POLITICS - the problem as i see it

[Scott Young]

please understand this is a statement concerning the passing of bills that ensnare politicians. i do not claim to be an expert, and i know i am overly idealizing the process.

the problem as i see it is when bills are passed they seem to always have things attached to them in order to garner support. this is problematic in that it will always open the door for strange bedfellows. for instance, if i wanted to pass a bill that would protect our hunting privileges and develop new roads into our national forests. if i needed help from other lawmakers sitting on the fence then they might add we needed to protect the bald eagle and golden eagle from lead digestion and amend no exposed lead shot or bullets. with out their help the bill would die.

now the media. in specific hunting and gun rags will be able to say i didn't push hard enough and this was just a rouse to paint the picture of being for hunting or if i let the bill get amended then i will painted as the one who brought in gun control.

also the interest groups are problematic. i do believe we need them. but they are shortsighted concerning issues that arise due to their zeal. for instance. the issue we have between stand hunters, dog hunters, and trappers. at the moment the feud is hot between stand hunters and dog hunters with stand hunters shooting any dog on sight. in north arkansas they have outlawed dog running or at least they did when i lived there.

back to the bill i proposed. if i don't push for the open of federal lands to hunt at all costs then the special interest group if strong enough will crucify me regardless what amendments we have to attach on to the bill.


i don't know if i am making sense, but i believe that a bill should not be allowed to have amendments outside the scope of the proposed purpose. there have been several bill come down the pike that start out with going in one direction and then change directions so many times it no longer contains any of the original intentions.

[AJMD429]

All those thorny problems are AVOIDED if the federal government sticks to what it is supposed to do - 'provide for the common defense' and settle any disputes between states. The feds really shouldn't be attractive to special interest groups, and wouldn't be, if they stuck to their Constitutionally limited charter.

The only 'living Constitution' stuff I could see would be that we ARE more aware of environmental issues now, and limited resources, etc. - so a carefully-worded Constitutional Amendment could give the feds LEGITIMATE power to regulate the environment. Unfortunately, with their track record of:

Breaking their own laws
Expanding their own powers
Being TOTALLY inefficient
Generally making WORSE stuff they allege to 'improve'

I wouldn't really want them to do ANYTHING.

[Scott Young]