Did Congress leave a huge loophole in the new spending bill? - Polidicks

[QUOTE]The rider, introduced by Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), says [I]"none of the funds contained in this Act may be used to enact any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance."[/I] House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), another ardent drug warrior, claims this spending restriction "prohibits both federal and local funds from being used to implement a referendum legalizing recreational marijuana use in the District." But that is not quite accurate, since the rider refers to enactment, not implementation.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]By contrast, an earlier version of the Harris rider dealt with spending to "enact or carry out" decriminalization or legalization of any Schedule I drug. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's congressional delegate, says that difference could prove crucial, because Initiative 71, the D.C. ballot measure legalizing marijuana possession, home cultivation, and sharing, "was enacted when it was approved overwhelmingly by voters in November." The initiative's elimination of penalties for specified marijuana-related activities is "self-executing," Norton says, requiring no additional legislation by the D.C. Council or by Congress. In other words, the event Harris seeks to prevent has already happened.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Harris and his allies point out that Initiative 71 will not take effect until it survives congressional review, which does not begin until D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson officially submits the measure to Congress. At that point, Congress has 30 legislative days to pass a joint resolution rejecting the initiative. If Congress fails to pass a resolution during the review period, the initiative takes effect automatically.[/QUOTE] [url]http://reason.com/archives/2014/12/15/did-congress-stop-marijuana-legalization[/url] [url]http://blogs.rollcall.com/hill-blotter/d-c-attorney-general-unsure-how-marijuana-rider-affects-district/?dcz=[/url]

Boy do I hate this shit.

[quote]pass a joint resolution[/quote] [img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/weed.png[/img] x1

In modern times we might need to rethink how DC counts in the US, their citizens have no congressional voice, and can't really self govern Its rather interesting that the republicans, champions of locals government seem to not be opposed to using the heavy boot of the feds to squash dc's own government

[QUOTE=Sableye;46719348]In modern times we might need to rethink how DC counts in the US, their citizens have no congressional voice, and can't really self govern [b]Its rather interesting that the republicans, champions of locals government seem to not be opposed to using the heavy boot of the feds to squash dc's own government[/b][/QUOTE] Yeah I guess if you've had your head buried in the sand for the last 40 years. :v:

Government overreach is a rampant issue, except when it prevents citizens from making their own lifestyle choices.

[QUOTE=Sableye;46719348]In modern times we might need to rethink how DC counts in the US, their citizens have no congressional voice, and can't really self govern Its rather interesting that the republicans, champions of locals government seem to not be opposed to using the heavy boot of the feds to squash dc's own government[/QUOTE] DC was never intended to have it's own truly independent government, as it is the center of US federal operation, it is a federally administered city for the most part. As far as I know this is intended to prevent the city from being able to get in the way of federal operation and/or divert too much funds from the federal gov. In addition it is a complex states rights issue since you wouldn't want the location of the federal government to be an independent state with votes in congress, thus being able to vote on granting itself privileges, esp in cases where it would directly conflict with federal law.

So you cant use federal funds to fund ideas that are against the government views. I suppose that makes sense, but its pretty useless since voters already approved a referendum

The real problem is congress passing massively huge, complicated bills that contain completely unrelated content. Each issue should be addressed individually and as simply as possible.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46720538]The real problem is congress passing massively huge, complicated bills that contain completely unrelated content. Each issue should be addressed individually and as simply as possible.[/QUOTE] If we had an actually functioning democracy fairly electing people to the senate, they wouldn't be adding riders to bills in the first place because they'd be called out for it and it'd hurt their reelection chances. The REAL problem is that a lot of these people know they'll be reelected no matter what because our election system is bullshit, and that's not even considering the ones that are just in it for the lobbying money and being hired after they quit for a high-paying do-nothing job as a reward for supporting corporate interests. Only way to fix this is to get corporate spending out of politics, but politicians are making sure that it just gets worse and worse. We've reached the point of no return, where our democracy is eroding at a higher rate than we can repair it.

This spending bill is a wonderful example of exactly what kind of legislation Americans will enjoy in the next two years. Campaign finance deregulation, pension cuts, FDIC insurance for Wall Street gambling, crony capitalism...yup, sounds about right. Exxon and Goldman Sachs say thank you for voting GOP. [editline]15th December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;46720538]The real problem is congress passing massively huge, complicated bills that contain completely unrelated content. Each issue should be addressed individually and as simply as possible.[/QUOTE] It's not a bug. It's a feature.

