What constitutional changes did Pelosi make?

One person cannot change the constitution anyway.


And give me one shred of evidence that Israel runs the government. I hate unfounded conspiracy theories.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...sage563827/pg1


Representative Ron Paul says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi removed a section from a bill passed by Congress which would have barred the U.S. from going to war with Iran without a congressional vote, claiming she did so at the behest of the leadership of Israel and AIPAC.

Paul, a former Republican presidential contender who formally removed himself from the party’s nomination race last week, makes the allegation on C-SPAN during a recently held foreign policy conference in Virginia.

Paul says Pelosi’s first act as House Speaker in 2006 was to “deliberately” remove a portion of a legislative spending bill which said the United States “can't go to war with Iran without getting approval from Congress.”

According to Paul, Pelosi and her allies in the chamber's Democratic leadership initially accepted the bill designed to outline an Iraq exit strategy, but during a revision of the legislation excluded the statement regarding the need for congressional approval of any military assault on the neighboring country of Iran.

“She [Pelosi] removed it deliberately,” Paul says. “And then, the astounding thing is, when asked why, she said the leadership in Israel asked her to. That was in the newspaper, that was in 'The Washington Post,' that she was asked by AIPAC and others not to do that."

Paul implies Pelosi, desperate to advance her flawed spending legislation, bargained away the proposal that would have been the House leadership's primary vehicle for challenging the administration's policies in the region.

According to John Nichols, who covered the story about Pelosi’s capitulation at the time for “The Nation,” Pelosi was "under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).”

Paul's allegation is corroborated by 'The Asia Times', which in another article published at the time says AIPAC was strongly against attaching "a provision to a Pentagon spending bill that would require President Bush to get congressional approval before attacking Iran. AIPAC was strongly against it because it viewed the legislation as taking the military option 'off the table.' The provision was killed."

The article also cites Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, as saying [Pelosi's] decision was due to AIPAC.

I find Ron Paul to be a pretty good person, but his conspiracies are just that. Conspiracies.

This was a bill, not the constitution.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

12 is my shoe size, now assume the position

__________________

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know them by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against them.
-Jonathan Swift

---"Thoughts On Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting."

9 people can. [SCOTUS]

I guess you didn't read the post. Ron Paul's "conspiracies" were reported in the Washington post and the Asia Times, and corroborated by fellow Democrat Kucinich. Pelosi herself admitted it. What is to disbelieve?

True, it was just a bill. The bill would have said "follow the constitution". But Pelosi didn't like that idea.

__________________
Behind this mask, there is more than flesh and blood. Behind this mask is an idea. And ideas are bulletproof.

What was wrong with Athenian Democracy?

__________________
Behind this mask, there is more than flesh and blood. Behind this mask is an idea. And ideas are bulletproof.

Well only citizens were allowed to vote. This consists of only free, land owning people. That eliminates one third of the population. Women were not allowed to vote. That elminates another half. Therefore, one sixth of the population was allowed to vote. 16.6 percent was allowed to vote.

From Federalist No. 10:

In other words, a pure (or Greek or Athenian) democracy has no limitations on what the majority can do. There is no guarantee of freedom; tyranny of the majority reigns. What hendrix said may or may not be true in a pure democracy; that was only an aspect of the social climate. The problems with it are much deeper. However, hendrix does point out one possible result of the abuse of a minority by the majority. Disenfranchisement of minorities is one example of that abuse. Eventually, pure democracies have a tendency of degenerating into dictatorship. All it takes is a skillful orator or a need for highly centralized government and the people will give away the power they have.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

Well besides giving the "really twisted" roots of the Democratic Party, you also have to understand that the Democratic Party nor the Republican party are the same party as 100 years ago, nor are they the same party as 50 years ago.

In fact its been within the last 50 years that the southern democrats, the ones that tie the democratic party to slavery, began shifting towards the modern-day republican party. As for Fascism, its been on both sides and the only serious attempt at making the entirety of the United States come under the wing of a Fascist government originated with conservative democrats, such as Prescott Bush, that should be regarded more as modern-day republicans instead of democrats. However, it seems that Jonah Goldberg treats that form of conservatism with little acknowledgment.

To know where Republicans emerged, which really isn't the Federalist party unless you are arguing technicalities, you have to look back at antebellum United States which was split between Whigs and Democrats. When the Kansas Nebraska Act was passed it essentially split the Whig party down North-south lines. So essentially the Whig Party dissolved and the remnants of it in the North formed the Republican party which attracted many northern democrats, while many dissafected southern Whigs went to the Democratic party. So the Republican Party actually favored a strong federal government while Democrats opposed it vehemently (which is kind of the opposite today).

As for the Democratic Party, technically its origins started with Jefferson, but it was partially dissolved during Monroe's administration when the Federalist lost all of their reputation. However it made its real revival during the Jacksonian era. It must be noted that the democratic party, which was bascally a SUPER libertarian party in the early 19th Century resembled very little the Democratic party at the end of the 19th Century.

It's a very fascinating history to watch how these parties have shifted their positions several times.

As for modern-day party politics, its a bit more complicated to track every last position that the parties stand in with the EXTREMELY broad base on both sides. However current events have shaped the parties dynamically such as the revival of religious movements, the Civil Rights Movement, the slow dismemberment of the New Deal with Reagonomics, etc. However suffice to say, its pretty obvious that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have little or no ties with their original positions. They just like shouting off how they are the party of Lincoln or Jefferson.

__________________
Signature: