Does it matter whos in office?

[Forgetthisname]

I thought it might be valuable to post and discuss some things that are important issues that niether major political party seem to actually effect different change in. This is by no means a comprehensive list, just stuff that seemed pretty obvious to me as important issues that don't seem to change one bit when it comes to the party you vote for. I'm not trying to debate for or against any of the below items. I (kind of lazily since its not the point of this thread) threw out some reasons they are important issues, and then point out that neither republicans nor democrats make any actual change in these issues. I don't have the historical perspective on politics to know if this is a recent phenominon, but I certainly see it happening now. I know there is a diverse coss-section of opinions on this board and I'd love to hear what everyone thinks regarding this. I'm not claiming to know anything really, I'm just puting into words what, to me, seems to be going on. My stance on things may become obvious to some...thats not my intent, but neither am I trying to hide it. I don't mean for it to be important to the thread.

Troop levels/War - This was one of the biggest points of contention during the last presidential election. As I understand it, every single Soldier in Iraq when Bush was in office is still in Iraq (numbers, not actual individuals :-P ). And in Afghanistan there has been a new push in the south with thousands of new Marines/Soldiers added to our current troop levels. So what difference is there between Bush and Obama on this? Again, I'm not arguing for one COA or another...merely that neither party is doing anything at all differently, especially after how much of an issue it was made to be during the elections. I mean, there has certainly been plenty of talk and promises, but I don't think there has been any meaningful change.

The USA PATRIOT Act - IMO one of the most damaging bits of legislation to American freedom in my lifetime. Bush pushed it through using America's desire for security and fear of terrorism to justify it. Its easy to justify a seemingly small sacrifice of freedom to better enable us to nail terrorists, but thats neither here nor there...I'm not trying to debate the issue at all. Point is, Pres Bush (republican) put it into effect.

Pres Obama (democrat) re-signed it a few months ago. So I guess no change on that issue and neither side feel the same as me.

Abortion - I can't think of an issue that seems to polarize voting more than this one. I know several people that will vote for a person based on this issue alone, completely ignoring everything else about the person running for office.

So our country supports the right to choose at the moment. Pres Reagan and Bush were both pro-life. Does anything change? Do they push pro-choice in a way that really matters? Arguably with stem-cell research, but I would suggest that stem-cells are not what most voters are thinking about when they talk pro-choice/pro-life. So what did everyone get by voting for the pro-life candidate?

Alternatively, Pres Obama/Clinton are pro-choice. So on Abortion, we get same-same (other than hot air) regardless of democrat/republican. I will admit, that this isnt an important issue to me personally, and so if there is actually something going on underneath the surface I wouldnt know about it. There are probably senators/congressmen/governors that effect change in this issue for their individual states but when it comes to the president, I havent seen any meaningful change for the country (not that I want any).

The Fed - The Federal Reserve, Ben Bernake and America's current system of money are all pretty terrible in my opinion. They are being blamed for the recent financial melt-down and are certainly a cause of a tremendous amount of debt to all Americans. Again, this thread isnt to argue for or against any of the particulars, I'm just mentioning some reasons why it is a an obviously contentious issue. Pres Bush appointed Bernake to his position. Pres Obama re-appointed him. There has been a huge amount of flack given to Pres Bush and republicans in general for their recent fiscal policy. Pres Obama has essentially signed up for more of the same (and really taken it farther by spending even more money) Point is, neither party is actually doing much differently regarding these issues.


So what do we really get for voting one way or another?

I remember reading a thread on here that suggested that a huge issue in American politics is single issue voters. People that vote for a person based on a single political issue and how that is terrible for getting someone decent into office. That was the first time I had heard of that, but it seemed pretty valid. I really think that people vote based on one or two issues that are pumped up to be of drastic importance in the media, but the end result is absolutely no significant change whatsoever. How the hell do you fix that?

I honestly feel like the we are just directed to feel emotionally connected to one party or another (through various ways) and then we do it. We end up spending an enormous amount of energy/time on the party of our choosing but to absolutely no meaningful effect. We're become more in debt and get no change on the issues that are the most important to us regardless of which way we go. I mean, its really hillarious to watch a die-hard republican and a die-hard democrat go at it. It almost always degenerates into ad hominem abusives twoards each other and I end up watching in awe as they debate...nothing really. Its like if we just keep dumping ourselves into these two parties we'll be too distracted to actually try and put someone into office that will do what we want. I don't know, just a thought. Thanks in advance for any comments.

