Ask a question

Why Is It So Hard To Reach Our Congressmen After We

Why did congress oppose of President Johnson's Reconstruction Plan?

A lot of Congressmen wanted to punish the south and also had the attitude "to the victor go the spoils." Get rich quick schemes abounded even in Congress. When Johnson followed Lincoln's Reconstruction Plan, he was seen as too soft. At the same time, he came down hard on people who did violate the law and victimize southeners.

Why on earth are we choosing between 3 current senators for president?

The (democrat controlled)Senate has a much lower approval rating than the president, yet we are nominating them to be the next president. It makes no sense. Let them fix things now if they are so eager. Once again we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils. It's just hard to figure out which is lesser.

Does it take an act of congress to demote SNCO's and above in the U.S. military?

No it does not take an act of Congress, just a general court martial. Read the UCMJ Article 15.

A memeber can only be reduced in rank by an officer (O-5 and above), if the current rank is within that Officers ability to promote to. In the Navy the CO can promote anyone in his command up to E-6. He cannot, nor can any other Officer promote somebody to Chief (E-7). I believe the Marine Corps the CO can promote to E-5, not sure of the Army and AF. Sticking with the Navy, if an E-6 goes to NJP the CO can reduce 1 and only 1 paygrade. If a Chief or above were to go to NJP he CANNOT reduce him in rank since he cannot promote him to it. The CO can do all other things allowed by Art. 15.

In order to reduce a Chief or above in rank it will take a General Courts Martial, provided the offense accused allows it as a punishment.

The term "it takes an act of congress" is used mainly to describe, it is not easy at all to reduce them in rank, and also ties in that at least for the Navy, the amount of Chiefs and above allowed are determined by congress.

How might you refurbish our congressional system to bring it into the 21st Century?

For the time at which it was conceived of and set up, the U.S. Congress was a very advanced and (dare we say it?) liberal legislative body. It was, in many ways, far in advance of its time, and served as something of an experiment in indirect democracy. However, that was then, and this is now. The U.S. has since grown enormously in several areas, such as population, diversity, education, and technology. At long last, in comparison with some legislatures in foreign countries (we are referring here to democratic countries…), our legislature is starting to look rather shopworn.

Each of our direct representatives in the House of Representatives represents roughly 700,000 of us. It is said that we have only 435 of them because that was the number of seats available in the largest assembly room in the Capitol. They are disproportionately wealthy, white, Anglo, male, Protestant, and old (with an incumbency rate of roughly 95%) How well can such an elite understand what most of their ±700,000 constituents, think about, aspire to, or simply need?

We have, as some have put it, the best congress that money can buy, and lets face it, our congress is bought to the extent that 75-80% of the cost of their campaigns are financed by corporate donations. Corporations do not donate money to be “good citizens,” but rather to do what they do: make a profit. They expect a return on their investment, and they get it. Our congressional system is based on bribery, which in most normal democratic countries except this one, would land our representatives in jail.

Now, lets assume that you have a magic wand (your vote) in your hands, and some ideals and ideas in your high-powered minds. How might you refurbish our congressional system to bring it into the 21st Century? This is an open-ended question, which can lead to many different approaches or strategies from more concrete to more abstract, and everything in between. Do try, however, to keep this somewhat within the realm of the possible and preferable.

(Furthermore, please keep in mind that our system is supposed to be based upon the ideal of democracy, not quotas, appointed representatives or other anti-democratic devices. We also are not in favor of reverse gerrymandering, revolution [very messy and deadly], or complete anarchy [which we are not evolved enough to deal with constructively, anyway.])

Can we consider the rep party treasonous because they decided to obstruct Obama inauguration day?

Shouldn't "intentionally undermining America's progress" be some kind of violation?

"On the night of Barack Obama’s inauguration, a group of top GOP luminaries quietly gathered in a Washington steakhouse to lick their wounds and ultimately create the outline of a plan for how to deal with the incoming administration.

“The room was filled. It was a who’s who of ranking members who had at one point been committee chairmen, or in the majority, who now wondered out loud whether they were in the permanent minority,” Frank Luntz, who organized the event, told FRONTLINE.

Among them were Senate power brokers Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl and Tom Coburn, and conservative congressmen Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan.

After three hours of strategizing, they decided they needed to fight Obama on everything. The new president had no idea what the Republicans were planning."

Robert Draper Book: GOP's Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration

"Exposed Republican Plan To Obstruct Obama From Day One"

"The Republican conspiracy to obstruct all even if it would destroy the country in detail. AND PEOPLE STILL BLAME OBAMA"