Question of the week #1

[Truth Detector]

What is the only job actually defined in the Constitution and protected?

This was from my favorite political talk show Michael Medved.

[jimnyc]

Judges?

[gabosaurus]

I know the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court and inferior courts. I would guess the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

[Truth Detector]

Judges?

HINT: It is contained in the First Ammendment.

[Truth Detector]

Judges?

No sir.

[Truth Detector]

I know the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court and inferior courts. I would guess the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Nope; judges are not a protected right.

[aboutime]

Religion and Free Speech.

[Truth Detector]

Religion and Free Speech.

Those are not jobs. HINT #2: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Little-Acorn]

Reporters.

And government.

[aboutime]

Those are not jobs. HINT #2: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


PRESS and CHURCH LEADERS.

[Truth Detector]

PRESS and CHURCH LEADERS.

It would be lobbyists!! "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" Lobbyists are the only Constitutionally protected job in the nation. Think about it.

[gabosaurus]

What is the only job actually defined in the Constitution and protected?

This was from my favorite political talk show Michael Medved.

If you read Section II of the Constitution, it defines the job of the President of the United States quite well. Medved probably stole his item from another source. As pretty much all of the radio talking heads do.

[Truth Detector]

If you read Section II of the Constitution, it defines the job of the President of the United States quite well. Medved probably stole his item from another source. As pretty much all of the radio talking heads do.

You can read?? :eek:

[gabosaurus]

You can read?? :eek:

Once you have been here a while, you will realize that I am smarter than you are. And better than you are. :cheers2:

[aboutime]

Once you have been here a while, you will realize that I am smarter than you are. And better than you are. :cheers2:


GABBY. YOU are still, the one, and only person convinced of all you stated above. And you wonder why we call you a snob? Remember...You are in California. As most of us remember.

And you claim to be SMARTER than the rest of us????

Sure thing. As for being better. Misery loves company. That's as good as You get.

[Truth Detector]

Once you have been here a while, you will realize that I am smarter than you are. And better than you are. :cheers2:

Smarter; not based on what I have seen so far. Good at trolling; yes. Arrogant; yes. Smarmy; no doubt.

Smarter; I've yet to see anything smart erupt from your keyboard.

[NightTrain]

Smarter; not based on what I have seen so far. Good at trolling; yes. Arrogant; yes. Smarmy; no doubt.

Smarter; I've yet to see anything smart erupt from your keyboard.


She's as dumb as a stump.

Her only goal here is to derail threads just as she did in this thread.

[Little-Acorn]

It would be lobbyists!! "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" ]Lobbyists are the only Constitutionally protected job in the nation. Think about it.

This whole thread was just an attempt to pretend lobbyists are the only ones who call or write to government?

[aboutime]

She's as dumb as a stump.

Her only goal here is to derail threads just as she did in this thread.


NightTrain. That is an insult to stumps.

I prefer to refer to gabby's intelligence, compared with http://icansayit.com/images/boxofhammers.jpg

[tailfins]

GABBY. YOU are still, the one, and only person convinced of all you stated above. And you wonder why we call you a snob? Remember...You are in California. As most of us remember.

And you claim to be SMARTER than the rest of us????

Sure thing. As for being better. Misery loves company. That's as good as You get.

AT, you and I have a philosophical difference. You get REALLY annoyed about people who are "know-it-alls". I on the other hand think most people are VERY skilled at one or two things. Even Gabs is very skilled at one or two things. I'm curious what you think those one or two things might be.

[aboutime]

AT, you and I have a philosophical difference. You get REALLY annoyed about people who are "know-it-alls". I on the other hand think most people are VERY skilled at one or two things. Even Gabs is very skilled at one or two things. I'm curious what you think those one or two things might be.

If you need to ask. You may have more in common with gabby. So nothing I might say would matter, or interest you since..you've probably already decided to disagree with me, as you do so often here.

