Majority rules not the minority
Posted By: Reality Check on 2005-09-15
In Reply to: They already ARE allowed to stay silent. That's the irony of this. - SM
as long as someone is given the option not to participate then no one is getting hurt. If they are the only one in the class that does not want to say it then that's life. We can't cower majority traditions and beliefs to make every individual feel included. We'd truly have chaos then, because every one's feelings are different.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Prop 8 --- majority rules problem...(sm)
Okay, I've seen several posts on here about how Prop 8 should be upheld because *the majority rules.* Almost every civil rights movement that was successful including the right for women to vote, the right for inter-racial marriage, etc would have never made it if we had gone by the idea that the majority rules. In fact, isn't that the point of civil rights? -- to protect minorities? Also, the constitution says *we the people,* not we the christians. ARRRRGGGGHHH!
I think you are in the minority
Of course everything isn't peachy, of course there are problems with the Bush administration, but to accuse him of planning and allowing 9/11 to happen, well, I think you're in a very small group that ascribe to that theory. While I don't think the picture is rosy in Iraq I believe it's not a total debacle, I think the majority of Americans' opinions lie somewhere in the middle of either extreme.
That is very sad. You are in a minority. nm
nm
You are the minority........sad for you....nm
x
Again, Jefferson was in the minority
I count on this response every time I debate liberals. They pull out the Jefferson pistol. Jefferson was definitely in the minority in some of his views, but then he also said at one point that a man should not be elected president who does not believe in God, oh, then the libs scream his writings were manipulated! From most of his writings Jefferson did have a the opinion that government should not have a state religion (the reason we left England in the first place), and on that we agree. Conservatism does not promote a state religion either only promotion of values that Christianity promotes which are not dangerous to anyone and only promote common sense laws were the foundation of our country....don't steal, don't murder, don't cheat on your wife...etc.
Again, I don't advocate shoving my religion down people's throat. You can't make people accept what they will not accept. That's the beauty of God and his Son, Jesus Christ. They give you free choice, and I certainly don't advocate eliminating your free choice. With that said, in this country majority overides the minority, and atheists and non-Judeo-Christian religions are in the minority. They were in minority at the founding of this country, and they are in the minority now.
No, poster is not the minority..........more and more seeing
nm
All these people make up a minority
I never said that Jefferson was alone in his views just that he was in a minority. Again, from the evidence I've read on both sides liberal philosophers and professors have chosen to re-write history. I think the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights speak for themselves and literally scream about a country with it's foundations in God. You can choose to ignore the words Almighty God, Divine providence etc., but it does not make them any less there in A deist belives in a deity to answer the question posted above either by the writer of the post or the writer of the excerpted text (I could not figure out who was posing the question).
We could throw quotes back and forth all day and never see eye to eye about it, but I choose to err on the side of God and Jesus Christ. I choose to live by faith that Jesus Christ is the only way, but let's look at it in a common sense way. Say I am wrong, and there are many *paths* to God then I'm still eternally okay, because I have embraced this path of which there are many, but say there are not many paths to God and Jesus Christ is truly the only way....then that's going to leave the people on the *other paths* in sad condition when they leave this world.
Thank God you represent the minority of Americans.
That gives me a great deal of hope for the rest of us.
There are reports all over the media, both print and television, that Bush has known about this since at least Sunday. I find it very suspicious that it was suddenly revealed the day after Lieberman lost to Lamont and after all the White House cronies made their rounds and used the Connecticut primary to once again accuse Democrats of being soft on terror. (It should be noted that the Democrats are not soft on terror; they agree with wiretaps and other surveillance of suspected terrorists but they want it to be done within the boundaries of the LAW, something for which Bush the King has proven repeatedly he has no respect.)
I agree with Lurker that the only reason I can believe this is because it came from another government. We've had too many lies and cry wolf scare tactics from the Bush administration to believe anything he says. He has zero credibility, and fortunately, reasonable and intelligent Americans are waking up to that fact.
