The Two-Thirds Artifact
Those of who you are regular readers of my posts here and at Central Sanity are likely already aware that on the subject of embryonic stem-cell research, I am not a moderate voice. I am a raving lunatic.
While the majority of the country continues to redden with anger over the President’s handling of the war in Iraq and his absolute refusal to even listen to an approach that might contradict the one Cheney has convinced him is the right approach — in our house, it is the stem-cell issue and the President’s intractability on that issue that sets our collective blood to boiling.
Our passion on this issue is essentially anchored in three points: (1) My son has Tourette Syndrome and a dear family friend has Parkinson’s. (2) Embryonic stem-cell research could potentially uncover new and more effective treatments or even cures for both of those disorders, among many others. (3) Cells in a petri dish are nowhere near the moral equivalent of our son and our friend.
Hence, our family did everything we possibly could to support passage of Missouri’s Amendment 2 last November. More recently, we have spoken up and will continue to do so as certain members of the Missouri legislature attempt to undo last year’s victory, ignoring the clear will of a majority of the citizens of this state. Yesterday, we simultaneously applauded and cringed when the U.S. Senate passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act … four votes shy of the veto-proof majority they needed.
We’re now at the point of questioning why the President, any President, should continue to hold such strong veto power — i.e., is a veto-killer two-thirds majority still a valid construct in a country of 300 million people and 535 combined federal legislators, or does it skew the validity of our esteemed checks and balances?
Think about it this way …
- Take just the Members of the House: 435.
- Take just the registered voters who actually voted in the last major (i.e., Presidential) election: 126 million.
- The two-points above suggest the 435 total Members of the House each represent, on average, approximately 290,000 constituents who thought the race for President in 2004 was important enough for them to take time to vote. (Granted, some House districts may have had higher turn-out than others, but this exercise is not for an academic paper; it’s for illustration purposes only, and I do believe the scale of this math would ring true even under tougher scrutiny.)
- Next, let’s assume the 253 Representatives who voted for the stem-cell bill passed by the House in January this year (58% of the total House Members) are probably confident that a minimum majority (call it 50.1%) of their constituents would agree with their vote on stem cells and hence return them to office in the next election.
- So … 253 Representatives x 290,000 constituents each who voted in 2004 x 50.1 % of those constituents = approximately 36,758,370 Americans.
- Now, let’s add the number of Representatives who voted against the House bill in January (174) plus the others who either abstained or were absent (8). That gives us a total of 182 Representatives.
- So … 182 Representatives x 290,000 constituents each who voted in 2004 x 50.1 % of those constituents = approximately 26,442,780 Americans.
In summary: A margin of approximately 10 million American voters (8% of the total voting in the Presidential election of 2004) is not sufficient to prevent 1 man, the President, from negating the will of nearly 37 million total voters. The opinion of 1 man counts for more than the consensus of 10 million people who represent the estimated delta between the yes’s and no’s in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Now, regardless of what you think about this issue or this particular piece of legislation — regardless of your beliefs about whether or not the veto-proof Hope Act is a viable alternative to the not-veto-proof Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act — regardless: I’d really like to see anyone legitimately argue that we should keep the two-thirds veto-killer rule when it allows the opinion of 1 man to matter more than the opinion of millions. That’s not a valid check and balance and it’s time for it to go.
33 Responses to “The Two-Thirds Artifact”
You are incorrect. There is no need for me to dissect the numerous places where this is so in your posting.
No matter what you think of the current President, the veto is too weak; a true line-item veto is long overdue. This is particularly true when so many bills carry amendments with them that have nothing to do with the original subject or object of the bills themselves.
> is a veto-killer two-thirds majority
> still a valid construct [sic; construction]
Yes. In fact, something close to that fraction is desireable in many cases, to establish a definitive majority that is much more substantial and “stable” than the current day’s 50% + 1 preference.
In fact, such a fraction (60% or two-thirds) is found not only in our system of government but in the EU as well.
The fraction to use for this purpose is the “Golden” or “Divine” proportion (the fraction that makes the ratio of the minority to the majority the same as that of the majority to the whole). This number has been known since antiquity. It appeals to those who are intelligent and knowledgeable as the ideal value for what is commonly called a “supermajority,” but which has a deeper meaning and use when a definitive majority is, or should be, required to change from the status quo. (The latter concept is conservative in nature and I realize I introduced this additional fact at the risk of offending the less mature and poorer thinking people at this site.)