My two biggest 'turnoffs', if you will, are LIARS, and People who brag about being smarter than other people. Whom I call Arrogant Snobs.

Most people are SKILLED at one or two things. And these days. LYING has become perfected for many who hide behind their selfish arrogance...like gabby.

[tailfins]

If you need to ask. You may have more in common with gabby. So nothing I might say would matter, or interest you since..you've probably already decided to disagree with me, as you do so often here.

My two biggest 'turnoffs', if you will, are LIARS, and People who brag about being smarter than other people. Whom I call Arrogant Snobs.

Most people are SKILLED at one or two things. And these days. LYING has become perfected for many who hide behind their selfish arrogance...like gabby.

I don't claim to be smarter than everone else, I am however a world-class researcher. It's like Gomer or Goober Pyle said in Andy Griffith, "I may not know much else, but I know cars and fishin'". Why would I disagree with you from the get-go? You don't have an insecurity complex do you?

Like Dizzy Dean said about his baseball playing, "It ain't braggin' if you can do it."

[aboutime]

I don't claim to be smarter than everone else, I am however a world-class researcher. It's like Gomer or Goober Pyle said in Andy Griffith, "I may not know much else, but I know cars and fishin'". Why would I disagree with you from the get-go? You don't have an insecurity complex do you?

Like Dizzy Dean said about his baseball playing, "It ain't braggin' if you can do it."


I see I was correct about how you would react. You just had to add that Insecurity question. Not that I didn't expect it. But, like Obama, and gabby. You simply had to use a distraction, or patronizing question to show...you really are what I thought you are.

[Perianne]

Tough crowd! lol

[Abbey Marie]

Except I wouldn't characterize what lobbyists do as petitioning to redress grievances. It's more like asking for favors.

[Truth Detector]

This whole thread was just an attempt to pretend lobbyists are the only ones who call or write to government?

Really? I thought it was to make the point that with all the hand wringing we see from pundits and dishonest politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle regarding lobbyists, it was an ironic twist that they are the only job that is a prescribed right in the Constitution.

It is a similar irony when those who wring their hands over monied interests in Washington never support an effort that would eliminate the source of this effort to influence politics; the Tax Code.

[Truth Detector]

Except I wouldn't characterize what lobbyists do as petitioning to redress grievances. It's more like asking for favors.

You may not wish to characterize it as such, but that is exactly what they are doing; petitioning.

The source happens to be he abomination we call the tax code.

I've just finished doing my taxes for the year; I don't live a complicated life and yet all the required forms for Federal and State took up 47 pages. It's an abomination.

Want to reduce monied interest influence in DC, reduce corruption and graft and balance the budget; support a Fair Consumption Tax. Anything else is mere window dressing.

[Abbey Marie]

When a lobbyist does what lobbyists do (asking for financial or other favors for his interest group), what grievance is he petitioning about?

[NightTrain]

I don't think you have to be paid to be considered a lobbyist... as I understand it, any normal average American going to their representative to discuss issues they have and to try and get something done about it would be considered a lobbyist. You'd be lobbying for your cause, whatever that may be.

[fj1200]

When a lobbyist does what lobbyists do (asking for financial or other favors for his interest group), what grievance is he petitioning about?

The tax code, intrusive regulations...


I don't think you have to be paid to be considered a lobbyist... as I understand it, any normal average American going to their representative to discuss issues they have and to try and get something done about it would be considered a lobbyist. You'd be lobbying for your cause, whatever that may be.

But a lobbyist allows individuals to aggregate their voice.

[Truth Detector]

When a lobbyist does what lobbyists do (asking for financial or other favors for his interest group), what grievance is he petitioning about?

What do you think "grievance" meant in the Constitution?

[Truth Detector]

I don't think you have to be paid to be considered a lobbyist... as I understand it, any normal average American going to their representative to discuss issues they have and to try and get something done about it would be considered a lobbyist. You'd be lobbying for your cause, whatever that may be.

