GOP controls all three branches, now what?

J

justice4all

New member
Throughout the campaign, some members of this forum were suggesting that we should vote Republican, because they are our best chance for preserving the recognition of our RKBA.

It appears that there will now be a GOP majority in the House, in the Senate with the VP as a tie-breaker, a GOP president, and a conservative majority in the Supreme Court.

If ever there was a time to roll back recent restrictions against so-called assault rifles and hi-cap mags, and to rein in the excesses and abuses of the ATF/FBI/IRS/EPA, etc, it is now. Now is the time to put up or shut up.

Personally, I think that the GOP has gotten too far away from its roots, and is either philosophically weak on these issues, or else too afraid of certain members of their constituency to stand up for Constitutional government. If this happens, I hope that the NRA will realize they have been abandoned by both major parties, and will look elsewhere in 2004. I hope to see Jesse run on some sort of Reform/Libertarian/Constitution party coalition, if the GOP does not return to its Goldwater?Reagan roots.

What do you think?
 
Congresscritters respond to whoever yells the loudest. I would say that we need to yell at those in office until they do what they are supposed to do, and return the government to it's Constitutional limits.

Even if Jesse did get in in 2004, it won't mean squat if he doesn't have a congress to back him up.

Doesn't anyone remember Carter?
 
What outcome would you most like to see?

I would most like to see either a national reciprocity of CCW licenses (in other words, if your state has issued you a CCW, it is valid nationwide)or a national CCW law. Here's why:

-Continues the most positive legislative momentum we've had: the majority of states passisng "shall issue" legislation.
-Puts additional pressure on states that do not allow CCW or are not "shall issue" (if its national reciprocity.) Or extends the right to millions who do not have it (if national CCW).
-Will further highlight the reduced crime rates in "shall issue" states as this becomes part of the national debate on the subject. Hopefully highlight that the liberal position has no basis in fact. Hopefully get into the national consciousness that more gun control = more crime, not less.
-There is more safety value and crime-deterrent value in being able to legally arm yourself at all times than there is in being able to posess assault weapons or (more) hi-cap magazines.

Some will disagree because they object to the gov't issuing a "license" for a right the constitution guarantees. I am very sympathetic to that position. It has great merit. But I think that's 2-3 steps away. I would rather have the guaranteed right to arm/defend myself wherever I may be.

I also think this type of legislation stands a good chance of passing. If all the Representatives and Senators of states with "shall issue" laws approved the measure, it would pass both houses. Bush would sign it. SCOTUS would likely support it over any legal challenges (and I'm sure Boxer & Feinstien would love to raise some).

Whaddaya think?
 
RH - For the most part, you can rely on the following as a rule:

If someone is saying something good about a Jesse, they're talking about Mr. Ventura.

If someone is saying something bad about a Jesse, they're talking about Mr. Jackson.
 
Don't look for much good to come from the GOP, aka The Stupid Party. Look, they won control of the Congress with their Contract with America, but for the last few election cycles they've been following the DemocRATS lead...and steadily losing seats in both the House and Senate...and they STILL keep following the DemocRATS. Can't learn, hence the term "The Stupid Party." (Even the senior GOP senator from Texas, Phil Gramm, questioned their actions when they were rolling back and undoing their accomplishments!)

If history is any guide, all we can hope for is for them to hold the line for a couple of years, or "be nice" to DemocRATS, after which The Stupid Party will lose control of the Congress.

Then we'll be in for it . . .
 
"RH - For the most part, you can rely on the following as a rule:

If someone is saying something good about a Jesse, they're talking about Mr. Ventura.

If someone is saying something bad about a Jesse, they're talking about Mr. Jackson."

Actually, the first Jesse that came to mind for me, was Jesse Helms....
 
If Bush is elected by the Electorals then we must make a full court press to have our second Amendment rights Respected by the Legislature AND/OR the Supreme court.

This will be our "last best hope". Already the U.N. is gaining steam ( via desertification treaty). The populace has been sufficiently dumbed down. The Republicans feel they must resort to "bread and circus" like the Democrats in order to win political seats.

This presidency will ethier mark a turning point in the republic OR contribute to its demise by leaving in place a faulty mindset and many unconstitutional laws.
 
"Control", hardly

A slight majority in the House; a extremely slim majority in the Senate....and (assuming no turncoat electors)a squeak by win in the Executive branch.

