Tannhauser42 wrote: A thought occurred to me today. The whole point of that Republican pledge to support whomever the party nominates was basically to keep Trump in line, to prevent him from spinning off into a 3rd party candidacy when he inevitably doesn't get the nomination, thus splitting the Republican vote. But...what if it goes the other way? What if Trump actually does win the nomination? Can you just imagine Rubio, Jeb, and others being forced to publicly support Trump?
My guess is old timers who might not have much time left or much of a political future will publicly denounce him (McCain, Bush, Romney, Grahm, maybe even GW) but those who are looking to future elections will swallow their pride (and likely the sword) and support him. Though I still don't see him winning the nom. Cruz will win IA, tarnishing trump's illusion of power; I see NH going to Christie, at which point the race begins anew with Cruz as the likely winner due to his southern strategy and acumen with election rules. Though Christie might put up a fight in the NE which has a lot more moderates and an outsized impact in the GOP primary.
It may surprise American dakka members to learn that any discussion of the ACA has an effect on Britain.
Why? Because Republicans start talking about death panels, and how our National Health Service (NHS) runs death panels, and how 30 years ago we killed Stephen Hawking by putting him on a death panel!
And yet, I saw Stephen Hawking alive and well on TV the other week.
Point is, the last time there was a major discussion about ACA, our NHS was badly criticised by ignorant people who know ZERO about it.
We were swamped out with Fox news TV crews wanting to see our '3rd world' health service!
On the flip side, I understand how Americans feel when foreigners start lecturing them on the 2nd amendment.
Nope. That's a success. It telegraphs the voters that had there been a Republican President, it would've been repealed.
I don't know about that. There is a decent argument that, if the President were Republican, the bill would never have existed in the first place. Ask yourself: if Obama didn't win a second term, how many GOP congressmen would really try all that hard to repeal Obamacare? Because let's be honest, much of the impetus behind repealing Obamacare is "feth the Democrats!", if they've already lost the Presidential election what's the point? I guess fending off challenges from opponents who swing further right than you, but most of the people who stridently oppose Obamacare have swung about as far right as anyone can get.
Would I rather they use to power of the purse and force a constitutional brawl? Yes.
Why? No one wins if this House tries to use the power of the purse with the respect to Obamacare. The budget will get kicked back and forth by the House and Senate, which will involve a lot of political risk and uncertainty for everyone, and then people in the know will realize that the expensive parts of it are mandatory spending and can only be changed by CIMPs (I refuse to add the 'H') or actual legislation.
Would I rather they use to power of the purse and force a constitutional brawl? Yes.
Why? No one wins if this House tries to use the power of the purse with the respect to Obamacare. The budget will get kicked back and forth by the House and Senate, which will involve a lot of political risk and uncertainty for everyone, and then people in the know will realize that the expensive parts of it are mandatory spending and can only be changed by CIMPs (I refuse to add the 'H') or actual legislation.
I'm still surprised that they did the smart thing with the budget and actually passed a legitimate bipartisan bill in both chambers that allows both sides to have victories while removing the uncertainty of shutdowns.
Would I rather they use to power of the purse and force a constitutional brawl? Yes.
Why? No one wins if this House tries to use the power of the purse with the respect to Obamacare. The budget will get kicked back and forth by the House and Senate, which will involve a lot of political risk and uncertainty for everyone, and then people in the know will realize that the expensive parts of it are mandatory spending and can only be changed by CIMPs (I refuse to add the 'H') or actual legislation.
I'm still surprised that they did the smart thing with the budget and actually passed a legitimate bipartisan bill in both chambers that allows both sides to have victories while removing the uncertainty of shutdowns.
Ryan wanted the threat of a government shutdown off the table during the election cycle. Right-wing radio blasted him but it was the smart play.
Would I rather they use to power of the purse and force a constitutional brawl? Yes.
Why? No one wins if this House tries to use the power of the purse with the respect to Obamacare. The budget will get kicked back and forth by the House and Senate, which will involve a lot of political risk and uncertainty for everyone, and then people in the know will realize that the expensive parts of it are mandatory spending and can only be changed by CIMPs (I refuse to add the 'H') or actual legislation.
I'm still surprised that they did the smart thing with the budget and actually passed a legitimate bipartisan bill in both chambers that allows both sides to have victories while removing the uncertainty of shutdowns.
This. IN the election season, this is the only smart play.
I'm just wanting Congress to flex their muscle a bit, because right now, they're being pushed around.
BlaxicanX wrote: Yup. Not to drag the discussion off-topic, but I have absolutely zero issue with spanking kids. There's a difference between a spanking and a beating.
That depends entirely on the severity. When does a spanking become a beating, for example?
Also, punishment by physical violence is not officially condoned in any US prisons (even the death penalty is attempted to be done with zero pain), no matter what the criminal in question has done, so why is it an acceptable punishment for children who may be too young to fully understand that the action that they are being punished for is wrong at the time of them doing that act?