[Greenhat]

From a historical viewpoint, both parties have been steadily trending the same way. This is not new, not at all.

To use your examples:
Troops:

Korea - Eisenhower was elected on a platform that included getting the troops out of Korea. They're still there.

Vietnam - LBJ was supposed to be the less hawkish of the two candidates... he expanded the war in Vietnam tremendously.

Patriot Act - The Patriot Act mostly put into legislation things that were already being done under various regulations and executive orders dating back to FDR. With the examples of Lincoln and FDR to draw on, it is no great surprise that our liberties are steadily eroded.

Abortion - It's a divisive issue, but how often do the voters actually know the positions of the candidates? Reagan is often listed as pro-life, but his position wasn't what some people consider pro-life. He wasn't against abortion in all cases, and didn't consider abortion to be murder (he thought it was an issue that belonged to the States). JFK was probably more anti-abortion than Ronald Reagan. Yet, that isn't how people remember it. Reality is that Roe v. Wade is unlikely to be overturned and people need to get over it and move on.

The Fed - Congress long ago gave up their power to regulate money. It's not going to come back. That power is no longer in the hands of the government and the government no longer (in my opinion) has the power to change that. Politicians can say whatever they want, it won't actually make any difference.

Notice that I've used examples of both Democrat and Republican Presidents? Neither party has a stranglehold on not matching the hype with action.

[Tracy]

I thought it might be valuable to post and discuss some things that are important issues that niether major political party seem to actually effect different change in.

Troop levels/War - This was one of the biggest points of contention during the last presidential election.

The POTUS received real briefings; and like-it-or-not, we have to maintain a presence until conditions are more favorable to withdrawal.

The USA PATRIOT Act - IMO one of the most damaging bits of legislation to American freedom in my lifetime.

How so? Hasn't affected me. I do wish that the Patriot Act, Title VIII, would expand the terrorism definition to include gangs operating within the USA. It's a useful tool and most LEOs I talk with agree.

Abortion - I can't think of an issue that seems to polarize voting more than this one.

No arguments there. I'm pro-choice and pro-gun; and I feel the heat every time this comes up.

The Fed - The Federal Reserve, Ben Bernake and America's current system of money are all pretty terrible in my opinion.

If you're referring to the Credit Default Swap and Certificate of Debt Obligation gambling scheme, the fault isn't with the Fed. The fault lies directly with the Administration and Congress in charge in 1999 and 2000 for changing the laws to allow this catastrophe. CBS Sixty Minutes just did a piece yesterday (30 August 2009).

So what do we really get for voting one way or another?

Tough answer, but I know I have more money and freedom of movement under Republicans. It's my observation they are more free-market inclined; and less entitlement inclined.

I always remind myself that the number one priority of ALL politicians is another term.

I remember reading a thread on here that suggested that a huge issue in American politics is single issue voters. People that vote for a person based on a single political issue and how that is terrible for getting someone decent into office. That was the first time I had heard of that, but it seemed pretty valid. I really think that people vote based on one or two issues that are pumped up to be of drastic importance in the media, but the end result is absolutely no significant change whatsoever. How the hell do you fix that?


That was probably one of my rants. Single-issue voters will kill us off if we're not careful. Single-issue voting is a symptom of third-world country bufoonery; and certainly not what I expect from the USA in this day and age.

[Bravo_One_Three]

We get nothing from electing a president. The real power is in electing the legislative branch. But since both parties construct artificial/packaged/canned platforms based on polling, and not on what the individual candidates are actually committed to, we get the same thing no matter who is in charge.

[Greenhat]

Regarding the Fed, I think it is worthwhile to read the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson:

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1325.htm


And note that both Republicans and Democrats have lead us to our current money situation.

[bmbsqd]

Why is abortion on this list? If we are going to have to suffer this antiquated non-argument that should not be politicized, why not include Gun Control, Torture, Drinking and Driving, religion, and cat juggling?

Why is abortion a political issue? And I'll take a step further and say that anyone who votes for a politician based on their position/vote on abortion, is, in my opinion, and uneducated idiot.