Then consider that the reps from both Leg. branches want to be re-elected, paramount. The GOP reps will have to compromise constantly to deflect the ire of the Dems and the media if they even want a chance at re-election. The Dems are irate, so don't expect much, if anything, of what Bush promised or wants to do to pass.
Personally, I think the best scenario would be gridlock...the Dems block what the Reps want; the Reps block what the Dems want...they neutralize each other and effectively leave us alone. But,realistically I suspect the Dems will get more from the Reps than vice versa...as evidenced by past performance when they( GOP) had a serious majority
 
The reality is that the Republicans have only the slimmist majority in the House and only a 1 vote majority in the Senate (counting the VPs vote). In the Senate, it takes a super majority (2/3 of members, IIRC) vote for cloture (end of debate), so it will be basically impossible for the Republicans to stop a fillibuster in the Senate. Anytime a Democratic senator doesn't like the way things are going, he or she can threaten a filibuster. The only way the Republicans could win a vote to end the filibuster (a vote of cloture) is by convincing a bunch of Democrats to vote against another Democrat and at the same time, not lose any of their own senators. Given the partisanship on Capitol Hill, few Democrats (and Republicans) are willing to stray from the party line.

If Bush does indeed win, he will have no mandate, having won the electoral vote by the slimmest of margins and lost the popular vote.

The only way the Republicans will get anything done is by working with the Democrats, because they simply won't have the power to do it otherwise. Consequently, nothing that is controversial is likely to be attempted, and if it is attempted, it won't pass.

I don't understand how anyone can seriously look at the balance of power on Capitol Hill and think that national CCW even has a chance of being seriously considered, let alone passed. Doesn't have a snowballs chance south of the Hades river. Even if the Republicans had the stomach for the fight (and it would be a low-down, dirty fight with the likes of Senators Shumer, Clinton, Feinstein, et. al.), they don't have the votes to get past a Senate filibuster. Why would the Republicans bring up a very controversial issue which they know they don't have the votes to pass? Answer: they won't.

Furthermore, the Republicans will likely lose at least 2 seats in the Senate. Two Republican senators are quite old, in ill health (one is 98 years old), and come from states with a Democratic governor. They will likely either retire or die in office. Their governor will then appoint a Democrat in their place.

Also, the party in the white house usually loses seats in the house and senate in the midterm elections. So there's a very good chance that the Democrats will take control of both the House and Senate after the next congressional election in 2 years.

Don't hold it against the Republicans for not doing something (national CCW) that they don't have the power to do. They simply don't have the votes. The one thing Bush will be able to do is to nominate justices for the Supreme Court if any vacancies occur. But he'll still have to get those nominations past the Senate, so his nominations can't be too conservative, or they'll get Borked.

Expect a very centrist, go-along to get-along administration.

M1911
 
The fat lady didn't sing. It was Karen Carpenter.

Anyway, given the split - expect nothing risky.
Interestingly, the NY Times said on Sunday that since
the battle ground is the surburbs were gun control
is a bad issue for the dems, expect them to moderate
their calls for gun control.

What can Bush do? Only small thing now, unless the
house and Senate elections in 2 years are very positive.

I would withdraw the Feds from the gun company lawsuits.
Let SW out of the agreement.
NO new gun laws unless they are woven into some positive stuff like trigger locks have to be sold with guns but
we get national CCW like RH said.
When the assault rifle, hi cap stuff comes to sunset time,
let them go if you can.

As far as third parties - FORGET IT - no one it their right minds will vote for a third party after this one.
 
M1911 - believe you are correct. Without votes for cloture the Reps can do little. As for GWB, the other positive things he can do is veto bad bills and hopefully rescind the Executive Orders signed by Clinton.
 
DC: The best scenario would be for the Republicans to admit that they don't have a majority in the Senate. That way the Dems take some of the blame, Cheney can still break ties, and the Republican leadership gets elected from within the Republican caucus, so the RINOs have no say in their selection. Result? It puts the Republicans in the strongest possible position to obstruct Democratic proposals, which is all they're going to be able to do anyway, realisticly.

All it would take would be a couple of conservative Senators refusing to vote for liberal leadership.
 
Repubs in charge

On gun rights, fiscal responsibility, and privatizing/streamlining gov't, things shouldn't be too bad. On most all other issues, may God help us....