The approximate value (more than suitable for the purposes described here) is 61.8 per cent (or 61.8034 per cent if you want more precision).
Side note:
> on the subject of embryonic stem-cell
> research, I am not a moderate voice.
> I am a raving lunatic
You may have personal reasons (in fact, I have my own reasons to support regeneration of tissue and organs), but too often the Left is simply being silly with its idolatry (yes) of stem cell research, as the latest “guaranteed” new miracle that society should enjoy, that is simply waiting to be released from the shackles of mystery by government, but is inhibited because not enough money or support is being provided. (The immaturity is ridiculous — demonize objects of hate and wrath, worship irrationally those things that have put nothing into people’s hands.) Oh, and I am aware as well that it’s also a blatant political slap-back at the Religious Right (including in Missouri, with which I’m quite familiar). Neither this nor “alternative energy” nor any other holy grail of the Left is a miracle that we’re denied from having right now (and throwing a fit about it, as children do) because the government is not doing enough.
Our system wasn’t built to cope with such a dangerous and small minded President.
Thanks Pete!
Idolatry Schmidolatry! Stem cell research is widely supported in my religion. For more information on stem cell research, go HERE.
> Idolatry Schmidolatry!
> Stem cell research is widely supported in my religion
You confuse the attitude many on the Left hold for this research, which is an idolatrous attitude, with religion itself and the Religious Right in the case of stem cell research. It was to prevent such confusion that I referred to other things the Left idolates, including alternative energy, that is not being fought by the Religious Right.
> Our system wasn’t built to cope with
> such a dangerous and small minded
> President.
He’s not as bad as you imagine and claim him to be. And Clinton was worse, our worst president ever, and we managed to survive nevertheless.
DLS: Just curious why do you think 60% is 2/3?
In defense of the president (I can’t believe I just said that), it’s important to point out that banning the funding for scientific research is NOT the same as banning the scientific research itself.
It’s my understanding (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that embryonic stem cell research will remain legal in the United States regardless of whether Bush vetoes this legislation or not. By vetoing it, he’s simply preventing federal taxpayer dollars from being spent on this research.
I support such research and don’t want to see it banned, but I think we should be perfectly clear to what is at stake with this legislation. Rarely is a piece of legislation about whether members of congress are “for” or “against” the subject being addressed. Typically, the central question is whether the federal government should be involved in the first place.
This is a particularly tricky issue because so much research in this country is funded by federal grants and is being conducted by public universities. But I don’t see any reason why this research should have to come to a halt based upon what the congress or the president does. Surely the private sector could help contribute so that this research is not so dependent on federal dollars.
DLS,
I’ll refrain from debating you on this point. But I’m extremely curious as to what metrics you’re basing this comparison on.
[R]ob asked:
> DLS: Just curious why do you think 60% is 2/3?
I do not. I wrote specifically about “a definitive majority … such a fraction (60% or 2/3)” which is found in more than one place than where a Congressional override of a Presidential veto is defined in our Constitution.
What you see there (and elsewhere) is a supermajority fraction (used for different purposes, but in the same range). I went on to elaborate on a more precise fraction that inherently satisfies the needs of those who want a supermajority. 60% is something people are comfortable with, as is 2/3 (2:1 ratio), but you can do better and I’ve shown how.
The language I used was sloppy and I apologize for the opportunity I gave you to question basic (Bush-level?) numeracy.
Nic Rivera wrote:
> By vetoing it, he’s simply preventing
> federal taxpayer dollars from being
> spent on this research. [...] This is a
> particularly tricky issue because so
> much research in this country is funded
> by federal grants and is being conducted
> by public universities.
This goes beyond current Religious Right political interference (or the President’s likely sop to the Religious Right, the Crumb on Cue to keep them voting in 2008 — this is hardly the same as the games played with federal highway funds) and involves two things, the first being constitutional federalism (where is the authorization granted to the federal government to do or to fund this or any other research) as well as government versus private research. Most people really don’t object to federal research (they believe the entire public benefits from it) and don’t want to waste time on legal matters about it.
More at issue, often, than the purely libertarian questioning of whether a government should do this research rather than the private sector, is an uglier issue: Many people participate in government-funded research (at NIH or elsewhere) and use the results to develop patented drugs for which the companies charge a fortune. Critics say this is misuse of what was effectively a benefit conferred by government and what should “belong to” (and benefit, much more cheaply) the public.
For example, if organ regeneration or neuron regeneration were achieveable as a result of federally funded research, would the public like it if some companies patented drugs that cause that regeneration and demand the equivalent of $500,000-$1,000,000+ a year per person who uses the drugs, for the drugs?
There is plenty of criticism of this (and this could happen again, with stem cell research successes) on the Left and I even have seen it in the Wall Street Journal. Insurers will find excuses not to pay outrageous sums for drugs or will invoke lifetime payment limits, etc.; it could very well happen with stem cell research that someday, years from now, may be fruitful.
“Most of the cost of developing these drugs came not from the pharmaceutical companies but rather from us taxpayers. The federal government contributed some $10 billion, as opposed to some $5 billion from the pharmaceutical industry. The industry got the patents and the profits while we got the bills.”
http://onthecommons.org/node/22
“Once the [California stem cell research] initiative passed, its proponents sought to scale back unrealistic [!] voter expectations about rapid advances in the field—recent revelations of scientific fraud involving a prominent stem cell scientist will undoubtedly have that effect.
Yet the goal that stem cell therapies resulting from the initiative will be made affordable for state residents remains in place. Toward that end, some California legislators are focusing on how the newly created California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) should handle intellectual property (IP) generated by its grants. …”
http://www.gooznews.com/archives/000286.html
“Today there in the U.S. PTO about 1000 applications for patents on complete (or nearly complete) human genes under review. There are about 20,000 applications claiming partial gene sequences, RNA sequences, genetic probes, etc. One company has applied to patent 60,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms.”
http://www.eubios.info/BHGP/BHGP14.htm
> I’ll refrain from debating you on this point.
> But I’m extremely curious as to what metrics
> you’re basing this comparison on.
They begin (and can end here) with the frequency and number of deliberately wrongful acts (not blunders or errors) and the nature of these acts.
Bush is inept, not self-serving to the point of being psychopathological.
And, by association, you confuse the attitude of the Left as being religious. Idolatry, in any shape and/or form, is a religion-based function. Contrary to the assumption of many on the Religious Right, plus a Dan Brown book, there is no literal Altar Of Science that anyone can pray at. We look at science as a tool. Regardless of how our own extremists can hold it up as being the absolute cure for whatever ails society, it is still a tool.
You do not worship a tool. Respect, yes. Honor, yes. Treat with dignity, yes. Worship? No. Hence the use of the word “idolatry” in any shape and/or form is incorrect when it is applied towards science.
The future capabilities of stem cells is exactly what we want to figure out, just as a bunch of people assembled in New Mexico to figure out whether certain Einsteinian equations meant that it was possible to build a new kind of weapon. To what extent our hopes for this research will pan out, we don’t know.
Will it cure all these diseases? We don’t know. So if, and only if, we said “This will be the cure for everything, because I believe in it!” would it become idolatry. Science does not need our belief to work on our behalf. It will do so anyways, just as normal physical functions have performed flawlessly throughout recorded history.
Bush knows exactly what he’s doing. Karl Rove is extremely smart, and has guided Bush through the travails of Washington. Or do you believe that the RNC e-mails concerning the USA’s just vanished? That Scooter Libby is only guilty of memory loss? The CIA totally flubbed the prewar intel? They didn’t know Valerie Plame was covert? Bush had never been to building 18 at Walter Reed? Bush really thought Rumsfeld was winning the war? Bush may not be great at governing, but he knows exactly what to say and do as a politician. Otherwise, why would the GOP in Congress have stuck by him for so long?
> And, by association, you confuse the attitude
> of the Left as being religious [...]
>
> Hence the use of the word “idolatry�
> in any shape and/or form is incorrect
They behave that way, complete with their idols and devils. The metaphor is correct.
> Will it cure all these diseases? We don’t know.
> So if, and only if, we said “This will be the cure
> for everything, because I believe in it!� would
> it become idolatry.
Incorrect. I was correct earlier.
Incidentally, some on the Left behave as if at least the first part of the sentence you used is correct.
> Bush knows exactly what he’s doing.
He may believe so, but his actions at times betray that.
Now his handlers are a sharp bunch and you were right to mention them.
> Otherwise, why would the GOP in Congress have stuck
> by him for so long?
Would they have also stuck by a real chimp with an R on him or her?
Yes.
Whatever a representative democracy means, I wouldn’t think it means governing by plebiscite or public opinion poll. Even if one could educate the public on every bit of an issue, there’s still a context the people’s representatives will have that people won’t have living their non-governmental lives. But how does one get good representatives?
The death penalty will fade away someday because it is such a crazy system with much time and effort going to strike down select criminals many years after their crimes and for what? Yet I suspect a solid majority of voters will continue to be for it. The will of these people will be thwarted by those working in the system who see the situation more clearly, as much as demagogues would counter that. I wish I could think of several examples where I think representatives decide something better than the public, but I can’t off the top of my head. Still that’s why I think the Presidential veto is a good idea in principle.
The thing is that under the two party system, it’s not an independently experienced President casting that veto. It’s a man who is the instrument of his party, giving the Presidential party a block on legislation unless the Congressional party has two-thirds majorities or some legislation has bipartisan support not including the President. That’s quite a distortion of the near 50:50 division of party power in recent years. If there were 15 Presidents and 10 of them had to agree to veto Congress, that might be a more fair system, assuming they were elected by region, maybe even by demographics, so they’re not all alike.
Of course the only way the Constitution could be amended is with 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States, so there’d have to be some big issue driving that. Or could it sell just to say every 15th (or 5th or whatever) of the nation should have it’s own President? I agree with the line-item veto given how special interests drive funding. On funding of stem-cell research, I’m just as immoderately in favor as anyone, not because of DLS’s assumptions about having unrealistic expectations, but because such research is valuable and opponents engage in fantasy in opposing it. The veto that stops that isn’t opposing a special interest as much as it is imposing the view of a minority that has been amplified into the single individual who is President.
So our current system of Presidential veto does let the party that holds the White House to impose whatever craziness that party may hold up as its standard, magnifying the near 50:50 position of that party into a 100% power, in the absence of a lot of defections. There’s no compromise in that. No one has to compromise. The President will get his or her way. I doubt that’s the best we can do.
How do you get a President who serves all the people? If that’s impossible, maybe there should be a small number of Presidents to split up the duties of the executive. It didn’t seem to work well to split up the territory of the Roman Empire, but what about dividing governmental duties – foreign policy, finance/economy, social policy. The voters could vote in regional or demographic blocs to elect some number of them. The Congress might decide who gets which post. Why would anyone want that? Because one President is always the tool of one segment of the population. It seems like a problem to me.
Would they have also stuck by a real chimp with an R on him or her?
Yes.
I think the real answer is that Rove has offered them plenty of carrots and sticks to stand by the president. Bush is unpopular with most, but he and Cheney still raise a ton of cash at private fundraisers. During the midterms he and Cheney each attended over a hundred for GOP candidates. He also can pull the support of the RNC during an election. That is why you see them disagree publicly with his policies, then vote along with him anyway. Rove has succeeded in establishing an authoritarian party structure.
You know, I find it very interesting that in European countries your body becomes property of the state when you die, for the purpose of organ harvesting etc.. They don’t have a problem with transplant waiting lists like we do. Likewise, they will perform stem cell research unrestricted and more than likely get the first patents. Big chunks of money comes from these sources into our illustrious political lobby system. IMO, in truth it’s never really been about religion. Just follow the money. Government funding competes with private funded research.
Or do you believe that the RNC e-mails concerning the USA’s just vanished? NO
That Scooter Libby is only guilty of memory loss? Yes and NO
The CIA totally flubbed the prewar intel? YES. Absolutely without a doubt.
They didn’t know Valerie Plame was covert? NO
Bush had never been to building 18 at Walter Reed? Don’t Care.
Bush really thought Rumsfeld was winning the war? NO.
Otherwise, why would the GOP in Congress have stuck by him for so long?
For the same reasons the Democrats have stuck behind all their shitty presidents. Its called Loyalty and it counts for a lot. Its indispensible and if these guys want jobs when they leave Washington they damn well better stick with the president till the rats beat them to the life boats. Surely you remained loyal to Bill Clinton when the rats were jumping his ship??
I’d really like to see anyone legitimately argue that we should keep the two-thirds veto-killer rule when it allows the opinion of 1 man to matter more than the opinion of millions. That’s not a valid check and balance and it’s time for it to go.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Dead wrong.
The president would simply lose his veto power as defined by the constitution. If you want this it must be a constitutional amendment or a constitutional convention which no one would ever support because in a convention we could throw out the constitution and make a new one.
The president of the United States would be rendered inconsequential no matter which party he served.