[Forgetthisname]

Why is abortion on this list? If we are going to have to suffer this antiquated non-argument that should not be politicized, why not include Gun Control, Torture, Drinking and Driving, religion, and cat juggling?

Why is abortion a political issue? And I'll take a step further and say that anyone who votes for a politician based on their position/vote on abortion, is, in my opinion, and uneducated idiot.

Abortion is on the list because it is one of the basic pieces of a politician's resume. You know every single president's stance on abortion since you became politically interested. Another reason is that there are people who vote based solely on that stance.

Great, include those things. That was the point of the thread...pointing out things that people *really* give a shit about but never changes. Gun control is a pretty good one actually. Maybe Torture too...

The rest not so much. Anyhow, I've always been pretty slow and didnt realize everyone else knew the concept that I was broaching had already been proven. I figured people might not actually realize that republican/democrat have pretty much become the same thing in practice (if not in the constituancy).

Actually, I'm not sure you're not just arguing that abortion shouldnt be a political item...did you actually read my post? I know it was long.

[bmbsqd]

My greater point is exactly what you said....abortion should not be a political issues. Nor should the issue of interrogating terrorists. Not should cat juggling.

[Forgetthisname]

How so? Hasn't affected me. I do wish that the Patriot Act, Title VIII, would expand the terrorism definition to include gangs operating within the USA. It's a useful tool and most LEOs I talk with agree.

Well thats the thing about it. Patriot act does give LEOs more leeway and so sure they'll be for that...noone wants rules getting in the way of doing your job. At the same time, there are aspects of it that allow for law-abiding citizens to have their phones tapped. The use of national security letters to search people's email and financial records with no court order was shady for sure. I havent been impacted by it either (that i know of) but it still strikes me as an important bit of legislation that apparently is bi-partisan. I have 2 friends in particular who were pretty upset that Obama re-authorized it, which is why it came to mind for this.



No arguments there. I'm pro-choice and pro-gun; and I feel the heat every time this comes up.

Thats actually really pertinant to this. I'm pro choice (typically democrat) and pro gun (typically republican)...both are brought up time and again in the media and seem to be huge election issues, but policy on neither of them ever change on a national scale (yet). Based on the fact that they dont seem to change, should we really even give a shit what a presidential candidate's stance is on these?


Tough answer, but I know I have more money and freedom of movement under Republicans. It's my observation they are more free-market inclined; and less entitlement inclined.

Maybe it was just the most recent Bush administration that seemed to turn that tradition on its head for me. I sure didnt feel like that Republican set of leaders was looking out for my money or freedom. I haven't been politically active through many administrations yet, so maybe it was just a bad patch or something.

[Looon]

Both parties are basically the same anymore. They both do the same shit. The only difference between the two is who gets to throw more shit as pertaining to who currently holds power.

Both sides actually have the same goals when you get right down to it. (generally speaking)

GWB doubled the deficit, then Obama doubled that. Obama turns around and blames Bush for what Obama is doing now. If the roles were reversed at this point in time, the same would be happening.

The two parties only care about power. Keeping it and regaining it. PERIOD.

Regardless of party affiliation, going back 80 or so years, everything has been funneling in this very direction.

[smp52]

Both parties are basically the same anymore. They both do the same shit. The only difference between the two is who gets to throw more shit as pertaining to who currently holds power.

Both sides actually have the same goals when you get right down to it. (generally speaking)

GWB doubled the deficit, then Obama doubled that. Obama turns around and blames Bush for what Obama is doing now. If the roles were reversed at this point in time, the same would be happening.

The two parties only care about power. Keeping it and regaining it. PERIOD.

Regardless of party affiliation, going back 80 or so years, everything has been funneling in this very direction.

The political parties operate like cartels do. Keep smaller and disruptive candidates out of the mix and corner the market for themselves. It's in neither party's interest to loosen the stranglehold they have on the American republic. I see them as two giant, bloated, and archaic elements that are chocking the growth of the United States. Now, cartels are good for stability and control, but in this case, their inability to adapt and provide real value to the citizens shows they're models are as outdated, IMHO, as the ones used by several of failing industries.

[Parajuevos]

The two parties only care about power. Keeping it and regaining it. PERIOD.


Unfortunately, you are 100% correct.

The people have to get involved. The town hall meetings are a beginning.

