View Single Post
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2009, 01:28 PM
clayfoushee's Avatar
clayfoushee clayfoushee is offline
CC Member
Visit my Photo Gallery

 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Annapolis, MD
Cobra Make, Engine: Unique, 427SO, it runs
Posts: 2,636
Not Ranked     
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamo View Post
Laws should not be enslaved by short-termed needs. Who decides when something is crucial? You're opening it up to political whims.

Politics is what led to the change in Mass. law in the first place...nothing more. If the Democrats had risen above politics and acted from the lofty logic you present, they would have adopted the current limitation for appointed terms at that time...they made damn sure they didn't.

Now, they're making damn sure they do.

Unethical as only Kennedy-led liberal politcs can be. At least the Illinois Democratic leadership tried to get some money for their unethical appraoch.
Oh really . . . what about the laws passed very quickly in reaction to the 9/11/01 attacks?

And to answer your question, "who decides" is the body of duly-elected representatives of the people, just as is happening in MA, currently. This decision is not being made by a dictator.

EDIT: Thanks for the lob, buddy.
__________________
Clay

Last edited by clayfoushee; 09-19-2009 at 01:37 PM..
Reply With Quote