Whites to be in the minority by 2042
WASHINGTON — White people will no longer make up a majority of Americans by 2042, according to new government projections. That's eight years sooner than previous estimates, made in 2004.
The nation has been growing more diverse for decades, but the process has sped up through immigration and higher birth rates among minority residents, especially Hispanics.
It is also growing older.
"The white population is older and very much centered around the aging baby boomers who are well past their high fertility years," said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.
"The future of America is epitomized by the young people today. They are basically the melting pot we are going to see in the future."
The Census Bureau Thursday released population projections through 2050, based on rates for births, deaths and immigration. They are subject to big revisions, depending on immigration policy, cultural changes and natural or manmade disasters.
The U.S. has nearly 305 million people today. The population is projected to hit 400 million in 2039 and 439 million in 2050.
That's like adding all the people from France and Britain, said Steve A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington group that advocates tighter immigration policies.
White non-Hispanics make up about two-thirds of the population, but only 55 percent of those younger than 5.
By 2050, whites will make up 46 percent of the population and blacks will make up 15 percent, a relatively small increase from today. Hispanics, who make up about 15 percent of the population today, will account for 30 percent in 2050, according to the new projections.
Asians, which make up about 5 percent of the population, are projected to increase to 9 percent by 2050.
The population 85 and older is projected to more than triple by 2050, to 19 million.
If that's true, then you're a minority among
nm
It is true, and it is minority baiting.....
so much for bringing the country together...what a joke! So much for ethical campaign and "above the fray." Gutter politics at its absolute worst.
You are in a steadily shrinking minority. nm
.
Not so much minority, just not as much time to spend on it...
as some seem to have...
It has been my experience with 2 hospital jobs that I had, most of the women, probably 95%, were married and did not need to work. This is going back some 16 years, but it was reasonable back then. A lot of women I worked with talked about how they ocketed their pay in the bank and lived off the spouses pay and benefits.
Times have changed so much. I was a single, newcomer, who needed every penny I made because I lived week to week, but they would always vote down the benefits because they did not need them, and they always put me down all the time. Luckily, there were a few bright shining stars who were open, friendly, and helpful - who taught me SO much about transcription; but the majority, well, not so much.
My point is that our profession has one of the biggest class divisions I think I have ever seen or experienced.
I think whites will be a minority before too long. nm
nm
House minority leader John Boehner gets a mystery box. sm
Bacon, not bomb, leads to evacuation of office
2 hours ago
WEST CHESTER, Ohio (AP) — The office of an Ohio congressman who has fought against pork barrel spending was evacuated over a suspicious package that turned out to be full of bacon.
Staff members at the office of House Minority Leader John Boehner (BAY'-nur) became concerned Monday after finding an envelope leaking an oily substance. Police evacuated several buildings before determining the package postmarked from Georgia contained bacon.
A note was included with the bacon, but police didn't commenting on its contents.
Boehner was not in the office.
A spokeswoman says it's ironic someone would send Boehner bacon because he has spent his career fighting pork-barrel spending. He's one of the few members of Congress who shuns earmarks, those home-district projects sought by lawmakers.
However, the Republican has drawn criticism for voting for a $700 billion financial bailout bill that critics say was loaded with pork.
i agree. of course, the white male would be called a racist too for not wanting a minority to succed
//
You are right. I will obey the rules from now on. sm
Have a nice holiday.
Sure you don't break the rules
Sure you don't. Your fingerprints are all over the conservative board, but that's neither here or there but I could really care less.
Some of Pelosi's new rules sm
This is from an article before the elections. This sure would be a good start in the right direction.
The act is a tough document, authored by Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco-area congresswomen who has been the Democratic House leader since 2002. She will likely be the House Speaker if the Democrats win next Tuesday.
Here are some of the new rules Pelosi wants:
No House member may accept any gift of any value from lobbyists, or any firm or association that hires lobbyists.
No free travel, which means an end to the corporate jet line every Friday at Reagan National Airport.
No free tickets to Redskins games; or no meals of any value, even at a McDonalds; no front-row seats at entertainment venues. No, no and no.
