Recent Comments

1. about 1 month ago on B.C.

   Democracy is unlimited, unrestricted majority rule. In a democracy, the majority can override the rights of the minority by simple majority vote. Republicanism is legally limited government, with the rights of both the majority AND the minority protected by rule of law. The United States of America is a republic, not a democracy (Constitution of the United States, Articles IV, Section 4). Two-thirds of our population is concentrated in 17 states. If the President was elected by popular vote, urban states would overwhelm the more rural states, which have different concerns from the urban ones. While citizens of rural states might technically vote, they would effectively be disenfranchised. The electoral college ensures that the concerns of all states are taken into consideration.

2. over 2 years ago on Dick Tracy

   I have to strongly disagree with Lt. Reimer (“Crimestopper’s Textbook”). Imagine a situation in which a criminal invades a home, intending to kill, rob, or otherwise harm a resident. Does the good lieutenant actually think the criminal will allow the resident to call time out and then stand idly by while the resident unlocks the safe, takes out the gun, disables the trigger lock, goes to another storage facility, unlocks that, takes out the ammunition, and loads the gun?

3. over 5 years ago on B.C.

   The Senate was never supposed to represent the people; we the people were represented by the House. the Senate was to represent the States and their governments. Before the 17th Amendment, the Senate was comparatively (though not absolutely) aloof from partisan politics and comparatively immune to pressure from special interest groups. The 17t Amendment changed the Senate from “the world’s greatest deliberative body” into a glorified House of Representatives, whose members serve longer terms. Meanwhile, for over a century, the States have had no one in Congress representing them, which is a big part of why Washington has been able to usurp so much authority that constitutionally belongs to the States and the people.

4. over 5 years ago on B.C.

   While this would give us a House with some 10,000 members, I believe modern communication makes this doable. I see these advantages: districts would once again be more or less homogenous; campaigns could be run on a fairly modest budget; constituents would find it much easier to hold Representatives accountable to the Constitution and their oaths of office. Up to the end of the 19th century, turnover in the House was about 50 percent every 4 years, without term limits.

5. over 5 years ago on B.C.

   The problem I see is that term limits would make any number of members ineligible for re-election in any one session, and might have the unintended consequence of turning every session of Congress into a lame-duck session. I believe we’d be better to return to the Constitution’s original design: one Representative for every 30,000 citizens in a State for the House. For the Senate, repeal the 17th Amendment, and have Senators once again appointed by, and representing, the States and State governments.

6. over 5 years ago on B.C.

   I ran out of space, so let me continue my remarks. Congress originally consisted of two houses, answerable to two different electorates. It was another of the checks and balances the founding fathers so wisely built into the Constitution. Originally, the Senate was comparatively — not absolutely, of course, but comparatively — aloof from partisan politics and comparatively immune to pressure from special interest groups. The Seventeenth Amendment changed that, transforming the Senate from “the world’s greatest deliberative body” into essentially a glorified House of Representatives, whose members serve longer terms. The Seventeenth Amendment was a serious mistake. I believe it is one of the main reasons Washington has been able to usurp so much authority that properly belongs to the States and the people.

7. over 5 years ago on B.C.

   I think Messrs. Mastroianni and Hart are expressing their frustration with Congress. While I share it, I don’t think term limits are the answer. Some of Congress’ greatest mischief has been performed during lame-duck sessions, while numerous legislators are no longer accountable to the voters. If term limits are imposed, that would make large numbers of legislators ineligible for re-election at any one time, and might have the unintended consequence of turning every session of Congress into a lame-duck session. I think a better solution would be to return Congress to its original design, laid out in the Constitution. Article I, Section 2 requires one Representative for every 30,000 citizens in a State. (Alexander Hamilton wrote that 30,000 was the optimum number.) In 1929, however, the House capped itself at 435 members. As a result, each Representative today “represents” about 750,000. While returning to the Constitution’s requirement would give us a House of Representatives of some 10,000 members, I believe modern communication makes this doable. I see these advantages: Congressional districts would once again become more or less homogenous. Campaigns for the House could be conducted on a fairly modest budget. Constituents would find it much easier to hold Representatives accountable to the Constitution and their oaths of office. A special interest would have to corrupt over 5,000 people to be successful. Finally, up to about the end of the nineteen century, when the requirement was still observed, turnover in the House was typically about 50 percent every 4 years — without term limits. As for the Senate, I believe we should repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, which made Senators elected directly by the people instead of being appointed by the State governments. The Senate was supposed to represent the States and their governments — but no one in Congress has represented them for over 100 years.

8. almost 6 years ago on Dick Tracy

   I find that phrase “have a good one” a little frustrating. Have a good one what? If people mean, “Have a good day,” why not say that? It takes the same amount of time and syllables, but the meaning is so much more clear.

9. almost 13 years ago on Dick Tracy

   It does seem that ever since the current writers took over, we’ve seen a welcome return of a number of classic characters.

10. almost 13 years ago on Nancy

    Every now and again, you see a sign in this strip, stating that some business is “Bushmiller’s.” Wasn’t Ernie Bushmiller the original writer and artist of this strip?