Using a tactic to halt the government in a fashion other than what congress or the senate are legally empowered to undertake. (Wherein, things like fillibuster, failure to meet majority in either house or senate, and other above-board methods are explicitly enshrined.) With provisions that since the world changes, law needs to as well, such that new methods may be added to the explicitly exempted list of allowed tactics, as needed, with a full 2/3 majority vote in both house and senate, and with a further requirement that all language used to amend the law must be completely unambiguous in nature or intent.
I could get behind something like this. I think we were a bit quick to slide down the slope to the worst incarnation of the law. I'd recommend adding an "appendix" if you will to the legislation that describes precisely what some more volatile
* words and phrases in the law mean. I realize you could just use simpler and stabler words, but in case you just can't avoid such a volatile phrase (of which I can conjure zero examples right now, for what it's worth).
It's one of those "do we really need to point this out?" kind of laws, but that tends to happen. But, were I a part of drafting the legislation, I'd be incredibly paranoid in everything the bill says, what it allows, disallows, procedures for kicking someone out, etc.
Well, great. My mind's in one of those states now, where I'm almost giddy thinking of what such a law would say and do. Thanks a lot, wierd
.
I was meaning literal. "Mutually Assured Destruction"
A deficit default will assure devestation on both sides. Dem's DO have a considerably significant amount of negative publicity. That they might statistically come out just a molecule on top after the dust settles, does not mean that mutual devestation did not occur.
I don't mean it in the sense that the fear of it will keep them honest; they have clearly spelled out that this is not the case. Instead, they are comitted to mutual destruction as the inevitable conclusion, without seeking alternatives.
Now's the time to invest heavily in vault tec.
No seriously, it is the philosophy that forcing both sides to suffer hugely prevents going over the cliff. Democrats have a 2:1 advantage on this. One does not simply, suffer from a 2:1 advantage. And the Tea-Party is liable to hang themselves with thread.
How about MAUD (Mutually Assured, Unified Destruction) then? The implications of the phrase MAD don't line up, I agree, but the actual words themselves ("destruction which is assured by both sides, i.e. mutually") do.
*volatile as in their susceptibility to their definition changing over time.