Is it time Centrism in the US got assertive?

And what would that assertiveness manifest itself as?

Denerick

Centrists, moderates, humanitarians and conscientous people by and large are not assertive. The main reason being that they rely on reason and compassion to win an argument, whilst ideologues and radicals rely on passion and fear (Applies to both the left and right unfortunately) Centrists see the nuances in every argument and find it difficult to have quasi fundamentalist views on economic or social issues, and idealogues see only black and white. As W.B. Yeats wrote so long ago:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

EastTexas

I doubt that the US provides an environment for a majority of centrism, because it’s not a monoculture with it’s overabundance of diverse cultures and values intermingling with each other and distinct personalities of the varies states.
There are very clear demarcations between state and federal law and individual state’s rights.
Any attempt to deindividualize and homogenize the whole kit and caboodle to promote centrism would surly fail.
Instead balance is far more desirable.

Any time the House, Senate and the Presidency is held by one party only regardless which one breeds discontent because it upsets that very balance which is an ongoing balancing act of “The Great Experiment” in it’s self.

Clearly visible by how much better Obama is doing, not just in the polls but in his effectiveness to govern since the last year’s midterm elections handing Congress back to the Republicans but leaving the Senate in Democratic hands with a President now more able to move to the middle again.

InTheTrees

EastTexas wrote: »

I doubt that the US provides an environment for a majority of centrism,

I think the whole US political system is set up to function at its best with bipartisan cooperation.

In parliamentary systems there's an "opposition" party who's purpose is to obstruct and argue with the party in power.

While the US congress (and state gov's) depends on cooperation and consensus. For instance I dont think the constitution even mentions political parties does it?

goose2005

The Democrats are centrist, if not right-of-centre, at least compared to other democracies.

RichieC

goose2005 wrote: »

The Democrats are centrist, if not right-of-centre, at least compared to other democracies.

Pretty much, there is no viable Left in the US, starts at the center and then goes right to more right.

EastTexas

InTheTrees wrote: »

I think the whole US political system is set up to function at its best with bipartisan cooperation.

In parliamentary systems there's an "opposition" party who's purpose is to obstruct and argue with the party in power.

While the US congress (and state gov's) depends on cooperation and consensus. For instance I dont think the constitution even mentions political parties does it?

Correct, the constitution does not refer to any political party
It’s an organizational framework for the US government and the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.
An Agreement between the 3 branches of Government and the people.
Not to be confused with the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution and the name given to the first ten amendments (or changes) to the Constitution.

None of that is political, but it protects the people against the development of any type of political party contrary to the constitution and in conflict with the bill of rights.

For example and on a side note, that is precisely the problem with the healthcare bill.
It’s not that people are against healthcare or wish for others to not have any healthcare or simply don’t care as it is frequently spun.
But that the mandate in the healthcare bill is unconstitutional and in conflict with the bill of rights.
Ergo all the fuss.

kaiser sauze

EastTexas wrote: »

For example and on a side note, that is precisely the problem with the healthcare bill.
It’s not that people are against healthcare or wish for others to not have any healthcare or simply don’t care as it is frequently spun.
But that the mandate in the healthcare bill is unconstitutional and in conflict with the bill of rights.
Ergo all the fuss.

What part of The Interstate Commerce clause, The General Welfare clause and The Necessary and Proper clause are they repugnant to?

Congress has been mandating upon the citizens of The US since the 1700s. These laws were signed by the very founding fathers that Tea Party activists swoon to. It just shows their selective view of history.

Manic Moran

Well, at least according to one federal judge, the federal government has no authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance, and he was unconvinced that the interstate commerce clause granted such authority.

I object to the statement that a centrist cannot be assertive. He can be very assertive about his centrist policies, in the same manner that someone may hold hard right personal ideals but be rather meek. Centrism is not defined as 'being willing to compromise', it's better defined as 'holding beliefs wich are the sole purview of neither the left or the right.' How strongly you hold those beliefs is another issue entirely.


