Has our Government become Dysfunctional?

[Wry Catcher]

No, I do not believe this was pragmatic. The govt. didn't say that polluting waters was infringing on the rights of others and hold those responsible for polluting accountable for their actions to the fullest extent of the law. Instead, we create another agency that only further corrupts away from its original intent. It goes right back to the unseen consequences of such "pragmatic" governance.

Some more instances that fit the mold you show in the example: FDA, EPA, DHS, DoA, DoL and DHUD.

The goveernment only grows itself in size as is the history of the State. More agencies, more red tape, more corruption and in the end, less civil liberties and freeedoms for the people. We've reached that point here in the US where there is so much micromanagement of the citizenry, that the fight is now about which things half the country believe govt. shoud do,a nd the other half say they shouldn't. It's simply the absolute failure of a constitutional, democratic republic. We tried, it went well for a time and now its just another broken record in the history of man.

What I see are proactive efforts to prevent and protect, you see as an overreach. Your approach IMO is reactive, i.e., let's wait until there is a harm and fix only that which created the harm; we should not make any effort to understand the nature of the harm and seek means to prevent this specific problem and others which we can infer will be harmful.

That's right. You want to pre-emptively strike at things you see as social detriment, while I'm of the position (and with lots of history on my side) that micrmanaging society has more costs than living by the letter of the law and holding people responsible once right infringments have occured.

Under your assessment, things like the Iraq war were justified under the context of pre-emptive, or pro-active policies. I mean, Saddam COULD have posed a serious threat to us or our allies. So it seems that in the name of "seeking means to prevent this specific problem", we did ourselves and the world a favor.

WRONG

And you have it backwards, it's your stance that is reactionary. You see a problem and want govt to proactively atempt to mitigate it through its agency creation and enforcement agenda you call pragmatic. That's reactionary. But you have one thing right; i dont believe people should be pre-emptively punished for things they did not, or have not done simply because there is a chance it could happen.

The law was designed to protect the individual and hold the individual accountable. Not dump everyone into groups and punish or favor them according to the ebb or flow of social tidings of the day. To me, that is the ultimate in reactionary policy/stance.

I felt the Iraq war was foolish and the War Powers Act granted too much power to the Executive.

Reactive, proactive? Let's not argue semantics. A problem exists, we fix it. So the polluter finds new ways to circumvent the specific law and more pollution occurs. Human nature will always find ways to circumvent laws and regulations for profit or advantage. We've seen it in the financial institutions, in illicit drug production, in the manufacture of durable and non durable goods.

Does some over regulation occur? Yep. That's the point that specific debate should center upon, IMO.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What I see are proactive efforts to prevent and protect, you see as an overreach. Your approach IMO is reactive, i.e., let's wait until there is a harm and fix only that which created the harm; we should not make any effort to understand the nature of the harm and seek means to prevent this specific problem and others which we can infer will be harmful.

That's right. You want to pre-emptively strike at things you see as social detriment, while I'm of the position (and with lots of history on my side) that micrmanaging society has more costs than living by the letter of the law and holding people responsible once right infringments have occured.

Under your assessment, things like the Iraq war were justified under the context of pre-emptive, or pro-active policies. I mean, Saddam COULD have posed a serious threat to us or our allies. So it seems that in the name of "seeking means to prevent this specific problem", we did ourselves and the world a favor.

WRONG

And you have it backwards, it's your stance that is reactionary. You see a problem and want govt to proactively atempt to mitigate it through its agency creation and enforcement agenda you call pragmatic. That's reactionary. But you have one thing right; i dont believe people should be pre-emptively punished for things they did not, or have not done simply because there is a chance it could happen.

The law was designed to protect the individual and hold the individual accountable. Not dump everyone into groups and punish or favor them according to the ebb or flow of social tidings of the day. To me, that is the ultimate in reactionary policy/stance.

I felt the Iraq war was foolish and the War Powers Act granted too much power to the Executive.

Reactive, proactive? Let's not argue semantics. A problem exists, we fix it. So the polluter finds new ways to circumvent the specific law and more pollution occurs. Human nature will always find ways to circumvent laws and regulations for profit or advantage. We've seen it in the financial institutions, in illicit drug production, in the manufacture of durable and non durable goods.