Temptations resisted
To reduce temptations to cheat, Pelosi's bill attacks the usefulness of members to richly endowed lobbyists.
House members will no longer be able to slip in special-interest projects on unrelated legislation. Such measures will no longer be allowed on a bill once negotiations between the Senate and House are complete.
Further, all bills will be made available to the public a full 24 hours before a final vote; presumably this gives watchdog groups a chance to flag any skullduggery.
Under the Pelosi rules, lobbyists will no longer be able to use the House gym (you'd be surprised how much gets negotiated in a sauna). Lobbyists will no longer be allowed onto the House floor or to use the cloakrooms just off the floor, preventing last-minute arm-twisting.
What's more, no member or staffer will be able to negotiate for employment in the public sector without disclosing such contacts to the House Ethics Committee, and within three days of such contact being made.
Finally, all of this will be audited and investigated by a new Office of Public Integrity, and that office reports, directly and only, to the U.S. Attorneys Office.
At this point, you'd be entitled to ask, heard this before, what makes you think it will be accepted by Congress?
Can it work?
No doubt there will be attempts to water down some of these new regulations. In fact, many of these proposals have been in other bills that have been defeated in the recent past.
But several key congressional experts tell CBC News that Pelosi means business and might just be able to push this through. They put it this way.
Pelosi and the congressional Democratic leadership are not likely to get much credit simply for gaining control of the House.
Conventional wisdom already sees such a victory, should it happen, first and foremost as a repudiation of the Bush administration and the Republicans.
This Honest Leadership and Open Government Act is a way of hitting the bricks running. Plus, it could be enormously popular with voters of all persuasions.
They point out Pelosi herself has little national profile and wants quickly to paint some bold strokes. She promises the act will be the first legislation tackled if she leads a new Congress.
Also, Pelosi can and will extract promises of support from those getting leadership positions and plush committee chairmanships and the like.
These new rules will apply in the House as soon as they are passed by simple majority.
The Senate has different rules, but for Republicans and Democrats there, the pressure to comply with the Pelosi standards will be huge.
rules, forum
dd
Where does one find the rules? There have been...
many posts that were quite lengthy. Is there a limit on length or just cut and paste?
I understand that is against the rules, but
the only way I can see that actually making a difference is if somebody went in completely undecided, but had prayed for God to show them a sign. 
I sure hope everybody has a clear picture in their mind of who they want to vote for and why before they drive to their polling place and punch that card.
they have not changed the rules yet
Hedge funds are still doing sneak attacks on companies, driving them into the dirt.
Citigroup got hit today, down 23%. It is worth 6 bucks and one year ago was 40. They need to change the rules on these hedge funds. They can pick on any company and kill it in a day.
Okay. Thanks. I understand now. Different rules for different boards.
nm
Just playing by liberal rules
It doesn't matter if something is supposed to be funny or not. In the liberal world every statement is taken literally. According to GT even thinking something stereotypical or racial should be grounds for dismissal from your job or worse yet a trip to the gallows, but in the next breath she posts a blatantly stereotypical article about our nations regions.
Oh did I take what GT said out of context? Did other people take what GT said out of context? Gee, gosh, sorry...but cccording to the LIBERAL rules nothing is ever taken out of context. If you utter the words like *black* or *abortion* in the same sentence. Then you're a racist...case closed.
Don't blame us for enforcing your rules. We didn't make them, but you have to play by them too, or we'll call you out...
Have a nice night....
Actually I agree about the rules. But don't use the first when you really don't respect it.
x
And the monitor obviously has one-sided rules.
All you have done since you showed up here a few days ago is attack me personally. You don't even know me, and it wouldn't matter what I posted, you have already made your mind up that you hate me, and all you want to do is call names and insult.
It started when I posted a response to Democrat's post above. Since then, you've done nothing but attack me.
At least Carla was asking intelligent questions and trying to have a meaningful and informative dialogue on the CON board. Yet, she was reprimanded by the moderator.