But in most cases, individuals don't have the time or connections so they do what? Hire a lobbyist to petition their representatives.

[Truth Detector]

The tax code, intrusive regulations...

But a lobbyist allows individuals to aggregate their voice.

BINGO!!! :clap:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The problem with lobbyists today is that they stopped petitioning and started buying what they want!
Otherwise they are doing as permitted in the Constitution IMHO. However graft and corruption were not sanction by our Constitution.

Additionally, is it not the job of the politician in the first place to give citizens redress of grievances?
So lobbyists are only needed when the politician fails to properly represents his constituents...

Government at its best is still a crooked show. At its worse its a dictatorial company begging for more power and more bribes.. Obama has it at its worst.. Fact.. -Tyr

[Truth Detector]

The problem with lobbyiststoday is that they stopped petitioning and started buying what they want!<o:p></o:p>
Are they buying what they want? Or are they fighting for what theirConstituents want? I don’t think theyare doing this for themselves.<o:p></o:p>


Otherwise they are doing as permitted in theConstitution IMHO. However graft and corruption were not sanction by ourConstitution. <o:p></o:p>
But is it the lobbyists that are corrupt; or thepoliticians who permit it through an abomination called the Tax Code andsubsidies?


Additionally, is it not the job of the politicianin the first place to give citizens redress of grievances?<o:p></o:p>
It is a Constitutional right that Government givecitizens redress.<o:p></o:p>


So lobbyists are only needed when the politicianfails to properly represents his constituents...<o:p></o:p>
Wrong; they are needed because of the system ofcorruption by our politicians in their power grab using subsidies and the taxcode. It is used by corrupt politicianswho know they can only get elected and re-elected by promising their lowinformation constituents something for nothing through re-distributionschemes. <o:p></o:p>
Eliminate the subsidies and abolish the current tax codeand implement a Fair Consumption Tax and demand term limits on Congress and youwill see lobbying all but disappear. <o:p></o:p>
In other words, lobbyists are not the problem, but aSYMPTOM of a corrupt system.


Government at its best is still a crooked show. Atits worse its a dictatorial company begging for more power and more bribes..Obama has it at its worst.. Fact.. -Tyr<o:p></o:p>
Companies cannot be dictatorial as long as there are freemarkets. Corporations can only exist aslong as they are providing goods and services consumers demand; they have nopower. No amount of Governmentinterference can keep a company from failing. <o:p></o:p>
Government, on the other hand, is forever and infestedwith a corrupt self-interested culture. <o:p></o:p>
Look at Unions; the single largest unions these days arepublic office Unions. Who protects theirhigh pay and generous benefits at the cost of the taxpayer, and who supportsand spends billions on political campaigns? <o:p></o:p>

[aboutime]

Truth is. EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN IS....a Lobbyist. The only difference is. The Lobbyists with the most money, make the most noise, and can CAMP OUT on the doorsteps of Members of Congress.
The other 310 Million Plus U.S.Citizens...can't afford to get to Washington DC, or haven't got the time to OVERRUN that city on a daily basis.

U.S. CITIZENS are Lobbyists,
As the 1st amendment states, in part: "to petition the government for a redress of grievances,"

[logroller]

You may not wish to characterize it as such, but that is exactly what they are doing; petitioning.

The source happens to be he abomination we call the tax code.

I've just finished doing my taxes for the year; I don't live a complicated life and yet all the required forms for Federal and State took up 47 pages. It's an abomination.

Want to reduce monied interest influence in DC, reduce corruption and graft and balance the budget; support a Fair Consumption Tax. Anything else is mere window dressing.

The right to petition government is enumerated, but not being compensated; and compensation is a definitive aspect of a 'job'. Nothing in the constitution precludes not getting paid to petition the redress of grievances, but neither is it expressly protected/created either. A state could delicately forbid compensation of those petitioners so long as it falls outside the framework of the grievances; ie the compensation wasn't the prescribed redress of the grievance itself.