To see the bewilderment on some of the faces of the politicians, when their constituents come and actually read them the riot act, is refreshing. More of this is needed, followed up by accountability at the election booth. It won't happen overnight but if the pressure continues to be applied, on all issues, not just the health care debate, some of these self centered narcissistic idiots, who hold public office, might start to realize that they are supposed to be working for us and not the other way around.

As their employers we need to put them on notice that they can be fired and will be, if they don't represent us and reflect our views when legislating.

[stanpunjabTrini]

Both parties take corporate money and pretend they are for the best interest of the people! ABortion is between a woman and her God so why the crap am I imposing my own male values on her being? Simple to me. Freedom means for all those in USA not some who have the power!

[Looon]

As their employers we need to put them on notice that they can be fired and will be, if they don't represent us and reflect our views when legislating.
Ive been thinking of that very thing for some time. I have given thought of trying to start some sort of "grass roots" movement on the net:

FIRE YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND/OR SENATOR

By this, I mean to vote against the incumbent regardless of party affiliation.

Fire them all at once, or at least as many as possible to reassert who is supposed to hold the power. The people.

[Parajuevos]

Ive been thinking of that very thing for some time. I have given thought of trying to start some sort of "grass roots" movement on the net:

FIRE YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND/OR SENATOR

By this, I mean to vote against the incumbent regardless of party affiliation.

Fire them all at once, or at least as many as possible to reassert who is supposed to hold the power. The people.

In other words, "Let's give Congress and Enema." Sounds like a good idea to me. Let me know where to sign up.

It won't be hard for me. Feinstein and Boxer are my Senators and Lynn Woolsey is my Representative.

[Wootnik]

I always figured the best thing to have is a democratic president and a republican congress. It always seemed Republicans actually would act like Conservatives when they don't hold the presidency (Ie under Clinton)

[Princeps Belli]

Why is abortion a political issue? And I'll take a step further and say that anyone who votes for a politician based on their position/vote on abortion, is, in my opinion, and uneducated idiot.

I think that I may be able to answer this one a bit. Maybe, not satisfactorily, but I'll try my best. Abortion may not seem like too big of an issue, and for most guys, it would be stupid to spend a lot of time thinking about the subject. Unless, it is your safety net when our beer goggles are on at the bar. However, the issue has some not so obvious components to it.

First, the question was decided from the bench. This essentially is the trend in current jurisprudence, so it might not seem like too much of a big deal. It is a big question though, and such activity is often deemed "legislating from bench." Apart from the Constitutional legality question, there are also ethical and political parts.

We are post sexual revolution (most of us at least), and it is very easy to fall into the trap of picking values based upon the standards of our time, but if we attempt to look at the issue through the eyes of those before, sometimes we get a very different picture.

Roe vs. Wade was a very clear example of the Supreme Court making policy. Now, the line between adjudicating and legislating is oftentimes very fine, but it is an important distinction. Essentially, the Court created policy by interpreting Abortion as an individual "right to privacy." That's the short of it.

Ideally, in something so specific, the Court should have deferred it to the legislature so that they could make it legal or illegal. Many of our laws today are not created in the bicameralism process of the legislative branch or by state legislative authorities, but a Supreme Court ruling creates law sometimes.

Here is the telling line from Justice Blackmun who delivered the majority opinion of the Court:
The Texas statutes under attack here are typical of those that have been in effect in many States for approximately a century. The Georgia statutes, in contrast, have a modern cast and are a legislative product that, to an extent at least, obviously reflects the influences of recent attitudinal change, of advancing medical knowledge and techniques, and of new thinking about an old issue.
(Keep in mind that this is 1973)

Justice Rehnquist in his dissent states:

But the Court's sweeping invalidation of any restrictions on abortion during the first trimester is impossible to justify under that standard, and the conscious weighing of competing factors that the Court's opinion apparently substitutes for the established test is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment than to a judicial one.

His other point is:The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental," Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934). Even today, when society's views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the "right" to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe.


Any Google search for Roe vs. Wade will send you to the appropriate documents. I think that the serious political debate is one that focuses on the powers of the Court. The abortion issue paved the way for people to claim a whole host of other rights. This case set a great number of legal precedents, and it would be difficult to understand the effects of it, but precedent is used to determine other cases.

