Morgan

The GOP moves to usurp the powers of a democratic governor as they also did in NC, and they had tried to do with Obama, this seems to be the strategy to steel away our governing process, trying to make the governor nothing but a figurehead and have all the power under the one-party majority. This is what undermines us and our governing structure the framers have put in place. We were NEVER intended to be ruled by ONE demonstrative party.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Would you please tell us what powers you are writing about? Exactly what legislation or laws were written or proposed? And what power was taken from obama?

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Once again, your ignorance rises:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty." — George Washington, September 19, 1796

John Adams said: " There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

Morgan

From now on anyone who cannot reply to me without an insult I will not reply, so take YOUR ignorance and shove it, along with your one party mantra and dominance, and your quote from Adams is completely inappropriate as your party doesn't embrace any other parties but their own.

Morgan

The powers of a majority rule.

Wisconsin Republicans are working through the night to bring together enough votes to pass a sweeping package of lame-duck proposals designed to empower the GOP-controlled Legislature and weaken the incoming Democrat replacing Republican Gov. Scott Walker.

Republicans pushed on Tuesday night into Wednesday through protests, internal disagreement and Democratic opposition. The measures are designed to weaken both incoming Democratic Gov.-elect Tony Evers and Democratic Attorney General-elect Josh Kaul.

Both Evers and Kaul urged Republicans not to do it and warned of lawsuits that would bring more gridlock to Wisconsin when the new administration, and the first divided government in 10 years, takes over.

The measures would also limit early voting to no more than two weeks before an election, a move Democrats say is illegal.

Outgoing Gov. Scott Walker (R) has signaled that he expects to sign the bill into law, which would give the Legislature control of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. board, make it easier for legislators to hire private attorneys, limit early voting to two weeks, and require Evers to get permission from the legislature to ban guns in the state Capitol, among other measures.

Republicans also voted on a measure that would protect people with pre-existing conditions, a promise Walker made central to his failed re-election bid. It did not pass. According to The Journal Sentinel, all Democrats and two Republicans in the state Senate voted against the legislation aimed at protecting coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.

Republicans said they opposed the bill for being too similar to the Affordable Care Act, while Democratic senators voted against the bill because it included lifetime caps on coverage.

Powers taken away from Obama through obstruction, for the same reason, making a lame duck president, as quoted by MacConnell

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Were my questions insulting and that is the reason you elected to ignore me?
If I insulted you, please accept my humble apology as I had no intent to insult.
I am interested in the issues you brought up.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Although you seem to be responsive to my question, and perhaps my questions were too vague, but I am looking for specifics or even a link to the proposed packages. I love details... and I despise generalities. As Poppa would say, the devil is in the details.

Morgan

No, you hadn't, can you give me time when you ask a question, time to research? The comment about insulting was to the insulter after you, but in general, that is what I'm doing from now on as I'm sick to death of it and being dragged into that type of dialog, and when there's no one left to talk to I guess It'll be time for me to leave.

Some things can be difficult to find, especially an exact bill that is relatively new, if you know of a site that gets to it quickly I'd love to know.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Morgan,

I too ignore those who have nothing productive to add to comments and threads.
To me, nothing shows immaturity more than schoolyard name-calling.

I apologize for rushing you. I understand that research takes time. I had assumed (and we know the error in assuming) that you had gained this information before submitting your thread. I am patient. I worried that I had said something that was irritating and was linked to those you are ignoring.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Spoken like a true leftist looking to turn the US into a socialist failure.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

You stated that we were never meant to be rules by one party.

I pointed out Adams quote. """John Adams said: " There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."""

I do believe he WAS one of the founding fathers.

So, how is it not appropriate??

Morgan

No apologies necessary, no worries. I didn't know the specifics of what was actually in the Bill, but having this happen in NC I am sensitive to it happening in other places. What appears to be happening is that when there is a majority in the house(per se)they try a control grab. I don't think they should change the laws in order to make any position in government a lame duck, to what end does that serve, the US has never been one for faux figureheads.

The framers put in place systems to prevent the strong arm of one party and that is the fairest and most just. This is where I believe it is important to maintain our level of integrity. This is not a party issue. I still am of the belief that our congress would work better with set seats to represent the party's and would more fairly represent the variety of people. People would replace people within their own party and this power struggle for complete control would end, which would also allow a more balanced vote on issues. I would suggest three Republican, Democrat and Unaffiliated. Just a thought.

Morgan

Maybe I can say how I interpret that quote, which I agree with 100% and then you can give me your version. Adams fear was what is happening right night and has happened before but maybe not to the degree it is presently. He was not endorsing one party, that would mean a form of autocratic/dictatorial power. I believe he was referring to having more parties as we use to have, though still two major ones, there were more branches, Conservative, Republic, Libertarian, Democratic, Liberal, even a Communistic. Now we also have the Green Party and the Constitution Party let us also not forget unaffiliated which Washington preferred.

Yes, you're correct he was a founding father.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

You might be right. I have always assumed he was talking about "party's" in general.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Morgan,

Just to make sure we are on the same page. When I read your initial post, I understood that you were angry over some law that the outgoing (the lame duck administration) was trying to pass to make the incoming elected official's job harder or impossible. And reading this, it seems you are saying that you do not know what laws these are, have not read them, or have a link to the offending legislation. But, you are upset because of the lame duck position that the new administration will be put into. A lame duck position is a term that applies to the outgoing official making most of their laws ineffectual. So, I am kinda confused on why you are angry.

What are you suggesting in your second paragraph? As I read it, it seems that you are suggesting that the representatives should not be voted into office, that the seat should be stagnant. A mandatory limitation. Meaning that the only position to be settled by vote would be for President.... or would you like to see that changed too? Am I understanding you right?

I will set this aside and read it again later. I may have simply missed your point because I have not slept for a few days. I admit, I have not searched for the new legislation. I promise I will do that before drawing further conclusions. Sorry, but I guess I am too tired to be on OPP right now.