Congress under Clinton could have forced their laws down his throat such as a Welfare reform that was gutted to include nothing and he would have been powerless to stop it. They could have banned School lunch programs or any number of things with a simple majority and then overriden the presidents veto with only 1 vote.
It is a check and balance that right or wrong is a very important part of the legislative process of this country.
Nobody- Many of the Democrats abandoned Clinton during the impeachment proceedings. Some like Lieberman, even made a moral condemnation of him. Gore would not let him campaign for him in 2000- which may have helped him lose. I remember when he was so unpopular he got a dog, Buddy-his only friend in Washington.
kritter- Yeah and that is why Lieberman should be ostracized. He is a turn coat. Not to mention a Putz.
Bush knows exactly what he’s doing. - blah blah blah - blah blah --- Otherwise, why would the GOP in Congress have stuck by him for so long?
ok – fail to see how that has anything to do with embryonic stem cell research. Be good to get off the partisan hacks and back onto the discussion.
We’re now at the point of questioning why the President, any President, should continue to hold such strong veto power — i.e., is a veto-killer two-thirds majority still a valid construct in a country of 300 million people and 535 combined federal legislators, or does it skew the validity of our esteemed checks and balances?Yes, it was specifically setup for this exact situation. The two branches are supposed to be equal. And while over time power has shifted one way or the other, the two are still equal branches of government. The President has the power to veto yes. However if the opposite party had a solid majority reflecting the will of the people – than the 2/3rds would be a mute point. And that is specifically what the Legislative branch is supposed to be – the peoples branch. If the “people’s branch” cannot be made up of a solid supermajority – than that is the reflection of our wishes for the Legislative branch. This all goes right along with the requirements for a Constitutional Amendment as well.
Final side thought.
All of the calculations are based on voter turnout. That – if it is desired or not – is the will of the people. It is there desire not to vote. It is there desire for the status quo. You cannot alter Constitutional law just to try to accommodate those citizens who feel they have no reason to vote.
And even if you had 100% voter turnout. Removing the Veto power removes the checks and balances between the two branches of government. What checks would the Executive branch have on the Legislative if there were no Veto power.
Bush is pandering to the RR on stem cell research. If he stuck to true state rights Conservatism, as in stem cell funding, he wouldn’t have flew to DC in his PJs to sign the Schiavo Bill to circumvent the Florida probate court for one individual. He is just as calculating as Clinton, yet his spin machine tells us he just Joe Sixpack. Baby Emilio Gonzales cries “I vant too wive”, will W intervene on his behalf? Will Frist and DeLay make a medical diagnosis, what does Imus have to say about a sick baby?
It was said:
> You know, I find it very interesting
> that in European countries your body
> becomes property of the state when
> you die, for the purpose of organ
> harvesting etc.. They don’t have a
> problem with transplant waiting lists
> like we do.
We need “presumed consent” laws here in the USA.
Currently, the need for organs (which will rise substantially with aging Baby Boomers and many diseases in society like hypertension and diabetes, which often are going untreated — an argument for routine screening and some might even advocate, having government health care systems require this kind of screening periodically) exceeds the supply of donated organs. In the case of kidneys, a number of workaround have been attempted. One is the use of “expanded criteria donor” kidneys, namely kidneys from older and sicker people or kidneys not functioning fully at the time of death. Now there is also the option to harvest organs after cardiac death rather than by brain death. In addition, because fewer blacks donate organs and so blacks linger on the waiting list longer, some immunological shortcutting is now being done to allow less-than-ideally-matching organs to be given preferentially to blacks to speed them through the list.
Organ allocation introduces people to an ocean of ethical and other issues, a fascinating intellectual exercise. Did you know that the organ allocation system for kidneys is being changed once more? While other organs are allocated on the basis of need, kidneys will be given a more utilitiarian form of treatment, namely to give the best-quality organs to the patients who will be most likely to get the most functioning years out of the grafts. The total “functioning years” is going to be maximized. (This is forewarning of what you’ll see with government medicine in later years as costs, too, must be constrained, and separately, utility will become more important than it is now as a criterion for making medical provision decisions.) Currently the kidneys are in two classes of quality only (standard and expanded criteria), but eventually I predict they will be more precisely valued, as will be the patients. Oh, the new system of course doesn’t take race or any other politically incorrect thing into consideration.
