|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
They'll keep pre-existing conditions and dependent coverage until age 26, while eliminating the mandate, and giving everyone health savings accounts! That could quite possibly end in even higher premiums. They are actually at significant risk with their replace plan - this is something that's hard to get right, and easy to make worse. But they've been grandstanding since 09 about how they can do it better.
|
On December 16 2016 03:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +In a surprise extra special session on Wednesday called with just hours notice, the Republican-led North Carolina state legislature introduced measures that would reduce the power of the incoming Democratic governor.
Legislators had convened to address disaster relief, but when the session called by lame duck Gov. Pat McCrory ended on Wednesday, the General Assembly quickly called a new special session to pass additional initially unspecified legislation.
Republican lawmakers' last-minute attempt to limit the state governor's powers comes after McCrory conceded in a tight re-election race to his Democratic challenger, state Attorney General Roy Cooper. McCrory dragged the race out for nearly a month beyond Election Day, using a flurry of ballot complaints to decry widespread voter fraud. But after complaints filed by Republicans were largely dismissed, McCrory finally conceded.
Republicans already have a supermajority in both houses of the General Assembly, empowering them to override vetos. But if the legislation introduced on Wednesday becomes law, Cooper will have even less power as governor.
Legislation introduced in the state House on Wednesday would mandate that the governor's cabinet appointees be approved by the state Senate and would cut the number of political appointees that serve under the governor from 1,500 to 300. This comes after the legislature drastically expanded the number of "exempt positions," which are often political in nature, under McCrory in 2013.
The bill would also eliminate the governor's ability to appoint members to the board of trustees for the University of North Carolina System and to the state education board.
Republican legislators are also pushing for changes to the state elections board. Legislation in the state Senate would merge the State Board of Elections with the ethics commission, giving the new board subpoena power. It would also expand the board from five to eight members, with four members from each party.
This will eliminate Democrats' control over the state election board. Currently, the state board is made up of five members, three from the governor's party and two from the minority. So the new legislation would prevent Democrats from taking control over the state elections board when Cooper takes office. Legislation would also change the make-up of county boards, eliminating power from the governor's party and making the boards completely bipartisan.
The new state elections board would be chaired by Republicans in even years — when most elections take place — and by Democrats in odd years, as Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UC-Irvine School of Law, noted on his blog.
The legislation would also make state Supreme Court elections partisan and shift some power from the state Supreme Court to the state court of appeals. In the November election, the state Supreme Court flipped to Democratic control, but there is still a Republican majority on the court of appeals. Source
How often do state governments strip away the powers of an office they lose in an election? A quick Google search didn't really give me anything to read about the subject besides this story.
|
On December 16 2016 05:52 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 03:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:In a surprise extra special session on Wednesday called with just hours notice, the Republican-led North Carolina state legislature introduced measures that would reduce the power of the incoming Democratic governor.
Legislators had convened to address disaster relief, but when the session called by lame duck Gov. Pat McCrory ended on Wednesday, the General Assembly quickly called a new special session to pass additional initially unspecified legislation.
Republican lawmakers' last-minute attempt to limit the state governor's powers comes after McCrory conceded in a tight re-election race to his Democratic challenger, state Attorney General Roy Cooper. McCrory dragged the race out for nearly a month beyond Election Day, using a flurry of ballot complaints to decry widespread voter fraud. But after complaints filed by Republicans were largely dismissed, McCrory finally conceded.
Republicans already have a supermajority in both houses of the General Assembly, empowering them to override vetos. But if the legislation introduced on Wednesday becomes law, Cooper will have even less power as governor.
Legislation introduced in the state House on Wednesday would mandate that the governor's cabinet appointees be approved by the state Senate and would cut the number of political appointees that serve under the governor from 1,500 to 300. This comes after the legislature drastically expanded the number of "exempt positions," which are often political in nature, under McCrory in 2013.
The bill would also eliminate the governor's ability to appoint members to the board of trustees for the University of North Carolina System and to the state education board.
Republican legislators are also pushing for changes to the state elections board. Legislation in the state Senate would merge the State Board of Elections with the ethics commission, giving the new board subpoena power. It would also expand the board from five to eight members, with four members from each party.