All YOU have done is insult and be just generally nasty and rude. In none of your posts have you made an effort to have an intelligent dialogue. All you're about is attacking. Yet, YOUR actions go unreprimanded.
Says a lot about fairness on this board.
And now, knowing how much the truth is appreciated here, I suppose I will be banned, while you will be free to continue on with your rudeness and hateful attacks.
Will you leave? Sure. *RME* As soon as pigs fly or as soon as AG stops *accidentally* posting on this board. Choose one.
To Monitor: A CON says your rules are *stupid*
and refuses to quit coming here (along with a troll named Nina). They both do nothing but insult and cause trouble and make this board an unpleasant place to visit.
Nobody is bothering them on the Conservative Board (as of 11:15 a.m. MT, anyway, though they might quick post some insults to themselves after they read this and then whine about it).
Please ask them to leave.
Posted By: huh? on 2006-03-10,
In Reply to: Oh, she revealed it on the Conservative Board - ??
The stupid rules have made these boards a place where only crickets chirp. Its sad that people are so childish and cannot discuss things like mature adults. This is why these boards will remain a snoozeville, because some people are not capable of mature conversation and get insulted by anyone who does not believe exactly like they do, but if you like it dead here...by all means enjoy the silence.
I already posted the one that said your rules are stupid
in my post to you above. Another example is the post below.
Never mind. Maybe the poster is *right.* I have a feeling if a liberal poster was trolling the conservative board and said your rules were *stupid* you would be telling them to stay on their own board.
There are other sites where the rules are enforced equally, even for liberals.
See ya.
He can't make rules by himself....obviously the rest of the...
legislature must have agreed with him. Again I ask you...if it happened in YOUR family, would you not use every means at your disposal to help your family member get the help they needed?
Seems he likes to make up the rules as he goes along (sm)
You know, like a child playing a board game changes the rules all the way through to make sure he or she will win? If he was going to improve his aquaintances he should have done that a loooong time ago. Not right now before the election, looks kinda....fishy.
Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
thought this article was interesting.
Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
Posted on 02 January 2009
By Dan Fagan
How is it possible that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working as an apprentice on the North Slope?
The Governor, in trying to dispel rumors the father of her grandchild is a high school drop out, released this statement this week, “Levi is continuing his online high school work in addition to working as an electrical apprentice on the North Slope."
But federal regulations require any members of apprentice programs, union or otherwise, first obtain a high school diploma, something the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law, Levi Johnston does not have. Some apprentice programs even require the completion of high school level Algebra or the post secondary equivalent.
So how is it that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working in an apprentice program? Is this another case of the Governor believing the law doesn’t apply to her?
Bo Underwood, who heads up ASRC’s electrical apprentice program, confirmed Johnston is indeed enrolled as an apprentice. Underwood claimed not to know whether a high school diploma is needed to be an ASRC apprentice and said he would check on it. But federal regulations clearly state a high school diploma is needed before entering an apprentice program. How is it the man who runs the program does not know that?
Underwood also claimed not to know whether there is a waiting list for the ASRC apprentice program he runs. Imagine that.
Rebecca Logan, executive director of Associated Builders and Contractors, an organization that also has an electrical workers apprentice program, says waiting lists almost always accompany apprenticeship programs. Her organization’s apprentice program has a waiting list of at least 100 people.
Bo Underwood promised to get back with me on how the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law got into the apprentice program.
The Alaska Standard has a call into the Governor’s office as well. We’ll let you know when we hear back from them on this issue.
Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
thought this article was interesting.
Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
Posted on 02 January 2009
By Dan Fagan
How is it possible that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working as an apprentice on the North Slope?
The Governor, in trying to dispel rumors the father of her grandchild is a high school drop out, released this statement this week, “Levi is continuing his online high school work in addition to working as an electrical apprentice on the North Slope."
But federal regulations require any members of apprentice programs, union or otherwise, first obtain a high school diploma, something the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law, Levi Johnston does not have. Some apprentice programs even require the completion of high school level Algebra or the post secondary equivalent.