The value issue is another story. One thing that has become universal in the aftermath of this case is the fact that the child is looked upon as the woman's right to privacy. This has the effect of insinuating that the child is a woman's property until it reaches whatever legal point when it becomes murder to kill it. As a practical matter, I would want to have some legal access to determine the course of the situation. For instance, I am married, and I want a child, so I knock the boots with my wife. She decides that she doesn't want the thing, so she goes to the clinic to have it aborted. I don't have any say so in the matter. I think that this is a subtle legal protection that influences issues in Family law.

[Trailboss]

Does it matter whos in office?


No.....next question...8)

[Linear]

I know that current conditions are frustrating. However, I would argue that the party in office matters a great deal simply because each is supported by a different coalitions. You can really see it at the state level. When control of the legislative and executive branch changed in my state, bills that would previously have been killed in committee reached the legislative floor and were passed. Spending increased tremendously, the state went on a hiring binge. This is good if you like having more government workers, bad if you don't.

At the federal level, party matters in a number of ways. One of the more visible is the sorts of judges appointed. Others are in the sorts of prosecutions undertaken (hey, no problem if Rangel finds a million and change in income), the sorts of waivers approved for state medicaid programs, and the size, extent, and structure of transfer programs.

[Forgetthisname]

Ive been thinking of that very thing for some time. I have given thought of trying to start some sort of "grass roots" movement on the net:

FIRE YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND/OR SENATOR

By this, I mean to vote against the incumbent regardless of party affiliation.

Fire them all at once, or at least as many as possible to reassert who is supposed to hold the power. The people.

I get pretty fired up when it comes to "cleaning house" or whatever...but what do we get for our efforts? Why would the new guy be any better? The new guy won't realize (or care) that he was voted in arbitrarily just because of the last guy, and we'd get more of the same, no? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely trying to figure out what a fix to this bs is.

[Greenhat]

My Grandfather (and many of his generation) believed in "vote the bastards out". It resulted in fewer career politicians. It wasn't about being better... it was about limiting the damage that politicians could do (by the time a politician learned the system, he was gone).

[ET1/ss nuke]

Why is abortion on this list? If we are going to have to suffer this antiquated non-argument that should not be politicized, why not include Gun Control, Torture, Drinking and Driving, religion, and cat juggling?

Why is abortion a political issue? And I'll take a step further and say that anyone who votes for a politician based on their position/vote on abortion, is, in my opinion, and uneducated idiot.

Would you say the same about someone circa 1850 whose single issue of concern was slavery? If the person were pro-slavery, they could move south and shut up, while abolitionists could simply move north and shut up, yet it didn't quite work out that way. Abortion and slavery, as political issues, have a lot in common. Both practices regard some humans as disposable unhuman meat (in the case of stem cell harvesting, a fetus is even a saleable commodity) and the choice of whether the slave/fetus is to be considered a human at all lies completely in the hands of someone else. Slavery is minimally addressed in the Constitution, and abortion isn't there at all except by the logical gymnastics of stretching the 9th amendment. State laws differed on both until the Supreme Court stepped in with a grossly illogical ruling that overstepped their authority - Dred Scott v. Sanford and Roe v. Wade. Lots of folks see both as a usurpation of both legislative authority and states' rights in particular and democracy in general. If abortion isn't a big enough issue to justify shaping voter's opinion of a candidate, then I would have to say that over 620,000 Americans died in vain for a pointless argument. I see it differently, though.

[sfmedicw9]

I would love to vote the bastards out of office en masse especially the socialists. But as the ole saying goes......

sounds good on paper lieutenant

if anyone has ever worked with the DC mafia they would tell you that congress would be chum for the beaureaucrats (the sixth column) The real power base sits in the agencies and career regulators who know they only have to wait out the elected to get their agendas advanced.

Congress needs time to gain power in the shark tank that is DC - The trick is to get a congressman that works for the people not for party agendas or self interests.

as far as does it matter who is in office - I doubt it because in the long run its all about power in the new world order and globalism - Its just a matter of who pushes faster to get the masses in line and bring the US constitution in line with the UNs Charter

and i wrote that last paragraph without a single bit of tin foil on my head

gotta go there are black helicopters over the house and black crown vics in the driveway I can smell aqua velva

hey look at that... Covington suits from Sears - is that a clip on?

