The First Hundred Days of the Obama Administration

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Yeah, I know, we can't each go whisper in our representative's ear, but perhaps if no one were whispering in their ears, they'd have to actually seek out the facts instead of having a very specific version of it presented on a silver platter.

To stop lobbying we could:

1) Actually follow the founders intention and only spend money on things that document says we should.

or, even better

2) Actually follow the founders intention and have one representative for every 30,000 citizens.....with something like 10,000 congresspersons voting on spending bills no lobbyist could possibly influence enough to really sway a vote.

Once we decided to view the Constitution as something "quaint" we opened the door for lobbyist and closed it for liberty

Edit to add: Great minds think alike; Scaegles, you beat me to it.

[Andrew]

I agree with sleepyjeff.

Alert the media!

[Alex]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

To stop lobbying we could:

1) Actually follow...
2) Actually follow...

Neither one of those things would get rid of lobbyists as evidenced by the fact that when both of those things were true (very limited government spending and small class size) lobbying still existed.

So, if that is what you think Madison meant by "safe and competent guardian of the interests" then Madison was wrong from the beginning. Instead I think he just meant it would help keep the lobbying interests local.

But of course, we do all tend to approve of lobbying supporting things we agree with ("you go Audobon Society and get us a new national park!") while deploring lobbying in favor of things we disagree with ("you rotten coal mining companies!").

Though I think an argument can be made that federal lobbying has definitely been rendered more important as federalism has died a slow death over the last century. But most people on this message board support that death.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

To stop lobbying we could:

1) Actually follow the founders intention and only spend money on things that document says we should.

or, even better

2) Actually follow the founders intention and have one representative for every 30,000 citizens.....with something like 10,000 congresspersons voting on spending bills no lobbyist could possibly influence enough to really sway a vote.

Once we decided to view the Constitution as something "quaint" we opened the door for lobbyist and closed it for liberty

Edit to add: Great minds think alike; Scaegles, you beat me to it.

1) The Founding Fathers were not able to anticipate our modern society, and it's needs. The Constitution is a framework - not a holy document. If we, as a country, have decided that there are things the federal government should do in order to maintain the common good, then we, as a people, have every right to demand the government do them. I think you would find that eliminating all government programs, and just paying for the military would have horrendous results for this country. Any politician that would seriously attempt such a thing would very quickly be out of a job.

The only people that I see who regard the Constitution as "quaint" are the Republicans who seek to strip us of our rights.

2) 10,000 (about 11,666 actually) representatives would be a disaster! You think Congress is inefficient now? The country would grind to a halt! And where would they meet? How would you provide the needed office space? The logistics alone are staggering. It could never happen.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by JWBear

And where would they meet? How would you provide the needed office space? The logistics alone are staggering. It could never happen.

Skype?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

1) The Founding Fathers were not able to anticipate our modern society, and it's needs.

This is why there is an amendment process. To allow changes if the requirements for changing it are met (in terms of votes and passage).

[Alex]

So you would have the government essentially separated from the people? They get to provide input every 2, 4, 6 years at election time but otherwise we only get to try to influence them when they deign to come seeking our input? We pretty intentionally rejected such forms of government.

Why is government lobbying of other governments different? Heck, in that realm gift giving is viewed as a necessary part of the process (Hey, country X, if you promise to not pursue your own nuclear program/wage war against a neighbor/support our UN resolution we'll build you four nuclear power plants/lower trade barriers/name a tree after you). I'd think it would be even more repugnant.

You didn't say some methods of lobbying are bad, but rather that the very idea of lobbying at all is so repugnant that one day we'll be embarrassed that it ever existed (even though it has always existed in every form of government throughout all time).

Heck, even your own elected representatives are essentially lobbyists. We don't send a member of congress to Washington so that s/he can ignore the local interests back home and only act out of the best interests of the country as a whole, always acting on the average of the national public opinion). No, we expect them to use their influence and understanding of the processes in Washington to hopefully try and make sure local interests are disproportionately represented.

Nowhere in our system of government is there any existence of the idea that when it comes to governing the ideal is that it will at all times exist on a simple "all people's interests are equal" method. Such systems tend not to work in groups larger than small villages where direct democracy can be used in all government decisions and even then lobbying exists.


But anyway, that is all beside the point I was initially making in that the lobbyist rule is stupid. Since it defines a lobbyist in the most meaningless way as being someone who was paid and registered as one and then pretending that no similar conflict of interest exists for the person that hired the lobbyist. In fact, if there is an inherent conflict of interest it is more strongly attached to the community organizer who hires a lobbyist to work their interests than on the lobbyist himself. The latter is just a hired gun and may not even agree with the positions they represent. Such a person should be perfectly fine for inclusion in the adminstration since it could be assumed that once in place he'd actively work in the interests of the new boss.

[JWBear]

You guys are too fast for me!

[Alex]

It does, however, rely on never ever allowing Guam to transition from territory to state. (Just noticed I was sloppy in my quick spreadsheet and my numbers above include Puerto Rico.)

Using the 2 for the smallest method, with Guam in the picture that bumps things up to 3,518 members of the House. Even Wyoming would have six.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Alex

It does, however, rely on never ever allowing Guam to transition from territory to state. (Just noticed I was sloppy in my quick spreadsheet and my numbers above include Puerto Rico.)

Using the 2 for the smallest method, with Guam in the picture that bumps things up to 3,518 members of the House. Even Wyoming would have six.

I don't know about Guam, But the District of Columbia is pushing for statehood and Obama is on record supporting it.