Remember this is just an appeal on the injunction issued a week or so ago It is not an appeal of the PACT law itself
Of course, the plot continues. It is important to note though that the law is not just going down quietly, there are people fighting its legality. Ken
@Snifs: I bet you’re hoping I don’t start asking about it again. lol
@enten-eller :>)
No update yet, but it was supposed to be heard today, but apparently this happened yesterday:Cigarette Truck SeizedKen
Wow! That’s wild, devilock – “clear retaliation” @Snifs: I’m gonna try really hard not to.
Not sure it is “clear” but the natives think so. Ken
massacres have happened over less.
True And today’s updateRuling later in the week after yesterday’s day in court.I like this judge calling out the fed that it is about money and not about protecting “the children”. Ken
devilock that is a fantastic article!!! the best I’ve read thus far Great find mate
I basically google pact act click the “news” link and see what is up. I take particular interest in this as it is another example of the government in dischord with the will of the people. Such disconnects show a failure in the representative based system and I find those noteworthy in these times. Ken
In short when it can be seen that they are not working “of the people, for the people and by the people” such cases can shine a light into who they are actually working for. Ken
My problem has always been who are the people? Which the people are we talking about. Seriously if you could just do things for the people we wouldn’t have any need for goverment cause the people would just do what they need to do but there are no the people happily in my opinion.
George Carlin once said that the Nazi’s and the Axis powers may have lost, but Fascism won. Ken
I love carlin but I have to ask when where people so free??? When was that?
@devilock: Yup.
Fascism didn’t win, communism did. But really, it’s capitalism.
Well throughout the years the Government have continued to change things to benefit themselves. Say for example. We started with a small government with a president, a HOR(LOL never notice that was whore), and a Congress. These were made so people could make laws and govern the people, but they couldn’t just pass a law the people had to vote on it. Back then just the people voted. Even for the president, the people just voted. Who ever won from the votes of the people won for good. Now days, it doesn’t really even matter who you vote for, the electoral college will vote for you. Also, since when do you have to tax the shit out of something just because it does something not normal to you. Oh this liquid if you drink it makes you where you cant walk straight if you drink to much of it, and it makes you pee a lot. Well lets put tax on it. OH this stuff if you put it in your cheek, or lip, or dry it out and smoke it, give you a little buzz. Well we can’t have that, lets put a tax on it. And then, Oh this guy found some black stuff that comes out of the ground that we could use in our automobiles to help them run better, and that if you filter it you can make other types of liquids that will ignite on fire that can be used in various things. Well we can’t have the citizen making all the profit, Lets get involved and put a tax on it, since everybody will have to rely on this for years to come. Don’t know if there any weed smokers here but I used to smoke all the time, been about 6 months now, but the reason Weed isn’t legal yet is because the government makes more off of fines for the drug, than they would taxing it if it was legal. i mean whats so bad with a Normal Person making a Little Profit. Sorry for my ranting just venting a little.
Given the history I always thought it would be more accurate to say “of the lawyers, for the lawyers and by the lawyers”…
Hate to burst your bubble Kcazman, but the House of Reps is the Congress. It’s the House and Senate, not House and Congress. Also, the Electoral College is not a new idea. The Electoral College was put into the Constitution to protect the value of a smaller state’s vote. It is a very Federalist idea. You should also feel lucky that we get to vote for our Senators, it was not originally envisioned that way, they used to be appointed.
My problem is the institution on a whole is a fattened cow. I was listening last night and just one lobbying firm last year spent more on lobying one issue than the entire combined salary of all of congress (both houses). The money needed in election campaigns etc. The thing is that when you have corporate interests who can pump that much money into the system, to get something that may not be a good idea but soemthing that short term helps them and hurts their competition, who wins, them. Yet of the average person has a good idea, something that could really help a lot of people, how do they get their idea to compete with the billions of dollars the coke and pepsi and RJR’s of the world can pump into the machine? Ken
manipulation is how. You’d be suprised what kinds of laws you can help pass by pretending to have a super secret herpes cure.
Bob --"I love carlin but I have to ask when where people so free??? When was that? " Very, very good question, Bob. You can only truly be free in your mind.
Tom502 – “Fascism didn’t win, communism did.” When you think of the ‘Allied powers’… Communism never really died, but it’s really more like corporatism. And the neocons are really just Staussian infiltrators.
@ cstokes: the Senate was also elected by the Electoral College until the 17th ammendment in 1913. After that time the people were allowed to vote for them directly. Both the Senate and the Electoral College were crafted into the Constitution as ‘speed bumps’ in democracy. Democracy was an untried concept in those days, and the Constitutional authors thought jumping feet first into was a scary thing to do. They were sypmathetic to uneducated and poor classes, but at the same time feared giving them too much control, because they might make the wrong decisions.
I argue with a friend constantly about the merits of true democracy. He stipulates that pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. In part I agree. However with modern technology direct voting on laws and leaders should be possible now. In addition the way to protect from the wolf and sheep argument is a minority advocacy panel that can meter in on disproportionate issues across different race and social lines. My theory anyway. Ken
Another feature of early “democracy” was that only male white land owners were allowed to vote. I think we do have more opportunity to affect what happens now. EDIT: unless, of course, you are a male, white land owner.
1913 was also the year for the The Federal Reserve Act.
Also why only two parties really? Sure they maybe the only two that get a majority but smaller more specfic parties can make it so that the bigger goverment roles have to at least be more aware of varied postions and platforms. Just my two cents. And something I’ve always wondered.
Another point, one of the most ingenious systems built into our constitution and government was the checks and balances system. It was perfectly envisioned from keeping a person or small group of people from running amok with the government. Unfortunately it never planned for the whole government running amok. That is the problem of today I feel. We have two parties, funded by the same companies. They are all part of this elite power broker club and make decisions that reflect who separated they are from the people they are supposed to represent. Ken
@bob – for the illusion you really have a choice. They are all working for the same ends. Hegelian Dialectic.
@ devilock76: the wolf/sheep argument was even used back in the early days which is why some authors felt the need to spell out the Bill or Rights, Meaning that no matter how large the majority was, they could make decide law, but not impinge rights. All the details have yet to be worked out though yet… @ bob: The Constitution very wisely makes no mention of poitical parties. There were a few more in the early days, but really the bulk of politicians belonged to the big two, and it kind of just evolved that way. They have more or less rigged the system to prevent minor parties from gaining traction. I’m quixotic about it, myself.
Ok let us get back onto part of why we are here, more PACT updates: First of all some news on an amendment to it: PACT Amendments Drama Ruling from most recent hearing Ken