Does some over regulation occur? Yep. That's the point that specific debate should center upon, IMO.

How you felt abotu a specific problem doesn't negate the fact that it was, by your assessment, proactive, or pragmatic governance.

lets take spying on Americans by the NSA. We have a "terrorism problem", so in order to mitigate that "problem" the government has proactively began to spy on Americans for what they may say that COULD be a threat against this particular problem. Simply because you disagree with the handling of it is irrelevant and only goes to show that it's about which items you think deserve this proactive appraoch vs. the ones you dont. it means very little when you when you still want a govt. that stops protecting the individual and property rights and moves to social and economic engineering.

That is the crux of all our problems as I see it.

 

[dblack]

That's right. You want to pre-emptively strike at things you see as social detriment, while I'm of the position (and with lots of history on my side) that micrmanaging society has more costs than living by the letter of the law and holding people responsible once right infringments have occured.

Under your assessment, things like the Iraq war were justified under the context of pre-emptive, or pro-active policies. I mean, Saddam COULD have posed a serious threat to us or our allies. So it seems that in the name of "seeking means to prevent this specific problem", we did ourselves and the world a favor.

WRONG

And you have it backwards, it's your stance that is reactionary. You see a problem and want govt to proactively atempt to mitigate it through its agency creation and enforcement agenda you call pragmatic. That's reactionary. But you have one thing right; i dont believe people should be pre-emptively punished for things they did not, or have not done simply because there is a chance it could happen.

The law was designed to protect the individual and hold the individual accountable. Not dump everyone into groups and punish or favor them according to the ebb or flow of social tidings of the day. To me, that is the ultimate in reactionary policy/stance.

I felt the Iraq war was foolish and the War Powers Act granted too much power to the Executive.

Reactive, proactive? Let's not argue semantics. A problem exists, we fix it. So the polluter finds new ways to circumvent the specific law and more pollution occurs. Human nature will always find ways to circumvent laws and regulations for profit or advantage. We've seen it in the financial institutions, in illicit drug production, in the manufacture of durable and non durable goods.

Does some over regulation occur? Yep. That's the point that specific debate should center upon, IMO.

How you felt abotu a specific problem doesn't negate the fact that it was, by your assessment, proactive, or pragmatic governance.

lets take spying on Americans by the NSA. We have a "terrorism problem", so in order to mitigate that "problem" the government has proactively began to spy on Americans for what they may say that COULD be a threat against this particular problem. Simply because you disagree with the handling of it is irrelevant and only goes to show that it's about which items you think deserve this proactive appraoch vs. the ones you dont. it means very little when you when you still want a govt. that stops protecting the individual and property rights and moves to social and economic engineering.

That is the crux of all our problems as I see it.

I'm not sure I follow. Would you mind rephrasing that?

 

[Wry Catcher]

That's right. You want to pre-emptively strike at things you see as social detriment, while I'm of the position (and with lots of history on my side) that micrmanaging society has more costs than living by the letter of the law and holding people responsible once right infringments have occured.

Under your assessment, things like the Iraq war were justified under the context of pre-emptive, or pro-active policies. I mean, Saddam COULD have posed a serious threat to us or our allies. So it seems that in the name of "seeking means to prevent this specific problem", we did ourselves and the world a favor.

WRONG

And you have it backwards, it's your stance that is reactionary. You see a problem and want govt to proactively atempt to mitigate it through its agency creation and enforcement agenda you call pragmatic. That's reactionary. But you have one thing right; i dont believe people should be pre-emptively punished for things they did not, or have not done simply because there is a chance it could happen.

The law was designed to protect the individual and hold the individual accountable. Not dump everyone into groups and punish or favor them according to the ebb or flow of social tidings of the day. To me, that is the ultimate in reactionary policy/stance.

I felt the Iraq war was foolish and the War Powers Act granted too much power to the Executive.

Reactive, proactive? Let's not argue semantics. A problem exists, we fix it. So the polluter finds new ways to circumvent the specific law and more pollution occurs. Human nature will always find ways to circumvent laws and regulations for profit or advantage. We've seen it in the financial institutions, in illicit drug production, in the manufacture of durable and non durable goods.

Does some over regulation occur? Yep. That's the point that specific debate should center upon, IMO.