[Titleist]

In other words, "Let's give Congress and Enema." Sounds like a good idea to me. Let me know where to sign up.

It won't be hard for me. Feinstein and Boxer are my Senators and Lynn Woolsey is my Representative.

Sig material. At least through the next election..:biggrin: I agree. What a truly historical statement that would make if we literally threw each and everyone of them out. "Nuclear option?" Would love to demonstrate to the Congress of these United States the epitome of the "nuclear option."

[Titleist]

My Grandfather (and many of his generation) believed in "vote the bastards out". It resulted in fewer career politicians. It wasn't about being better... it was about limiting the damage that politicians could do (by the time a politician learned the system, he was gone).

Occasionaly Americans need to burst the bubble these narccisist insulate themselves in. It appears to me now, it needs to be done more frequently.

[Parajuevos]

My Grandfather (and many of his generation) believed in "vote the bastards out". It resulted in fewer career politicians.

The word that irks me the most, with these idjits, is "career" and the phrase "my career."

My "career" my ass. Serving in public office is supposed to be a privilege entrusted to an individual, who promises to represent the citizens who he/she serves.

Under ideal conditions, non performers or those who refuses to listen to their constituents would be voted out of office. Unfortunately, apathy by the electorate combined with the necessity for obscene financial war chests, just to get into a political race, preclude the average Joe from breaking into the arena, in most cases.

[eyezweat]

My Grandfather (and many of his generation) believed in "vote the bastards out". It resulted in fewer career politicians. It wasn't about being better... it was about limiting the damage that politicians could do (by the time a politician learned the system, he was gone).


Like it. I certainly hope that people (the ones that are fed up) unify and relieve us of old stale "good ole' boys" and gals that have been in the system too long to know reality.

[Princeps Belli]

I sometimes worry more about the "people" than I do about the politicians. The amplification of the "Selfish-generation-phenomenon" appears to grind to a halt any consideration of either the future or the past. The "now" and the "I" appears to have become the chief concern.

I like to think about this line from De Tocqueville when he writes about the Democratic Despotism:

I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest - his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not - he touches them, but he feels them not; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country. Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood

This edition is translated by Henry Reeve. It is the Bantam Classic version from 2000 and the quote occurs on page 869. I had a translation that I liked a bit better, but I couldn't find the book when it just now came to mind.

[Princeps Belli]

I should also have emphasized the and if his kindred still remain to him..

That idea seems to bring into question the nature of loyalty itself in relation to selfishness.

[Forgetthisname]

So how do you get politicians to do something that directly negatively impacts them? Lets say that term limits of 2 or 3 terms for Congress/Senate are much better for the people of the USA. It's obviously not better for Congressmen and Senators who want to stay in office longer than 2-3 terms (many of which have been in that job for decades). How do you get them to vote for that? Threaten to vote them out? They'd be assuring themselves of being voted out if they vote for that law, and maybe be voted out if they don't.

Do you become a single issue voter until that one law gets passed? What a tiresome and long system it is to get something positive done.

[Princeps Belli]

Two thirds of the legislatures of all states could propose a Constitutional amendment and have it ratified according to three fourths of several states, according to the language of Article five in the United States Constitution. Don't know how many times this has ever happened though, as a practical matter.

Also, I think that there is a great deal of truth according to the argument that sfmedicw9 states about administrative agency

if anyone has ever worked with the DC mafia they would tell you that congress would be chum for the beaureaucrats (the sixth column) The real power base sits in the agencies and career regulators who know they only have to wait out the elected to get their agendas advanced.


A lot of what both Houses appear to do is "case work." They sit on their special committees that act to regulate agencies with delegated legislative authority, so if someone's unhappy about HUD, the FDA, SEC, VA, etc., they can write a Congressman or Senator, or they can hire lobbyists to work through it.

This process is good for the politician because they don't look like they screwed something up, and the person or corporate entity is happy because they may get what they want. This is sort of one of the strange phenomena that occurs because of growing Administrative Agency power, I think. It usually falls into the "Delegation of Legislative authority" problem.

I don't know if it's worth explaining in depth, but I am sure that someone here has a good grasp of what goes on in D.C. in regards to Agency actions. It boggles my mind.