So how is it that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working in an apprentice program? Is this another case of the Governor believing the law doesn’t apply to her?
Bo Underwood, who heads up ASRC’s electrical apprentice program, confirmed Johnston is indeed enrolled as an apprentice. Underwood claimed not to know whether a high school diploma is needed to be an ASRC apprentice and said he would check on it. But federal regulations clearly state a high school diploma is needed before entering an apprentice program. How is it the man who runs the program does not know that?
Underwood also claimed not to know whether there is a waiting list for the ASRC apprentice program he runs. Imagine that.
Rebecca Logan, executive director of Associated Builders and Contractors, an organization that also has an electrical workers apprentice program, says waiting lists almost always accompany apprenticeship programs. Her organization’s apprentice program has a waiting list of at least 100 people.
Bo Underwood promised to get back with me on how the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law got into the apprentice program.
The Alaska Standard has a call into the Governor’s office as well. We’ll let you know when we hear back from them on this issue.
Pardon me. Are you saying the rules are not enforced equally? sm
I asked for an example, i.e., a specific post. Which post is it specifically. I do not have time to read every post on this board. Also, you said insults. I asked for examples of that. Again, you did not provide any. I am not quite sure how I am to do something about anything when you are not cooperating. I have, in the past, posted equally on both boards regarding sticking to the boards you belong on. However, I can't assume that simply because someone disagrees with your point of view, that they are of a certain political persuasian. That would be, indeed, labeling and unfair on my part. I will post another reminder about which board to stay on, but I don't appreciate your insinuation that there is favoritism here. As the board owner has said before, if this board is not to your liking, you certainly have options.
Sounds like a petty, cruel god's rules
Actually this sounds like a human's idea of what a god would want. So obsessed with rules and regulations......
We haven't changed the rules at all. To what are you referring?
/
I follow the Old Testament and those rules aren't too
NM
Bush weakens EPA/ESA rules to pave way for
that would be mountain-top mining of the kind that has blown mountain tops off in the Appalchains. Ever seen a picture of this? Is this the kind of drill, baby drill you want?
My post is in accordance with forum rules.
Apparently, you have not read the moderator's post at the top of the Politics forum, which instructs you to keep religious posts where they belong on the Faith forum. The moderator has indicated that religious posts will be removed from the Politics forum and placed on the Faith forum, as they should be. If you have a problem with this, maybe you should discuss it with the moderator.
I don't make the rules, Sir Percy. The Administrator was. The fact is. sm
I agree with you. But this board has a history and as you can see, on both boards, the minute an opposing point of view comes on board, the moderators are summoned. It's a fact. This used to be a combined board but it was separated because of constant insults and failure to behave as mature adults.
Court rules Bush violated Clean Air Act
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701127_pf.html
Looser Emission Rules Rejected
Court Says Changes By EPA Violated Clean Air Act
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
A federal appeals court blocked the Bush administration's four-year effort to loosen emission rules for aging coal-fired power plants, unanimously ruling yesterday that the changes violated the Clean Air Act and that only Congress could authorize such revisions.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with officials from 14 states, including New York, California and Maryland, who contended that the rule changes -- allowing older power plants, refineries and factories to upgrade their facilities without having to install the most advanced pollution controls -- were illegal and could increase the amount of health-threatening pollution in the atmosphere.
The Environmental Protection Agency's New Source Review policy was formally issued in 2003 but has never taken effect because of legal challenges by state officials and environmental groups. The administration has long argued that the existing standards are too stringent and have discouraged utility plants and other industries from upgrading and expanding their facilities. But opponents have characterized the rule changes as a favor to administration allies in the utility and coal-producing industries that would greatly add to public health problems.
New York Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer, who led the court fight to block the administration's New Source Review policy, called yesterday's ruling a major victory for clean air and public health and a rejection of a flawed policy.
It will encourage industry to build new and cleaner facilities, instead of prolonging the life of old, dirty plants, Spitzer said.
