voter................you have been successfully educated by the government.
We need to brexit DC.
While I'm willing to agree that the Senate (and the House, and the White House, and lots of other entities in Washington D. C.) are growing increasingly corrupt, the claim that it is the most corrupt political organization on Earth is WAY overreach -- in fact, the political structures in MOST countries on this planet are FAR more corrupt than ours. There are places that are so corrupt that government offices openly post the list of acceptable bribes needed to get routine services performed.
I do agree that the passage of the 17th Amendment was a body blow to the Constitution in that it removed the single most effective check on the Federal Government's power grabs. But, to be fair, one of the reasons that motivated the 17th Amendment was the high degree of corruption in how many States were choosing their Senators. So, as humans are want to do, we through the baby out with the bathwater without thinking of the consequences -- except for those that WANTED those consequences, who simply kept their mouths shut about them and, instead, wrung their hands about how dirty the bathwater was.
Funny thing is that even back in middle school when I was first told that the House represented the people and the Senate represented the States, I couldn't understand how the latter could be the case and I asked and the teacher couldn't come up with anything beyond the fact that Senators are elected in a statewide election. It wasn't until I was in high school that I learned of the 17th Amendment (and I didn't learn about it in school).
I do agree that the passage of the 17th Amendment was a body blow to the Constitution in that it removed the single most effective check on the Federal Government's power grabs. But, to be fair, one of the reasons that motivated the 17th Amendment was the high degree of corruption in how many States were choosing their Senators. So, as humans are want to do, we through the baby out with the bathwater without thinking of the consequences -- except for those that WANTED those consequences, who simply kept their mouths shut about them and, instead, wrung their hands about how dirty the bathwater was.
Funny thing is that even back in middle school when I was first told that the House represented the people and the Senate represented the States, I couldn't understand how the latter could be the case and I asked and the teacher couldn't come up with anything beyond the fact that Senators are elected in a statewide election. It wasn't until I was in high school that I learned of the 17th Amendment (and I didn't learn about it in school).
So true. In fact, much of the world does not see bribery as corruption. It's just business. But the depth of corruption common in other countries is unimaginable to most Americans. I have a friend from Pakistan, for instance, with stories that would make your hair stand on end.
I don't see the connection. How is a directly elected senator so much worse than an appointed one?
Because an appointed Senator is appointed by the State legislature with the mandate to look after the interests of the State.
How many times has the Federal Government used tactics such as threatening to withhold highway funding or school lunch program funding or something else if the State doesn't conform to its wishes? Why does the Federal Government simply pass a law requiring the States to conform to those wishes? Simple -- because it lacks the authority to do so and hence it resorts to extortion. Now, if the Senate was in place to look after the interests of the States, is there any possibility that the Senate would ever have agreed to policies that that placed the Federal Government in a position to carry out such extortion?
Simply put, individual voters are pretty easily swayed by promises of free this and free that, but States are far more concerned on preserving their authority than looking for handouts (which is not to say that they are immune to the freebie way of thinking).
None of this is to say that the voters should be removed from the equation -- I don't think it would be a good idea to have the State legislatures appoint both Senators and Representative, either. But having one house elected by the populous and the other appointed by the States strikes a balance between the two -- which is why it was set up that way.
Let me get your logic straight. You claim...
(A) - the Federal Government is capable of extorting states by withholding funding.
And...
(B) - States are more concerned on preserving their authority than looking for handouts.
Do you really think "A" could be possible if "B" is true?
Your 'logic' is not logical.
At that point, it is no longer corruption. It is simply a different culture.
With direct hand to pocket taxation.
It is not considered a bribe by US law - specifically, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
I listed it as a fee on my foreign travel expense reports and usually let a local run the gauntlet of local bureaucracy. The tax was usually less if an American face was not seen. I was usually exempt from the usual 'Airport Fee' in several hand to pocket countries due to an official magic card in the passport.
Last edited:
Culture that certain unblemished citizens of top countries do not hesitate to take advantage of, for their own convenience. And it is not always a matter of life or death where you cannot refuse or say "no". Have seen that many times around the globe.
Simple -- "A" is possible precisely because the States are no longer represented in Congress and thus have lost the ability to preserve their authority at the federal level, hence "B" no longer matters.
Ah, so then apparently the U.S. IS the most corrupt because we are so ignorant as to still think it is wrong, whereas everywhere else is so enlightened that they recognize that it is just part of their wonderful culture.
No, only you think it is wrong. As I said above, the exact scenario you described is known as "Grease-the-wheels money", essentially encouraging a government official to do their job sooner or faster is not a bribe or a corrupt practice according to US law. Grease-the-wheels money is considered a cultural issue and is specifically called out as an acceptable - non-corrupt practice.Ah, so then apparently the U.S. IS the most corrupt because we are so ignorant as to still think it is wrong, whereas everywhere else is so enlightened that they recognize that it is just part of their wonderful culture.
Oh, then since I'm the only one that think's it's wrong, we should let all of our government officials accept "grease-the-wheels-money" in order to encourage them to do their job sooner or faster.
So, how much should I pay the clerk the next time I go to the DMV to register a vehicle in order to go to the front of the line?
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It makes bribing foreign officials a US crime (whether the bribe was made while in the US or abroad).
It is illegal to pay grease-the wheel money by US law if that type of payment is illegal (or known to be not enforced) in the foreign country. Since @WBahn specifically said there are posted prices, I assumed it was legal or not-enforced in his non-specified example country.
How ignorant are you? Your example was a foreign country - is your DMV in a foreign country?
I think the technical term is a facilitating payment. You can wait all day in some tropical office room with no AC for a rubber stamp or drop a few bucks to have it on the top of the stack. For us it was a “reasonable and bona fide expenditure”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitating_payment#United_States
Last edited:
- Status
