Majority Didn't Want Healthcare?

Common sentence I've heard a LOT this month....   "The majority of Americans DO NOT WANT healthcare reform." Let's see... Do you oppose that legislation because you think its approach toward health care is too liberal, or because you think it is not liberal enough? 39 % Favor (from previous question) 43% Oppose, too liberal 13% Oppose, not liberal enough
43% is a majority? And only 39% trusted Republicans to handle healthcare at all. Pollster So let's recap.
  1. The American people gave Democrats huge electoral victories, as Democrats explicitly campaigned on health care reform.
  1. The American people didn't turn against the legislation based on conservative arguments.
  1. Congress delivered on campaign promises.
  1. ...
  1. Tyranny!
Sorry, but we're ruled by the majority with protections (courts, filibuster, etc.) for the minority.  Because the majority passed something you didn't like doesn't make it un-democratic, socialist, communist, Nazism, or tyranny.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Keep Up With the Supreme Court With SCOTUSBlog

Much attention is focused in the news every day on Congress and especially on the President of the United States.  Many news networks often seem to forget the third, yet equally important branch of the United States, the Supreme Court.  SCOTUSBlog is a blog dedicated to covering the daily happenings in the Supreme Court, both in legal terms and everyday terms.  For people interested in the law, politics, their rights, or how the government works it is a very useful and informative site.  Also very useful for research into cases and proceedings. SCOTUSBlog Also provided is a wiki about cases and statistics. SCOTUSWiki
 Keep Up With the Supreme Court With SCOTUSBlog

Popularity: 1% [?]

NOT in the Constitution. A Refresher.

In the past year, many people seem to attribute their beliefs or common phrases to the Constitution that don't exist.  If you've heard one that isn't listed here, leave me a comment and let me know. 'We hold these truths to be self evident ...": In the Declaration of Independence, but not the Constitution. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,": Also Declaration of Independence, not Constitution. Separation of Church and State: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"    From this sprung the debate of separation of church and state.  The line originally simply meant the Government could not found, create, or adopt a national religion.  It does NOT state that the government must have absolutely nothing to do with religion what-so-ever.  More anti-religious citizens have pushed it further and further attempting to create a wall between the two, but it is not in the Constitution that way. Innocent until Proven Guilty: American courts treat accused criminals as innocent until proven guilty; this ensures that they are accorded all the rights they are due. There is nothing in the Constitution about a right to be treated innocent until proven guilty, though. The concept came about as a combination of trial rights that ARE in the Constitution, as well as other widely accepted legal practices. The Right to a Fair Trial: There is nothing in the Constitution about a “right to a fair trial.” The Constitution lists several trial-related rights, such as the right to a jury trial and that a trial should be held where the crime occurred; yet if the state could give you a trial that is unfair without violating those explicit rights, then the letter of the Constitution would not be violated. Once again, this concept is accepted as natural from the rights and legal precedents already accepted. Right to a Jury of Your Peers: Also not listed in the Constitution, this practice is held over from English custom where nobles would be tried by other nobles and peasants by other peasants. The Right to Vote: The Constitution lists how you can not be allowed to vote, but not how you ARE allowed to vote.  Beyond what's spelled out by the Constitution and Federal law, states can create any criteria to vote they want. The Right to Travel: Several Supreme Court cases have ruled that this basic right exists and that the state can’t interfere with travel, but it is not in the Constitution. Judicial Review: The idea that the courts have the authority to review the constitutionality of laws passed by legislatures is firmly entrenched in American law and politics. However, the Constitution does not mention “Judicial Review” and does not explicitly establish the concept. The idea that the judicial branch could be any kind of check on the power of the other two branches is baseless without this power, though, which is why Marbury v. Madison (1803) established it. Or were these just activist judges? The Right to Marriage: Marriage is a carry-over from religion, taxation, and inter-racial coupling laws, but has no basis in the Constitution.  The proposed Amendment to add the "Marriage Protection" clause would have created its only mention if it had passed. The Right to Procreate: While some believe this to be a basic human right, there is nothing in the Constitution about it. The Right to Privacy: This one is debatable. While not stated in the Constitution, several passages imply such a right and many court decisions have found a right to privacy in different aspects of human life, such as contraception the education of children. Critics complain that courts have invented this right for political purposes.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Budget Reconciliation is NOT the Nuclear Option

Much has been made lately of the proposal that Congress may use Reconciliation to pass the upcoming Health-Care Bill.  Some have even termed the phrase "Nuclear Option" and have made it seem that using this perfectly legal and useful law would somehow be "cheating" or "unfair".
The budget reconciliation process allows any legislation that has an impact on the deficit to come to a final vote after a maximum of 20 hours of debate. That means that the minority party cannot filibuster beyond those 20 hours, and that the legislation would need a simple majority of 51 votes to pass (not the 60 that it takes to break a filibuster). This is provided for in federal law approved by Congress and signed by President Richard Nixon. It has been used 21 times, by both Democratic and Republican Congress’, since its establishment in 1974. Clearly, there is nothing “nuclear” about using this process.
Simply put, this method does not somehow bypass voting or any laws, it simply puts a time limit on the filibuster.  It then immediately brings forth the Constitutional vote by majority to pass a bill.  Where it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster, the Constitution says that a simple majority (51 votes currently) is needed to pass the bill. The "Nuclear Option" is actually completely separate.  It would permanently change the rules of the Senate to allow the 51 vote pass, thereby completely eliminating the filibuster, for certain types of legislation. OpenCongress: Budget Reconciliation is NOT the Nuclear Option

Popularity: 1% [?]

Legistalker - Stalk Your Lawmakers

Legistalker Legistalker   Stalk Your Lawmakers
Legistalker combs a variety of news, social networking, and government sites to pool information about members of the U.S. Congress. Searching for a Senator or Representative will return mentions of that individual in the media, Twitter updates, YouTube videos, Capitol Words—a nifty weighted cloud of the words they've used in interviews and floor speeches—and their voting record which includes what they've introduced and votes yes or no on. If you're tracking multiple people, say all the Senators and Representatives from your state, you can add them to your Watch List and from there in you'll be able to keep an eye on all the updates from all the people on your Watch List in one location. Currently you need to visit the site itself to access your Watch List, hopefully a future feature will be a personalized RSS feed. Legistalker is free and requires no signup.
Legistalker

Popularity: 1% [?]