[QUOTE=nintenman1;46720403]DC was never intended to have it's own truly independent government, as it is the center of US federal operation, it is a federally administered city for the most part. As far as I know this is intended to prevent the city from being able to get in the way of federal operation and/or divert too much funds from the federal gov. In addition it is a complex states rights issue since you wouldn't want the location of the federal government to be an independent state with votes in congress, thus being able to vote on granting itself privileges, esp in cases where it would directly conflict with federal law.[/QUOTE] Yes but DC was never ment to be populated, until recent history, DC has very much been a seasonal town, where most of its population arrived for congress and left with the ending of sessions. Legislators brought their families to live there and the few government agencies that ran from DC had their own people, much of its history has been much like a college campus instead of a city. Today however DC is one of the more densly populated areas in the US, and it needs the freedom to be a metropolis. Many of the fears that prompted DC just don't exist today. The federal government has critical agencies all over the country and there hasn't been any problems. Also as far as preventing croneyism the district does t work, states already petition the ruling party for special rights and then bawl to the supreme court when they don't get them, look at the ACA, states have pleeded to congress to get special permissions

[QUOTE=sgman91;46720538]The real problem is congress passing massively huge, complicated bills that contain completely unrelated content. Each issue should be addressed individually and as simply as possible.[/QUOTE] Someone should sneak in a rider bill that does just that. And also stops with the stupid names that lead to stupid patriotic abbreviations.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;46721094]If we had an actually functioning democracy fairly electing people to the senate, they wouldn't be adding riders to bills in the first place because they'd be called out for it and it'd hurt their reelection chances. The REAL problem is that a lot of these people know they'll be reelected no matter what because our election system is bullshit, and that's not even considering the ones that are just in it for the lobbying money and being hired after they quit for a high-paying do-nothing job as a reward for supporting corporate interests.[/QUOTE] By "fairly elect" I assume you mean elected in the way you like because, as it stands, it's already fair, as in anyone can run and people can vote for whoever they want. We did make it less fair through so called campaign finance reform by making personal wealth an essential ingredient to running for any major political office because it's basically impossible to get funded through small individual donations. I'm sure many of these rider bills are supported by a majority of their individual state voter base. If anything they might get praised for trying to "get stuff done." [QUOTE]Only way to fix this is to get corporate spending out of politics, but politicians are making sure that it just gets worse and worse. We've reached the point of no return, where our democracy is eroding at a higher rate than we can repair it.[/QUOTE] Corporate spending, really? Is that the reason the vast majority of the voter base is ignorant on basic issues? Sorry, I don't think it's that easy to point fingers. Also, corporations are effected to an incredible degree by much of congressional legislation. Of course they are should be able to try and argue their case. If people are too stupid and/or ignorant to know and care about what they're politician is doing, then that falls directly on the general populace's lap. [editline]15th December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=darunner;46721911]stupid names that lead to stupid patriotic abbreviations.[/QUOTE] This is also hilariously stupid. The "Affordable Care Act" or the "Patriot Act." The best part is that people are so dumb that they fall for it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46721990]By "fairly elect" I assume you mean elected in the way you like because, as it stands, it's already fair, as in anyone can run and people can vote for whoever they want.[/QUOTE] Do you seriously not fucking know about Gerrymandering?

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;46722272]Do you seriously not fucking know about Gerrymandering?[/QUOTE] The Senate (the legislature you mentioned) can't be gerrymandered. Each state, at its federal Senate election, elects a single Senator from the entire state being the electorate. The only way that can be gerrymandered is for the relevant state governments to re-draw their state borders every two years, which is unrealistic. Do you seriously not fucking know about your domestic politics?

