So here is my quandary

[werepossum]

Honestly, it's very difficult for me to find any information about local races for State Senate and Assembly. I can't even determine what district I'm in, let alone who is on the ballot. Granted I only looked at the elections webpage for about 5 minutes, so I'm sure it's there somewhere.

Fern,
Difference between GITMO and HC Reform is that closing Gitmo was never made law by Congress. The legislative branch underfunding the executive branch to prevent it from enforcing law strikes me as unconstitutional due to a violation of separation of powers. If for some reason it isn't, I think it sets a very poor precedent. Do we really want laws being selectively enforced based on who is in power in Congress?

Yes, it would be terrible if health care laws were to be selectively enforced, something unprecedented in our history. Not at all like, say, immigration laws.

There really isn't much difference between the parties. Democrats currently believe in quite a bit of socialism; Republicans currently believe in slightly less socialism. Democrats currently believe the First Amendment guarantees freedom from religion and the Second Amendment authorizes government to draft your ass into the armed forces; Republicans currently believe the First Amendment guarantees Christian prayer in school and the Second Amendment authorizes citizens to be armed. No matter what the supposed policies of the candidates, these positions are what your choice will empower, as the selection of leadership determines which bills and amendments are allowed a vote. Besides that, unless a candidate has a verifiable history, so that you can see a record of what she has done, her positions on the issues are moot; a candidate's stated positions are those judged necessary to win election.

Look at the party leadership and pick your poison. There probably won't be much difference either way.

 

[Fern]

Honestly, it's very difficult for me to find any information about local races for State Senate and Assembly. I can't even determine what district I'm in, let alone who is on the ballot. Granted I only looked at the elections webpage for about 5 minutes, so I'm sure it's there somewhere.

Pick up the phone book and call your county's election office, or call one or both of the political parties (Dem/Repub). They can all tell you what district you're in. And the Dems/Repubs can surely tell you info on the candidate.

Are you sure that you're registered to vote? I mean, you can't remember who your state legislators are? Not even one? If you can, you go to their website and in 99% of the cases it will state what district they represent right up front.

Fern,
Difference between GITMO and HC Reform is that closing Gitmo was never made law by Congress. The legislative branch underfunding the executive branch to prevent it from enforcing law strikes me as unconstitutional due to a violation of separation of powers. If for some reason it isn't, I think it sets a very poor precedent. Do we really want laws being selectively enforced based on who is in power in Congress?

I agree your distinction between GITMO and HC is valid.

In the case of GITMO, the Constitution gives 'funding power' to Congress and they are under no obligation to fund the President's wishes. So I don't see any problem with it, at least Constitutionally.

In the case of HCR, what's the big difference between Congress voting to repeal it or voting to defund it? As best as I can tell the difference is one of parlimenatry procedure: One brings the Senate filibuster into play, the other removes it.

Fern

 

[Carmen813]

I moved to this district to attend school last year, so this will be my first election here. I'm definitely registered to vote. Thanks for the tidbit, I didn't even think of that, obvious as though it may seem.

Fern,
Voting to repeal would end the law as is, removing the requirement for the executive branch to enforce it. De-funding it circumvents the executive branches ability to enforce the law, which is the executive's Constitutional prerogative. While it's true that it is the responsibility of Congress to appropriate funds, I feel like doing so to deliberately prevent the executive branch from enforcing the law is entering a Constitutionally murky area. It may be mincing the issue a bit, but it's just my thoughts on it.

Werepossum,
I think comparing HC and immigration is a bit of a red herring. I'm talking about Congress essentially abusing it's power by preventing the executive branch from having the ability to enforce the law, not how the executive branch's actual enforces the law.

I do think the executive branch has too much power right now, but I do not believe the solution is for Congress to overstep its bounds as well.