Alternatively, the constitution expressly provides that senators and representatives are to be compensated; legislator is a job; having been considered during the Const.Convention to dissuade the influence peddling that could lead to a plutocracy and corruption. As Justice Joseph Story put it in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, "they might be compelled by their necessities, or tempted by their wants, to yield up their independence, and perhaps their integrity, to the allurements of the corrupt, or the opulent."

[Truth Detector]

The right to petition government is enumerated, but not being compensated; and compensation is a definitive aspect of a 'job'. Nothing in the constitution precludes not getting paid to petition the redress of grievances, but neither is it expressly protected/created either. A state could delicately forbid compensation of those petitioners so long as it falls outside the framework of the grievances; ie the compensation wasn't the prescribed redress of the grievance itself.

Alternatively, the constitution expressly provides that senators and representatives are to be compensated; legislator is a job; having been considered during the Const.Convention to dissuade the influence peddling that could lead to a plutocracy and corruption. As Justice Joseph Story put it in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, "they might be compelled by their necessities, or tempted by their wants, to yield up their independence, and perhaps their integrity, to the allurements of the corrupt, or the opulent."

Lobbyists are "paid" by citizens to petition on their behalf. It is a job, and it is enumerated as a right in th Constitution.

So what is the point of this debate? The fact that the media and low information voters complain about lobbyists and their corrupting influence in Washington. But it isn't the lobbyists; they are doing what they are PAID to do as enumerated in the Constiturion. It is the politicians and an abomination called the tax code that corrupts; Dishonest politicians who pander to low information voters through tax code favoritism and subsidies.

[jimnyc]

Lobbyists are "paid" by citizens to petition on their behalf. It is a job, and it is enumerated as a right in th Constitution.

So what is the point of this debate? The fact that the media and low information voters complain about lobbyists and their corrupting influence in Washington. But it isn't the lobbyists; they are doing what they are PAID to do as enumerated in the Constiturion. It is the politicians and an abomination called the tax code that corrupts; Dishonest politicians who pander to low information voters through tax code favoritism and subsidies.

From what I've seen, most lobbyists are in it for profit, for themselves or a group of smaller people they are representing, and less so for the constituents of the politician they are lobbying. I would love to see a direct link to monies I pay = money being paid to the majority of lobbyists to petition on my behalf. In a perfect world that sounds great, but in today's world they don't care jack shit about the community, and it's more about using the funds to get power, which in turn gives them what they want = which generally leads to more profits for those involved. Of course this isn't with every lobbyist and everything lobbied for. But I honestly can't think of much at all throughout my life where a lobbyist was directly gunning for changes within my jurisdiction, and somehow monies I paid got him there.

[fj1200]

From what I've seen, most lobbyists are in it for profit...

As is anyone who receives a paycheck.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

<o:p></o:p>
Are they buying what they want? Or are they fighting for what theirConstituents want? I don’t think theyare doing this for themselves.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>
But is it the lobbyists that are corrupt; or thepoliticians who permit it through an abomination called the Tax Code andsubsidies?

<o:p></o:p>
It is a Constitutional right that Government givecitizens redress.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>
Wrong; they are needed because of the system ofcorruption by our politicians in their power grab using subsidies and the taxcode. It is used by corrupt politicianswho know they can only get elected and re-elected by promising their lowinformation constituents something for nothing through re-distributionschemes. <o:p></o:p>
Eliminate the subsidies and abolish the current tax codeand implement a Fair Consumption Tax and demand term limits on Congress and youwill see lobbying all but disappear. <o:p></o:p>
In other words, lobbyists are not the problem, but aSYMPTOM of a corrupt system.