How you felt abotu a specific problem doesn't negate the fact that it was, by your assessment, proactive, or pragmatic governance.

lets take spying on Americans by the NSA. We have a "terrorism problem", so in order to mitigate that "problem" the government has proactively began to spy on Americans for what they may say that COULD be a threat against this particular problem. Simply because you disagree with the handling of it is irrelevant and only goes to show that it's about which items you think deserve this proactive appraoch vs. the ones you dont. it means very little when you when you still want a govt. that stops protecting the individual and property rights and moves to social and economic engineering.

That is the crux of all our problems as I see it.

Again, you engage in semantics and now an emotional argument about spying. The fact is the Federal Government has a duty to protect the nation. How that is done is where the rubber meets the road. It is something which should be debated, of this there is no argument.

Now, I need to take one car in for service and take our new puppy to the dog park. I will check back later to see what others think of the ideas I suggested and to read ideas which may aid in making our government functional.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I felt the Iraq war was foolish and the War Powers Act granted too much power to the Executive.

Reactive, proactive? Let's not argue semantics. A problem exists, we fix it. So the polluter finds new ways to circumvent the specific law and more pollution occurs. Human nature will always find ways to circumvent laws and regulations for profit or advantage. We've seen it in the financial institutions, in illicit drug production, in the manufacture of durable and non durable goods.

Does some over regulation occur? Yep. That's the point that specific debate should center upon, IMO.

How you felt abotu a specific problem doesn't negate the fact that it was, by your assessment, proactive, or pragmatic governance.

lets take spying on Americans by the NSA. We have a "terrorism problem", so in order to mitigate that "problem" the government has proactively began to spy on Americans for what they may say that COULD be a threat against this particular problem. Simply because you disagree with the handling of it is irrelevant and only goes to show that it's about which items you think deserve this proactive appraoch vs. the ones you dont. it means very little when you when you still want a govt. that stops protecting the individual and property rights and moves to social and economic engineering.

That is the crux of all our problems as I see it.

I'm not sure I follow. Would you mind rephrasing that?

Can you be more specific? I'll happily try to rephrase, but i fear I'll just repeat myself.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I felt the Iraq war was foolish and the War Powers Act granted too much power to the Executive.

Reactive, proactive? Let's not argue semantics. A problem exists, we fix it. So the polluter finds new ways to circumvent the specific law and more pollution occurs. Human nature will always find ways to circumvent laws and regulations for profit or advantage. We've seen it in the financial institutions, in illicit drug production, in the manufacture of durable and non durable goods.

Does some over regulation occur? Yep. That's the point that specific debate should center upon, IMO.

How you felt abotu a specific problem doesn't negate the fact that it was, by your assessment, proactive, or pragmatic governance.

lets take spying on Americans by the NSA. We have a "terrorism problem", so in order to mitigate that "problem" the government has proactively began to spy on Americans for what they may say that COULD be a threat against this particular problem. Simply because you disagree with the handling of it is irrelevant and only goes to show that it's about which items you think deserve this proactive appraoch vs. the ones you dont. it means very little when you when you still want a govt. that stops protecting the individual and property rights and moves to social and economic engineering.

That is the crux of all our problems as I see it.

Again, you engage in semantics and now an emotional argument about spying. The fact is the Federal Government has a duty to protect the nation. How that is done is where the rubber meets the road. It is something which should be debated, of this there is no argument.

Now, I need to take one car in for service and take our new puppy to the dog park. I will check back later to see what others think of the ideas I suggested and to read ideas which may aid in making our government functional.

There is no semantics or emotional argument. The FACT is the federal government is there to uphold the constitution, not "protect" the nation. The nation can protect itself just fine. However, we need government that will protect the individual and also hold the individual responsible.

if you think that the government should proactively attempt to mitigate what is perceived as social problems, instead of protecting the individual rights and property, then you may disagree from time to time on HOW it goes about this proactivity or whether a specific "problem" should be addressed and in which way. You're still engaging in social/economic engineering at the expense of liberty. And we have two sides that duke this out regularly. Now, it's there are so many issues it's hard to even keep them all straight. ALL due to what Wry calls pragmatism in government.

I believe the NSA spying and Iraq war are fine examples of so called pragmatic govnernance.