Here is a brief Wall Street Journal article in plain language on this,
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117345431796732257-PGIlhWN9pkVmj0CFQP77RNr9bBg_20070320.html?mod=blogs
and here is the information from the real source itself:
http://www.unos.org/ContentDocuments/Progress_Toward_a_New_Kidney_Allocation_System.pdf
http://www.optn.org/SharedContentDocuments/KidneyAllocationSlides_Reduced.pdf
All this because too few people donate organs! There’s no reason for government to offer payment to donors (it’s illegal for individuals to buy organs) or to play any other silly games (can’t receive a transplant unless you agree to be a donor — social engineering BS). Just go to “presumed consent” (one must opt out of, rather than into, the donation system).
> On funding of stem-cell research,
> I’m just as immoderately in favor
> as anyone, not because of DLS’s
> assumptions about having unrealistic
> expectations, but because such
> research is valuable and opponents
> engage in fantasy in opposing it.
The problem is compounded by the behavior of the Left in defending it, as well as the more common problem which all can observe of definitely unrealistic expectations (both to scope and timing of research results).
I’m not opposed to research on this subject at all. Regeneration is a Good Thing if we can achieve and control and master it.
David D. wrote:
> If there were 15 Presidents and
> 10 of them had to agree to veto
> Congress, that might be a more
> fair system, assuming they were
> elected by region, maybe even
> by demographics, so they’re not
> all alike.
>
> How do you get a President who
> serves all the people? If that’s
> impossible, maybe there should
> be a small number of Presidents
> to split up the duties of the
> executive. It didn’t seem to work
> well to split up the territory of the
> Roman Empire, but what about
> dividing governmental duties -
> foreign policy, finance/economy,
> social policy. The voters could vote
> in regional or demographic blocs
> to elect some number of them. The
> Congress might decide who gets
> which post. Why would anyone
> want that? Because one President
> is always the tool of one segment
> of the population. It seems like a
> problem to me.
Calhoun had a multiple presidency in mind, but if you read between his beautifully written lines, it was to preserve the waning power of the South.
A multiple executive has an appeal, though to satisfy most of what you are seeking here I would first advocate proportional representation in the House of Representatives, and we could have regional rather than state seat allocation to solve the problem of states having less than four or five seats (a realistic minimum for decent proportional representation, which would correspond to a legitimate minimum vote threshold of 20 to 25 per cent of the vote to get at least one seat).
Replacing the Presidency with votes by the governors would give you fifty votes rather than one.
As to how a single official can best be elected to serve the people, the answer is approval voting.
> Bush is pandering to the RR on stem cell research.
He’s throwing them a sop so that they’ll vote (GOP) in 2008. This is similar to other occasional sops like the marriage protection amendment to the US Constitution. (The real solution to what raised this issue briefly to the forefront is to remove activist judges or pass new laws constraining what the courts can do.) Another example was the sneaky attempt to classify fetuses as citizens, so they would have rights, including not to be put to death without due process (the death penalty is and always has been constitutional; it is mentioned multiple times in the Constitution). This was, in other words, a sneaky encroachment into the abortion rights realm.
Rudi said:
> He is just as calculating as Clinton,
> yet his spin machine tells us he just
> Joe Sixpack.
Both you and K. Ritter have made good points and before swinging back on more relevent topics (veto and government “mechanism”, stem cell research and related issues) I’ll just say that I disagree with you here.
Do you really believe Bush is as calculating as Bill Clinton (or Hillary)?
It was said:
> If the “people’s branch� cannot be
> made up of a solid supermajority -
> than that is the reflection of our
> wishes for the Legislative branch.
> This all goes right along with the
> requirements for a Constitutional
> Amendment as well.
Definining the solid supermajority is why I introduced the “golden” or “divine” proportion. Most people figure it’s in the range of 60% to 2/3 (2:1 in favor of or against something) and the figure I provided is more precise and elegant (for reasons known all the way back in the classical era).
The veto is important, as was said earlier. I believe the other issue of concern to those framing the executive office was whether the President should have the appointment power. (Do we ever see problems rather than constructive action by Congress as a check to that power!)
DLS – When Bush ran for Congress he ran as the East coast elite. The Texas electorate told him to shove it. After that in the run for Govenor, he campaigned as a “redneck”. Prior to his 2000 election he purchased the Crawford ranch, the man doesn’t know if you get milk from a bull or cow. All these moves were to project W as an average Texan. His father does the Eastcoast elite without the pretentions of his son. Try Googling for him swinging a hammer in NO, he’s never had a hammer in his hands before, probably worried he might damage his manicure. He is just as phony as Kerry. I have no use for either.