This will eliminate Democrats' control over the state election board. Currently, the state board is made up of five members, three from the governor's party and two from the minority. So the new legislation would prevent Democrats from taking control over the state elections board when Cooper takes office. Legislation would also change the make-up of county boards, eliminating power from the governor's party and making the boards completely bipartisan.
The new state elections board would be chaired by Republicans in even years — when most elections take place — and by Democrats in odd years, as Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UC-Irvine School of Law, noted on his blog.
The legislation would also make state Supreme Court elections partisan and shift some power from the state Supreme Court to the state court of appeals. In the November election, the state Supreme Court flipped to Democratic control, but there is still a Republican majority on the court of appeals. Source How often do state governments strip away the powers of an office they lose in an election? A quick Google search didn't really give me anything to read about the subject besides this story.
I assume they don't often have the super majority required to push it through.
|
On December 16 2016 05:52 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 03:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:In a surprise extra special session on Wednesday called with just hours notice, the Republican-led North Carolina state legislature introduced measures that would reduce the power of the incoming Democratic governor.
Legislators had convened to address disaster relief, but when the session called by lame duck Gov. Pat McCrory ended on Wednesday, the General Assembly quickly called a new special session to pass additional initially unspecified legislation.
Republican lawmakers' last-minute attempt to limit the state governor's powers comes after McCrory conceded in a tight re-election race to his Democratic challenger, state Attorney General Roy Cooper. McCrory dragged the race out for nearly a month beyond Election Day, using a flurry of ballot complaints to decry widespread voter fraud. But after complaints filed by Republicans were largely dismissed, McCrory finally conceded.
Republicans already have a supermajority in both houses of the General Assembly, empowering them to override vetos. But if the legislation introduced on Wednesday becomes law, Cooper will have even less power as governor.
Legislation introduced in the state House on Wednesday would mandate that the governor's cabinet appointees be approved by the state Senate and would cut the number of political appointees that serve under the governor from 1,500 to 300. This comes after the legislature drastically expanded the number of "exempt positions," which are often political in nature, under McCrory in 2013.
The bill would also eliminate the governor's ability to appoint members to the board of trustees for the University of North Carolina System and to the state education board.
Republican legislators are also pushing for changes to the state elections board. Legislation in the state Senate would merge the State Board of Elections with the ethics commission, giving the new board subpoena power. It would also expand the board from five to eight members, with four members from each party.
This will eliminate Democrats' control over the state election board. Currently, the state board is made up of five members, three from the governor's party and two from the minority. So the new legislation would prevent Democrats from taking control over the state elections board when Cooper takes office. Legislation would also change the make-up of county boards, eliminating power from the governor's party and making the boards completely bipartisan.
The new state elections board would be chaired by Republicans in even years — when most elections take place — and by Democrats in odd years, as Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UC-Irvine School of Law, noted on his blog.
The legislation would also make state Supreme Court elections partisan and shift some power from the state Supreme Court to the state court of appeals. In the November election, the state Supreme Court flipped to Democratic control, but there is still a Republican majority on the court of appeals. Source How often do state governments strip away the powers of an office they lose in an election? A quick Google search didn't really give me anything to read about the subject besides this story.
that level of dickishness seems fairly rare; but that's only going off my personal memory.
|
Who would have guessed Russia would take action when NATO was pushing for Ukraine to enter. Really? How stupid do you have to be? It's not like the US never invaded a country on our door step that was a pawn of the Warsaw pact...*cough*...*cough*.
|
On December 16 2016 05:37 Doodsmack wrote:
They'll keep pre-existing conditions and dependent coverage until age 26, while eliminating the mandate, and giving everyone health savings accounts! That could quite possibly end in even higher premiums. They are actually at significant risk with their replace plan - this is something that's hard to get right, and easy to make worse. But they've been grandstanding since 09 about how they can do it better.
If they do that without fixing anything a lot of companies could just straight pull out of the personal insurance market entirely. least thats what a lot of the experts are saying (at least if they defund it without having an alternative set up). Price wise it would be cheaper if your young and healthy terrible if your everybody else.
|
Don't they have the full text of their proposed replacement all prepared and ready to go as soon as trump's in office?
I mean, they've had like 6 years to come up with their plan; sure the details change some as time goes on, but it wouldn't be that hard to have the entire plan ready to go by now; and be continually adjusting the wording of the plan to compensate for changing conditions.
|
On December 16 2016 07:28 zlefin wrote:
Don't they have the full text of their proposed replacement all prepared and ready to go as soon as trump's in office?