The bigger question is, how much authority should be given to even begin such governance. And the constitution is explicit in that.

 

[Stashman]

We do NOT need to amend anything in order for the illegal activities of this administration to become legal. That's not the way it works. What we need is to get back to governing this republic while staying within the confines of the U.S. Constitution. Most Americans cannot even tell you what the Constitution is about or why it was written. Due to this dumbing down by the mainstream media and revision of our American History text books, our elected officials violate the principles contained within that document with little notice. We must keep it the way it is and re-educate our children to understand it's full meaning.

 

[dblack]

We do NOT need to amend anything in order for the illegal activities of this administration to become legal. That's not the way it works. What we need is to get back to governing this republic while staying within the confines of the U.S. Constitution. Most Americans cannot even tell you what the Constitution is about or why it was written. Due to this dumbing down by the mainstream media and revision of our American History text books, our elected officials violate the principles contained within that document with little notice. We must keep it the way it is and re-educate our children to understand it's full meaning.

I don't really have a problem with modifying the Constitution via the specified procedures (the amendment process). That's exactly what we should do when we think the role of government needs to change. But sadly, our Court has been compromised and has changed the constitution via 'case law' and convenient 'reinterpretations'. This approach skips over the deliberation and consensus-building that makes such changes sustainable, as well as weakens the overall concept of Constitutional government. It leaves such changes subject to the political winds, waiting to be reversed (or expanded) by the next President or SC appointee.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How you felt abotu a specific problem doesn't negate the fact that it was, by your assessment, proactive, or pragmatic governance.

lets take spying on Americans by the NSA. We have a "terrorism problem", so in order to mitigate that "problem" the government has proactively began to spy on Americans for what they may say that COULD be a threat against this particular problem. Simply because you disagree with the handling of it is irrelevant and only goes to show that it's about which items you think deserve this proactive appraoch vs. the ones you dont. it means very little when you when you still want a govt. that stops protecting the individual and property rights and moves to social and economic engineering.

That is the crux of all our problems as I see it.

Again, you engage in semantics and now an emotional argument about spying. The fact is the Federal Government has a duty to protect the nation. How that is done is where the rubber meets the road. It is something which should be debated, of this there is no argument.

Now, I need to take one car in for service and take our new puppy to the dog park. I will check back later to see what others think of the ideas I suggested and to read ideas which may aid in making our government functional.

There is no semantics or emotional argument. The FACT is the federal government is there to uphold the constitution, not "protect" the nation. Do you not see the obvious contradiction in this remark? The nation can protect itself just fine. However, we need government that will protect the individual and also hold the individual responsible.

if you think that the government should proactively attempt to mitigate what is perceived as social problems, instead of protecting the individual rights and property, then you may disagree from time to time on HOW it goes about this proactivity or whether a specific "problem" should be addressed and in which way. You're still engaging in social/economic engineering at the expense of liberty. And we have two sides that duke this out regularly. Now, it's there are so many issues it's hard to even keep them all straight. ALL due to what Wry calls pragmatism in government.

I believe the NSA spying and Iraq war are fine examples of so called pragmatic govnernance.

The bigger question is, how much authority should be given to even begin such governance. And the constitution is explicit in that.

So, is it your opinion every decision based on Marbury v. Madison violates the Constitution, including Marbury v. Madison?

 

[Wry Catcher]

We do NOT need to amend anything in order for the illegal activities of this administration to become legal. That's not the way it works. What we need is to get back to governing this republic while staying within the confines of the U.S. Constitution. Most Americans cannot even tell you what the Constitution is about or why it was written. Due to this dumbing down by the mainstream media and revision of our American History text books, our elected officials violate the principles contained within that document with little notice. We must keep it the way it is and re-educate our children to understand it's full meaning.

I don't really have a problem with modifying the Constitution via the specified procedures (the amendment process). That's exactly what we should do when we think the role of government needs to change. But sadly, our Court has been compromised and has changed the constitution via 'case law' and convenient 'reinterpretations'. This approach skips over the deliberation and consensus-building that makes such changes sustainable, as well as weakens the overall concept of Constitutional government. It leaves such changes subject to the political winds, waiting to be reversed (or expanded) by the next President or SC appointee.

The bar to change is set very high in Article V.