NTM

EastTexas

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, at least according to one federal judge, the federal government has no authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance, and he was unconvinced that the interstate commerce clause granted such authority.

I object to the statement that a centrist cannot be assertive. He can be very assertive about his centrist policies, in the same manner that someone may hold hard right personal ideals but be rather meek. Centrism is not defined as 'being willing to compromise', it's better defined as 'holding beliefs wich are the sole purview of neither the left or the right.' How strongly you hold those beliefs is another issue entirely.


NTM

Agreed, that is a bit stereotyping.

kaiser sauze

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, at least according to one federal judge, the federal government has no authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance, and he was unconvinced that the interstate commerce clause granted such authority.


NTM

You fail to note the two unsuccessful suits (also at Federal level), and the twelve dismissed outright.

You also fail to note the judge's background that decided against the law's provisions.

Manic Moran

It doesn't matter. It only takes one judge to rule a national law or policy to be unconstitutional and the effect is nationwide. The same reason why when a district judge in california ruled don't ask don't tell unconstitutional it was effective nationwide. We now have a national split in the federal judiciary, if the circuit doesn't reverse, it has to go to the supreme court.

NTM

kaiser sauze

Manic Moran wrote: »

It doesn't matter. It only takes one judge to rule a national law or policy to be unconstitutional and the effect is nationwide. The same reason why when a district judge in california ruled don't ask don't tell unconstitutional it was effective nationwide. We now have a national split in the federal judiciary, if the circuit doesn't reverse, it has to go to the supreme court.

NTM

That judge's ruling has not changed the implementation procedure of ACA one iota.

Manic Moran

Only because he stayed the implementation of his ruling pending a decision on appeal, which would be the correct legal thing for him to do. Until he is overruled by a higher court, his decision stands, and the law is in effect only at his sufferance.
He was able to do so because the appropriate provisions weren't to kick in until 2014
NTM

kaiser sauze

Manic Moran wrote: »

Only because he stayed the implementation of his ruling pending a decision on appeal, which would be the correct legal thing for him to do. Until he is overruled by a higher court, his decision stands, and the law is in effect only at his sufferance.
He was able to do so because the appropriate provisions weren't to kick in until 2014
NTM

Were the two judgements upholding the law before this hack's ruling?

Is it not more likely that he stayed the immediate enforcement of his ruling as there were two dissenting opinions already in place from parallel courts?

It will be borne out that this judge's ruling was incorrect, the only reason he made it is to give those who question its legality something to mouth about and add to the overall misinformation campaign.

Manic Moran

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Were the two judgements upholding the law before this hack's ruling?

Is it not more likely that he stayed the immediate enforcement of his ruling as there were two dissenting opinions already in place from parallel courts?

It's not his job to worry about other courts. Staying the decision was the least intrusive condition to the status quo pending a decision on whether the US wanted to appeal. It's standard practise. If the US chose not to appeal, the stay would be lifted. If the Circuit court declined certiorari, the stay would be lifted. The fact that other courts ruled separately is irrelevant to the stay.

As it turned out (And, frankly, not surprisingly to anyone), the US did appeal, the Circuit Court did grant cert, and AGs from all over the nation are filing amicus briefs as this case now affects them all, so the stay is in effect until the Circuit court rules. The system working as it should.

NTM

kaiser sauze

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's not his job to worry about other courts. Staying the decision was the least intrusive condition to the status quo pending a decision on whether the US wanted to appeal. It's standard practise. If the US chose not to appeal, the stay would be lifted. If the Circuit court declined certiorari, the stay would be lifted. The fact that other courts ruled separately is irrelevant to the stay.

As it turned out (And, frankly, not surprisingly to anyone), the US did appeal, the Circuit Court did grant cert, and AGs from all over the nation are filing amicus briefs as this case now affects them all, so the stay is in effect until the Circuit court rules. The system working as it should.

NTM

I agree the system is working as it should, to the point where an obviously partisan hack made a ruling, we will just have to agree to disagree on the rationale for the stay.