In a statement, EPA spokesman John Millet said: We are disappointed that the Court did not find in favor of the United States. We are reviewing and analyzing the opinion and cannot comment further at this time.
Some studies have linked pollution from coal-fired power plants to as many as 20,000 premature deaths in the United States every year. Environmental activists have made curbing this type of pollution one of their most pressing legislative and legal priorities, and yesterday they celebrated the ruling.
Irish eyes are surely smiling -- and we all will be breathing easier -- with this green court ruling on St. Patrick's Day, said John Walke, director of the clean-air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. This is about as thorough a rebuke a court can give.
President Bush took office in 2001 promising to ease regulations on coal-fired power plants as part of a larger energy production initiative. Three successive administrators of the EPA have tried without success to alter the rules and policies adopted during the Clinton administration that cracked down on aging power plants and refineries that were not equipped with modern air pollution equipment when they were upgraded and when their output was expanded.
Under the revised policy that was rejected by the court yesterday, power plants and other industrial polluters would not have to install new pollution technology if they modernized less than 20 percent of their operations.
The central question in the case focused on what constitutes an industrial facility modification, because that is what triggers the federal requirement to cut down on the smog or soot emitted by utilities, oil refineries, incinerators, chemical plants and manufacturing operations. Previous administrations, including Bill Clinton's, had interpreted that phrase to encompass any physical activity that increases pollution from a given facility, with the exception of routine maintenance.
EPA officials in the Bush administration sought to broaden this exemption by asserting that routine maintenance is any activity that amounts to less than 20 percent of a plant's value. But the ruling, written by Judge Judith W. Rogers, rejected that reasoning as illogical.
EPA's approach would ostensibly require that the definition of 'modification' include a phrase such as 'regardless of size, cost, frequency, effect,' or other distinguishing characteristic, Rogers wrote. Only in a Humpty Dumpty world would Congress be required to use superfluous words while an agency could ignore an expansive word that Congress did use. We decline to adopt such a world-view.
The other two judges on the panel were David S. Tatel and Janice Rogers Brown.
The EPA's statement did not indicate whether the administration intends to appeal the ruling. Both Walke and Scott Segal, a lobbyist for the utilities industry, said it would be difficult for the administration to forge ahead in light of the appeals court's strong ruling. Walke said the decision is tantamount to the court burying the rule six feet under, where before it was just in a casket.
Segal said the ruling will make it more costly for plants to operate. This is a missed opportunity for reform that would have made it easier to improve power plant efficiency and workplace safety, and that's bad news for consumers and the environment, he said. We believe it is a step backwards for the protection of air quality in the United States.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
U.S. military violated own rules on mentally ill troops...sm
Updated: 10:04 p.m. ET May 13, 2006
HARTFORD, Conn. - U.S. military troops with severe psychological problems have been sent to Iraq or kept in combat, even when superiors have been aware of signs of mental illness, a newspaper reported for Sunday editions.
The Hartford Courant, citing records obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act and more than 100 interviews of families and military personnel, reported numerous cases in which the military failed to follow its own regulations in screening, treating and evacuating mentally unfit troops from Iraq.
In 1997, Congress ordered the military to assess the mental health of all deploying troops. The newspaper, citing Pentagon statistics, said fewer than 1 in 300 service members were referred to a mental health professional before shipping out for Iraq as of October 2005.
And: Study the comma rules and capitalize 'European'
You see, every day you learn something new, from me.
Hehehehe!
I guess they figure if Bush doesn't play by the rules,
they don't have to, either. No big surprise here. They want to take over everything, just as Bush does: With Bush, it's the world. With them, it's this message board. I agree with you, though. They should stay on their own board, as the moderator has requested. 
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules....sm
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules
by Connie Hair
01/05/2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.
Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”
In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.
After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994. Reforms to the House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny what had become under this decades-long Democrat majority a dangerously secretive House legislative process. The Republican reform of the way the House did business included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.
Pelosi’s proposed repeal of decades-long House accountability reforms exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership poised to assemble legislation in secret, then goose-step it through Congress by the elimination of debate and amendment procedures as part of America’s governing legislative process.