I mean, they've had like 6 years to come up with their plan; sure the details change some as time goes on, but it wouldn't be that hard to have the entire plan ready to go by now; and be continually adjusting the wording of the plan to compensate for changing conditions.
You're giving them a lot of credit.
|
On December 16 2016 07:28 zlefin wrote:
Don't they have the full text of their proposed replacement all prepared and ready to go as soon as trump's in office?
I mean, they've had like 6 years to come up with their plan; sure the details change some as time goes on, but it wouldn't be that hard to have the entire plan ready to go by now; and be continually adjusting the wording of the plan to compensate for changing conditions.
passing a healthcare bill is a lot harder than just defunding whats already there. other than Ryan I haven't seen an actual plan and I don't think his is exactly popular.
|
On December 16 2016 07:45 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 07:28 zlefin wrote:
Don't they have the full text of their proposed replacement all prepared and ready to go as soon as trump's in office?
I mean, they've had like 6 years to come up with their plan; sure the details change some as time goes on, but it wouldn't be that hard to have the entire plan ready to go by now; and be continually adjusting the wording of the plan to compensate for changing conditions. passing a healthcare bill is a lot harder than just defunding whats already there. other than Ryan I haven't seen an actual plan and I don't think his is exactly popular.
I know it's a lot harder; but they've had 6 years to come to an agreement on a replacement, so they should have a full text completely ready imho. they might need to renegotiate a few terms based on how the factions in the party have shifted of course.
|
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/15/rand-paul-restore-the-bill-of-rights/
Two hundred and twenty-five years ago today, a young nation made ten additions to its already revolutionary Constitution.
These amendments – this “Bill of Rights” – said we could speak our minds, worship freely, defend ourselves, be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and expect to be treated fairly if accused of a crime.
In contrast to almost all of the legislation Congress passes today, the Bill of Rights is full of language such as “Congress shall make no law” and “The right of the people… shall not be violated,” along with a guarantee that non-delegated powers or those not specifically denied the states “are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
With this document, the Founders drew a line in the sand a few inches from the government’s feet.
Not all of these 225 years have been kind to the Bill of Rights, though. It’s been challenged, debated, and far too often just ignored.
Don’t be fooled into thinking this would have surprised the Founders.
We have the Bill of Rights precisely because the Founding Fathers knew government can’t resist stretching its limits. Much like Benjamin Franklin’s reported statement that we had a Republic if we could “keep it,” the Bill of Rights relies on the people holding government accountable.
When some in government say “of course we can,” you and I are supposed to use the Bill of Rights to say, “No, you can’t.”
|
Naturally, Paul's spiel lacks similarly flowery language with regards to the 11th Amendment, likely due in large part to its origin story vis a vis Georgia getting pissed that the federal government was going to make it honor its war debts.
|
Some nice platitudes; little more.
Also funny how he mentions the 2nd amendment when the republicans push something that's not very originalist at all about it these days. ofc rand might not be with them; the libertarian wing has quite a few differences.
|
do they feel that same way about the constitutional right of flag burning and that taking away a naturally born citizens citizenship is unconstitutional?
also the supreme court has ruled many times that a lot of the bill or rights isn't unconditional and unlimited rights.
|
|
|
Someone remind me again why anyone thought he would please?
|
Is it standard practice for presidents to divest while entering office? All I'm seeing on google is stuff related to Trump's not divesting and some bill being pushed to require it.
If it is standard, should it be standard for Senators/Representatives as well?
|
It's legally required for the rest of his cabinet I think, but the president is exempt from it. Nonetheless, in the past, presidents have held themselves to the same standard as their subordinates. Nothing in the law says they should though.
|
On December 16 2016 12:58 Chewbacca. wrote:
Is it standard practice for presidents to divest while entering office? All I'm seeing on google is stuff related to Trump's not divesting and some bill being pushed to require it.
If it is standard, should it be standard for Senators/Representatives as well?
"it's standard practice" sounds like a reason from someone who missed the last year or so.
|
Trump actually very recently considered being both president and businessman at the same time LOL.
There's really a question of competence hanging over someone who would write these tweets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
