[Chugalug] Could the maker movement become the Maker Party?
chad78 at gmail.com
Mon Oct 8 18:12:49 UTC 2012
So you don't think that lawmakers should care if the laws they write or
vote on are constitutional or not?
The process isn't pass whatever laws you want and leave it up to the courts
to decide if they are constitutional or not - the courts merely provide a
Check and Balance in case any laws are passed that they
deem unconstitutional. Congress should never ignore the Constitution and
leave all that up to the courts. That's ridiculous.
*- Chad W. Smith*
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Eric Wolf <ebwolf at gmail.com> wrote:
> Politics can never based on principles unless everyone shares the same
> principles. Since we don't politics is based on compromise. What we are
> seeing with the Tea Party is an attempt to impose one set of principles on
> everyone and the basic mechanism of politics, compromise, is treated as an
> If you want to make a difference in politics, help unseat Paul Broun in
> Georgia District 10. Broun is the House Science Committee member who
> recently said in a speech:
> “All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big
> Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies
> to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding
> that they need a savior.”
> On his website, he lays out how he decides each vote he makes:
> 1) Is it Right/Moral?
> 2) Is it Constitutional?
> 3) Is it Necessary?
> 4) Is it Affordable?
> So every vote he makes, his first consideration is "does this fit my
> personal belief system?" then he takes on the role of the Supreme Court by
> evaluating the constitutionality of each vote.
> Eric B. Wolf 720-334-7734
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Dan Lyke <danlyke at flutterby.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 16:21:15 -0400 (EDT)
>> Phil Shapiro <pshapiro at his.com> wrote:
>> > I've lived in the Washington DC-area for almost 30 years and am
>> > pretty cynical about politics in general, yet if a Maker Party would
>> > ever form, I would be 150 percent behind it.
>> Parties are things that form and reform platforms around coalitions.
>> For better or worse, things like patent law reform, first sale
>> doctrine, etc, are all fairly minor issues around which to build a
>> Further, I spent last year doing research for FHWA reports, and I'm
>> fairly well convinced at this point that much of the money spent by the
>> federal government on "research" is piddled away on Berkely PhDs who
>> don't have the critical thinking skills necessary to escape from a
>> paper bag and who are chasing bizarre and easily disproved theories.
>> (The current focus on V2V communications being a perfect example)
>> So I think that "make" culture (what we used to call hobbyists, back
>> before TV) has some room to provide input to the major parties, but
>> since I gave up on principles in politics I think that that's a far
>> more pragmatic mechanism than trying to build a separate party
>> Chugalug mailing list
>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
> Chugalug mailing list
> Chugalug at chugalug.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Chugalug