Here's a few things the GOP is for that should scare everyone:

1. "Tort reform" translated means taking power away from people (juries) just to put money in the pockets of big business who maim and kill consumer with their negligence. Extremely harmful to our free society - just as much so as "gun control", I'm afraid.
2. "Eliminating the death tax" translated means a big fat gift to the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class, because there is ALREADY a complete exemption from the estate tax if your estate is worth less than $600,000.00. GOPs tout this proposed elimination as "being able to pass on the family farm and small business". This is a total lie. Small businesses with net assets after liabilities under $600,000.00 are already exempt from the "death tax" - gift to the rich is all this is, folks. Raise the exemption fom $600,000 to 800,000 or a million, perhaps? Fine - arguably worth considering, but not making Bill Gates pay a dime when he dies? Absurd!
3. Bankruptcy Reform: This is nothing more than a gift to the wealthy creditors - big banks like Citibank, Providian, Capitol One, etc. This is nothing more than these creditors getting ridiculously greedy by granting credit to those who they know or should know there is no way they can pay it back by being extremely lax with credit granting policies, charging outrageous interest, overlimit fees, and late fees, and now, when the start losing the "game" when more people file bankruptcy as a result, they whine to the Congress and want to change the rules AFTER the debt has been incurred, just because they're losing the game (the creditors) that they knew the rules to all along. Nothing but pure greediness - passing "bankruptcy reform" is just a gift to the whiny kid who is losing the game, so wants to take his ball and go home.
I could go on, but I'm getting nauseous thinking about it...Not even going to go into the GOPs compicity in stealing our first and fourth amendment rights - they'r all for the war on drugs, of course - even more so than the Clintonites.
 
It would be nice if President elect Bush could entice Democrats out of the house and Senate to fill government posts. (Dream on . . . right?) Then start impeaching judges who have been overstepping their bounds and replace them with strong Constitutionalists. It would be nice if Bush would appoint Alan Keyes to a top cabinet position.
 
What do you think?

Quoted by justice4all;

What do you think?
Click to expand...

Personally, I would like to see;

1. Repeal of GCA of 1934.
2. Repeal of GCA of 1968.
3. Repeal of GCA of 1986.
4. Repeal of Brady Act.
5. Repeal of Assault Weapon Ban.
6. De-fund BATF.
7. De-fund IRS.

I don’t ask for much, do I?

Skyhawk
 
Futo:

Gift to the rich folks? Nonsense. First, the rich folks don't pay the estate tax. You can be sure that Bill Gates and the like have the very best tax lawyers and financial planners in the country. They put their money in tax-exempt trusts and the like, so they pay little, if any, estate tax.

Second, it isn't a "gift" to the rich folks (or the not so rich folks). IT'S THEIR MONEY! What we're talking about here is how much of their money the govt. is going to take when they die.

Look, I work hard for my money. And I pay taxes on what I earn. Then, when I can save just a little bit, I get to pay more taxes on the interest/dividend income and capital gains. And then, the final insult, when I do die, this money that I've already paid taxes on at least once (probably many more times), gets taxed yet again.

I've worked hard and had some good fortune. And if we live another 40 years, God willing, my wife and I will have a nice nest egg to leave to our nieces and nephews.

Regarding family farms, here in the northeast, most of the farmers are land-rich and cash-poor. If they earn anything this year, it won't be much. But their land can easily be worth millions if sold to a developer. They don't have much cash in the bank, and if when they die, their heirs have little recourse but to sell the farm.

In the midwest and plains states, farms are larger. And a new tractor can cost $50k and a new harvester over $100k. I don't doubt that a large number of family farms easily exceed the $600k and $1.2M limits.

Regarding tort reform, well let's see what great things we have going on in the courts. There's the cities and their scum-sucking lawyers trying to sue the gun makers into bankruptcy. There's the lady that won how many millions when she spilled her McDonald's coffee on herself. There's the light aircraft industry that was darn near destroyed by lawsuits each time an idiot VFR pilot continues into IFR conditions or runs out of fuel. There's the 40+ lawsuits filed in Florida over this election mess.

Is there a danger in over compensating trying to fix tort law? Absolutely. But it's clear to me that we have to do something to fix the mess we're in.

M1911
 
At the risk

Of sounding like a smart @$$, cloture can be invoked in the Senate by a 3/5 (60 votes) majority. FYI
 
Hutch:

Thanks. Couldn't remember if it was 2/3 (67) or 60. Still, 60 requires at least 10 Democrats to cross the aisle and vote with the Republicans. That's easier than finding 17 Democrats, but still quite difficult.

M1911
 
death tax

M1911 wrote:
"Look, I work hard for my money. And I pay taxes on what I earn. Then, when I can save just a little bit, I get to pay more taxes on the interest/dividend income and capital gains. And then, the final insult, when I do die, this money that I've already paid taxes on at least once (probably many more times), gets taxed yet again."

1911, That's the issue though. It's not your money after you're dead. The IRS looks at it as money that's going to your kids (or whoever) that they didn't earn.

I object the death tax, because I object to the concept of income taxes. All taxes for that matter. Death to the IRS!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top