Below is the text of the letter on which the House Republican leadership has signed off.
January 5, 2009
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Madame Speaker,
We hope you and your family had a joyful holiday season, and as we begin a new year and a new Congress, we look forward to working with you, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and President-elect Obama in tackling the many challenges facing our nation.
President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. With that in mind, we are deeply troubled by media reports indicating that the Democratic leadership is poised to repeal reforms put in place in 1995 that were intended to help restore Americans’ trust and confidence in the People’s House. Specifically, these reports note that the Majority, as part of its rules package governing the new Congress, will end six-year term limits for Committee chairs and further restrict the opportunity for all members to offer alternative legislation. This does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago. And it has grave implications for the American people and their freedom, coming at a time when an unprecedented expansion of federal power and spending is being hastily planned by a single party behind closed doors. Republicans will vigorously oppose repealing these reforms if they are brought to a vote on the House floor.
As you know, after Republicans gained the majority in the House in 1995, our chamber adopted rules to limit the terms of all committee chairs to three terms in order to reward new ideas, innovation, and merit rather than the strict longevity that determined chairmanships in the past. This reform was intended to help restore the faith and trust of the American people in their government – a theme central to President-elect Obama’s campaign last year. He promoted a message of “change,” but Madame Speaker, abolishing term limit reform is the opposite of “change.” Instead, it will entrench a handful of Members of the House in positions of permanent power, with little regard for its impact on the American people.
The American people also stand to pay a price if the Majority further shuts down free and open debate on the House floor by refusing to allow all members the opportunity to offer substantive alternatives to important legislation -- the same opportunities that Republicans guaranteed to Democrats as motions to recommit during their 12 years in the Minority. The Majority’s record in the last Congress was the worst in history when it came to having a free and open debate on the issues.
This proposed change also would prevent Members from exposing and offering proposals to eliminate tax increases hidden by the Democratic Majority in larger pieces of legislation. This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised. This change would deprive tens of millions of Americans the opportunity to have a voice in the most important policy decisions facing our country.
Madame Speaker, we urge you to reconsider the decision to repeal these reforms, which could come up for a vote as early as tomorrow. Just as a new year brings fresh feelings of optimism and renewal for the American people, so too should a new Congress. Changing the House rules in the manner highlighted by recent media reports would have the opposite effect: further breaching the trust between our nation’s elected representatives and the men and women who send them to Washington to serve their interests and protect their freedom.
Sincerely,
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), Republican Leader
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Republican Whip
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Conference Chairman
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), Policy Committee Chairman
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wyo.), Conference Vice-Chair
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), Conference Secretary
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), NRCC Chairman
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Chief Deputy Whip
Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), Rules Committee Ranking Republican
(Click here for a pdf copy of the letter with signatures.)
Usually, the majority is right!!!!
.
A majority of 2.
Does it get anymore pathetic?
The majority, as you put it, did not even
know who they were voting for. They heard one thing: CHANGE. Yet, change is not what we are getting. It's politics as usual. O does not know how to lead. He only knows how to follow. He is letting people like Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, and countless others walk all over him. He has no clout. He is a lamb being led to the slaughter, yet he doesn't realize it yet.
If he wants to be a good president, he would stop the antics going on now, but I really don't think he knows how to do it. It's a shame, too, because although I did not vote for him, I had hope.
Check photos of him lately. He's not looking so confident anymore. He is starting to think he got in over his head and unless he takes control of the dems, he will go down in history as a president worse than Jimmy Carter.
JMHO
And this has WHAT to do with the fact that the majority..sm
of jobs paying minimum wage are not held by teenagers looking for extra money to buy ipods.
I'm waiting scarecrow with a brain....
The majority of the military
have always been conservative. However, many military members and veterans are changing their minds after what has taken place in recent years. Watch the results of the election and see which way the military goes and compare that to elections in the past.
Because he will likely have a majority in Congress....
and THAT is how you get things passed.
|
