From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: fight the religious dictators Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 08:41:38 -0500
At 07:28 AM 3/6/2003 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote: >600,000+ US homeless (with 35% of them being children) >800,000+ US AIDS sufferers >33 million living below the poverty threshold > >...and this is what Congress is worried about?
My first answer is, "no." Congress has never debated the above amendment. Thus, your statement would be more accurately described as "...this is what Senator Landrieu is worried about?" (Never minding that Sen. Landrieu has a political interest as a Democrat in demonstrating her conservative credentials to the voters of Louisiana.)
I'll concede the point if and only if Congress doesn't start debating this amendment. I suspect this bill won't get killed immediately.
My second answer is "yes." Under the Constitution, Congress has no jurisdiction over homelessness, AIDS sufferers, or poverty.
I beg to differ. Congress has the ability to propose and enact laws that can and do directly affect US citizens that fall into all three categories. Are you saying that Congress is powerless to enact laws that affect (to take a single example) the poor? I don't think you'll win an argument based on that viewpoint. Here's why: Since, as you say Congress has no jurisdiction over the poor, please explain how you feel they did not have the jurisdiction to pass (and incidentally, President Clinton to sign) the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 as part of the budget reconciliation package (HR 3734) which directly affected Welfare recipients. Or, please explain how that same bill didn't affect poor people in this country. Your choice.
Thus, by the law of the land, Congress should NOT be worried about any of those things.
IOW, according to you, Congress should not be worried about the welfare of the American people? Baloney.
More importantly, however, how incredibly shallow of you to argue that the very nature of our Republic is too unimportant for consideration by Congress.
Please refrain from personal attacks. I am courteous to you and have a right to expect the same.
I don't feel it's shallow to point out that there are larger humanitarian issues that Congress could pay attention to at the moment. The 9th Circuit Federal Supreme Court already made a decision on this free speech issue last June. The congresswoman is trying to alter their decision through a Constitutional fait accompli rather than wait for it to be overturned. Oh, and btw, it may be important to her electorate in an abstract sense, but the decision only affected nine states and _none_ of them was Louisiana. For the record, the states affected by the decision were: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Your argument that she's trying to establish conservative credentials may be valid, but since it doesn't affect anyone in her state she's probably just wasting her time.
I would also point out that Senator Landrieu voted against bill S 2549 which would have overturned the ban on abortions on military bases in 2000 and for a bill against Affirmative Action (S 1173) in 1998. I wouldn't say she always votes liberal, or that she needs to 'establish conservative credentials'. Her voting record could support claims to conservativism. Of course, I didn't do an exhaustive search on her record.... I only chose the two hot-button liberal issues I could find under "A". :)
The poor will always be with us. The sick will always be with us. If Congress devoted every hour of every day to these problems, neither sickness nor poverty would disappear.
Nothing in life is certain. Sickness and poverty _may_ never disappear, but that's no excuse for not devoting as much effort and time as we can to them.
To argue, however, that the existence of these problems should preclude the body politic from debating the nature of our republic, and the proper role of religion in pulic life is.... welll..... quite simply, it is one of the most pathetic things I have ever read on this List.
Your sarcasm isn't appreciated or required, but I'll respond anyway. The problems of poverty and sickness should _not_ be ignored or cast aside. I think such an argument is far from pathetic.
Jon
_________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