[QUOTE=sgman91;46721990]By "fairly elect" I assume you mean elected in the way you like because, as it stands, it's already fair, as in anyone can run and people can vote for whoever they want. We did make it less fair through so called campaign finance reform by making personal wealth an essential ingredient to running for any major political office because it's basically impossible to get funded through small individual donations.[/quote] put simply, the efficacy of the average voter, and even mass-based voter groups, [URL="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9354310"]are severely limited[/URL] in comparison to economic elites and business interests. similarly, the voting system we use is inherently unrepresentative of the population, at least in terms of the house of representatives. the structure in which we determine the winners of congressional elections leads to the inability of third parties to arise and thus leads to ineffective representation of certain political perspectives. on the simplest level, in a district that votes 60% liberal between two liberal parties (30% each), a conservative ballot of 40% is claimed the winner despite not having the majority of the votes. this, in tandem with extremism and increasing polarization, has led to situations where someone who believes in laissez-fair economic policy but progressive social policy is forced to choose between a democratic candidate (who gives the latter but not the former) and a republican candidate (who gives the former but not the latter). it's called the spoiler effect, where people don't necessarily vote for the candidates they want, but vote against the candidates that they don't. [QUOTE]I'm sure many of these rider bills are supported by a majority of their individual state voter base. If anything they might get praised for trying to "get stuff done."[/quote] you cannot absolve politicians of all blame for gridlock when their campaigns exploit times of crisis (both in terms of economy and security) to feed into extremist and polarizing rhetoric. in the game of politics, a polarized market is a seller's market. [quote]Corporate spending, really? Is that the reason the vast majority of the voter base is ignorant on basic issues? Sorry, I don't think it's that easy to point fingers.[/QUOTE] campaign finance most importantly effects primaries rather than races between parties. like i alluded to before, the candidates that receive the most funding are most likely to get press and thus most likely to be selected by that party to run. no doubt the lack of education is a confounding factor, but this simply comes down to the fact that (for a host of factors) voters are not accurately represented in the legislature, whether that representation entails misinformation or otherwise. [quote]Also, corporations are effected to an incredible degree by much of congressional legislation. Of course they are should be able to try and argue their case. If people are too stupid and/or ignorant to know and care about what they're politician is doing, then that falls directly on the general populace's lap.[/QUOTE] except that even if they did know, they wouldn't have anything to do about it. they're stuck with the same candidates as before, because new candidates often don't have the resources to champion over incumbents and corporate-sponsored frontrunners. the campaigns of these fresh candidates often don't receive funding, because many people either don't know (or don't know enough about) the new candidate running, and those that most oppose the current status quo in our election system are more often poor. in other words, it isn't just the populace making bad decisions, [I]it's the populace having limited choices to begin with and even less agency in broadening those choices.[/I]

[QUOTE=Antdawg;46722653]The Senate (the legislature you mentioned) can't be gerrymandered. Each state, at its federal Senate election, elects a single Senator from the entire state being the electorate. The only way that can be gerrymandered is for the relevant state governments to re-draw their state borders every two years, which is unrealistic. Do you seriously not fucking know about your domestic politics?[/QUOTE] Senate can totally be rigged, all a candidate has to do is outspend, which is easy enough because the incumbent usually receives huge funding from state industries as well as industries that they may be apart of a commitie that legislates them. Basically makes challenging the current seat increasingly harder [editline]16th December 2014[/editline] Also states elect TWO senators...

[QUOTE=Sableye;46724179]Senate can totally be rigged, all a candidate has to do is outspend, which is easy enough because the incumbent usually receives huge funding from state industries as well as industries that they may be apart of a commitie that legislates them. Basically makes challenging the current seat increasingly harder [editline]16th December 2014[/editline] Also states elect TWO senators...[/QUOTE] 'Outspending' isnt rigging. On the general election day, Democrat supporters will vote Democrat. Republican supporters will vote Republican. Swing voters will either not vote or be influenced by the most effective platform, not necessarily the most expensive. Excessive spending would be more of an issue in primaries, but that depends on how each party organises theirs. I like how you try to make me sound dumb by mentioning each state elects two Senators. Yes, that's true and I'm not arguing with that. But if you read my post you would realise I said "Each state, at its federal Senate election, elects a single Senator...". One third of the Senate is elected every two years, and when a state holds its general election including a vote for the federal Senate, only one Senator is elected at that election for that state. Unlike the Australian Senate, it is not a vote for multiple seats simultaneously.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;46722653]The Senate (the legislature you mentioned) can't be gerrymandered. Each state, at its federal Senate election, elects a single Senator from the entire state being the electorate. The only way that can be gerrymandered is for the relevant state governments to re-draw their state borders every two years, which is unrealistic. Do you seriously not fucking know about your domestic politics?[/QUOTE] I was referring to the house as well as the senate with that part. Sorry, should have been more clear.

[QUOTE=nintenman1;46720403] In addition it is a complex states rights issue since you wouldn't want the location of the federal government to be an independent state with votes in congress, thus being able to vote on granting itself privileges, esp in cases where it would directly conflict with federal law.[/QUOTE] That's why we have congress to grant themselves privileges instead.