
       There are a couple of ways to look at them.  One is, "We want
you to support this Constitution, so we'll say anything that we think
will appeal to you," or the more straightforward, "This is why we think
what we've suggested in this Constitution is a good idea."

       You clearly consider the former to be the primary situation.


       Well, I know Hamilton was a dyed in the wool monarchist, and 
probably the authoritarian extreme to Jefferson's democratic impules.
But what would you suggest as a means of determining their opinions
on the government if we don't consider what they wrote about the
government?

       And is writing in support of something automatically "propoganda"
to the point we must assume it is untrue or that they are saying what
they don't believe?


       If the Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords, than
we'd almost have to state that the House of Representatives was also.
(In fact, they both were, because the British government had much
greater power than did the American system).       


       I disagree.  The system is not too slow, it was simply designed to
handle less than it has demanded that it handle.  As somebody in Washington
put it (whose name I forget), "Congress has become everybody's city
council."

       Congress is more than capable of quick action, and has more than
enough power and time on its hands, if it confined itself to what its
original jurisidiction was and allowed more local autonomy.

       It is not a case of the system of government they created failing,
but that it is operating under a set of conditions they specifically
wanted to avoid.  Namely, a concentration of power.  It would seem
then that the proper thing to do is not to reduce the power of either
House in some attempt to grease the wheels.  All you'll get then is
a system which moves quicker to do stupid things.  It would make more
sense to make more decisions at a local level.


       Please explain to me how Bush abused the veto in an "extraordinary"
manner.


       I fail to see where any restrictions, implied or otherwise, were
placed on the veto.  It could just as easily have been read as a means
to put a check on democratically popular but unwise (in the executive's
opinion) policies.  

       There is no limit in the Constitution to the President's veto power
regarding what a bill is for.  Previous Presidents have used the veto
for any number of reasons, most usually having something to do with their
agenda.  I am really curious how you single Bush out as *the* President
who abused vetos.


       Why is it not a reasonable restriction?  Because 51 Senators
is the magic holy number upon which Laws must be based?  If 41 Senators
feel safe enough with their state constituencies to stand up and 
fillibuster isn't that *enough* to indicate there's a sufficient question
as to whether a law is a good idea or not to re-evaluate it?

       Why one earth *should* 51% be sufficient to enact a law which
covers 250 million people in very, very diverse places and living
in radically different conditions?  Why *shouldn't* a super-majority
be required?

       Any system in which the simple majority is given absolute power
to ignore the minority then the minority *will* be ignored.  I do not
see this as a positive thing.  And for all that I'm sure the Republicans
are looking for pork as much as the Democrats, they've got some legitimate
objections to the legislation in question.