<o:p></o:p>
Companies cannot be dictatorial as long as there are freemarkets. Corporations can only exist aslong as they are providing goods and services consumers demand; they have nopower. No amount of Governmentinterference can keep a company from failing. <o:p></o:p>
Government, on the other hand, is forever and infestedwith a corrupt self-interested culture. <o:p></o:p>
Look at Unions; the single largest unions these days arepublic office Unions. Who protects theirhigh pay and generous benefits at the cost of the taxpayer, and who supportsand spends billions on political campaigns? <o:p></o:p>


We are going to just have to disagree on this one. I see merit in your points presented but not an overall win that demolishes mine. I view it as the politician and lobbyist both are being corrupt and it doesn't matter how much of a role the system plays into the consequences and realities of that IMHO... --TYR

[fj1200]

We are going to just have to disagree on this one. I see merit in your points presented but not an overall win that demolishes mine. I view it as the politician and lobbyist both are being corrupt and it doesn't matter how much of a role the system plays into the consequences and realities of that IMHO... --TYR

The Progressives fought corruption.


One Progressive response to these concerns was the "Oregon system" which utilized a state primary election to identify the voters’ choice for senator while pledging all candidates for the state legislature to honor the primary’s result. Over half of the states adopted the "Oregon system," but the 1912 Senate investigation of bribery and corruption in the election of Illinois Senator William Lorimer indicated that only a constitutional amendment mandating the direct election of senators by a state’s citizenry would allay public demands for reform.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/treasures_of_congress/text/page17_text.html

;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The Progressives fought corruption.


http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/treasures_of_congress/text/page17_text.html

;)

A famous corruption case does not prove The Progressives are without corruption. Additionally people called Progressives back in 1912 are a far cry from those claiming to be progressives 'liberal today. These asshats we have promoting Socialism/Marxism today wouldn't make buckle on the belt of those people IMHO.
Going to give you a C+ for effort . ;)--Tyr

[fj1200]

A famous corruption case does not prove The Progressives are without corruption. Additionally people called Progressives back in 1912 are a far cry from those claiming to be progressives 'liberal today. These asshats we have promoting Socialism/Marxism today wouldn't make buckle on the belt of those people IMHO.
Going to give you a C+ for effort . ;)--Tyr

You miss the point, your progressiveness is showing again. Nevertheless you keep lumping everyone into the 'corrupt' category when the Constitution allows citizens to petition the government for redress of our grievances.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You miss the point, your progressiveness is showing again. Nevertheless you keep lumping everyone into the 'corrupt' category when the Constitution allows citizens to petition the government for redress of our grievances.
Not everyone but most lobbyists I do put into that category because the corruption in that group is institutionalized now. It is how they say in Washington--How its done!! Just don't get caught!

Sure allowances for redress of grievances is allowed and ok. However , a systematic policy of offering bribes is not. And as the Rev would say -"Washington is rotten with that." ;)
With far more coming from the dem side ... Simply because they as a group have less integrity and less Christian based morals.. --Tyr

[jimnyc]

As is anyone who receives a paycheck.

Understood, and I don't begrudge someone a paycheck. I'm just saying that I think the reasons they are lobbying isn't always 'for the people', but rather for buddies and corporations.

[Gunny]

What is the only job actually defined in the Constitution and protected?

This was from my favorite political talk show Michael Medved.

Unless I missed something, the First Amendment also by default establishes "Congress" and "government" as existing jobs within the Constitution. Congress not establishing the government being available for redress implies existence and "protection" under the law.

[fj1200]

Not everyone but most lobbyists I do put into that category because the corruption in that group is institutionalized now. It is how they say in Washington--How its done!! Just don't get caught!

Sure allowances for redress of grievances is allowed and ok. However , a systematic policy of offering bribes is not. And as the Rev would say -"Washington is rotten with that." ;)
With far more coming from the dem side ... Simply because they as a group have less integrity and less Christian based morals.. --Tyr

The tax code and overly burdensome regulations are institutionalized.

[fj1200]

Understood, and I don't begrudge someone a paycheck. I'm just saying that I think the reasons they are lobbying isn't always 'for the people', but rather for buddies and corporations.

Do you mean for clients? DC could neuter lobbyists tomorrow but they won't because Congress likes the power.