BlaxicanX wrote: Yup. Not to drag the discussion off-topic, but I have absolutely zero issue with spanking kids. There's a difference between a spanking and a beating.
That depends entirely on the severity. When does a spanking become a beating, for example?
Also, punishment by physical violence is not officially condoned in any US prisons (even the death penalty is attempted to be done with zero pain), no matter what the criminal in question has done, so why is it an acceptable punishment for children who may be too young to fully understand that the action that they are being punished for is wrong at the time of them doing that act?
Because the one thing everyone can understand is pain. And children are smart enough to connect what is happening to what they just did. But at the same time they might not understand other forms of punishment.
It is illegal in many countries for a good reason. Here is would be child abuse.
Many countries are incorrect and misguided in called it abuse. Like anything, it can be abusive. But the act itself can be done properly and not in an abusive way, and its not difficult to do that either.
BlaxicanX wrote: Yup. Not to drag the discussion off-topic, but I have absolutely zero issue with spanking kids. There's a difference between a spanking and a beating.
That depends entirely on the severity. When does a spanking become a beating, for example?
Also, punishment by physical violence is not officially condoned in any US prisons (even the death penalty is attempted to be done with zero pain), no matter what the criminal in question has done, so why is it an acceptable punishment for children who may be too young to fully understand that the action that they are being punished for is wrong at the time of them doing that act?
Because the one thing everyone can understand is pain. And children are smart enough to connect what is happening to what they just did. But at the same time they might not understand other forms of punishment.
Spanking is a legitimate form of punishment.
So you're also okay with punishing people with learning difficulties such as autism with spanking as they "will understand pain and connect it with what they just did but at the same time may not understand other forms of punishment."?
BlaxicanX wrote: Yup. Not to drag the discussion off-topic, but I have absolutely zero issue with spanking kids. There's a difference between a spanking and a beating.
That depends entirely on the severity. When does a spanking become a beating, for example?
Also, punishment by physical violence is not officially condoned in any US prisons (even the death penalty is attempted to be done with zero pain), no matter what the criminal in question has done, so why is it an acceptable punishment for children who may be too young to fully understand that the action that they are being punished for is wrong at the time of them doing that act?
Because the one thing everyone can understand is pain. And children are smart enough to connect what is happening to what they just did. But at the same time they might not understand other forms of punishment.
Spanking is a legitimate form of punishment.
Except any behavioral psychologist knows that positive reinforcement is much more effective than negative as far as getting results. Even hunting dogs know this. My pops gave me a swat now and again (nothing more than I would give my sweetie in play) but it was always the idea that he was disappointed in me that was the punishment more so than the actual physicality. I don't do I with my kids simply because there are much more effective ways to get results.
I did not say it was the only form of punishment. You fit it to the situation. Obviously someone with mental deformities would need to be punished differently to a normal person(which might still include spanking)
BlaxicanX wrote: Yup. Not to drag the discussion off-topic, but I have absolutely zero issue with spanking kids. There's a difference between a spanking and a beating.
That depends entirely on the severity. When does a spanking become a beating, for example?
Also, punishment by physical violence is not officially condoned in any US prisons (even the death penalty is attempted to be done with zero pain), no matter what the criminal in question has done, so why is it an acceptable punishment for children who may be too young to fully understand that the action that they are being punished for is wrong at the time of them doing that act?
Because the one thing everyone can understand is pain. And children are smart enough to connect what is happening to what they just did. But at the same time they might not understand other forms of punishment.
Spanking is a legitimate form of punishment.
Except any behavioral psychologist knows that positive reinforcement is much more effective than negative as far as getting results. Even hunting dogs know this. My pops gave me a swat now and again (nothing more than I would give my sweetie in play) but it was always the idea that he was disappointed in me that was the punishment more so than the actual physicality.
But completely ignoring negative reinforcement is also very harmful. Use negative reinforcement when something bad is done, use positive when something good is done.
Many countries are incorrect and misguided in called it abuse. Like anything, it can be abusive. But the act itself can be done properly and not in an abusive way, and its not difficult to do that either.
What if the spankee enjoys getting spanked, regardless of what the spanker intends to communicate, and therefore acts in a way to continue getting spanked? Is that abuse?
Many countries are incorrect and misguided in called it abuse. Like anything, it can be abusive. But the act itself can be done properly and not in an abusive way, and its not difficult to do that either.
I'm glad to be living in one of those 'misguided' countries. But fine. Keep hitting your children 'in a proper way.'
How exactly is ignoring negative reinforcement "very harmful"? You give no positive reinforcement for the bad behavior. That is the punishment (along with a stern word and look). The violence is more a result of frustration on the trainer/parent than any sort of effective training device.
BlaxicanX wrote: Yup. Not to drag the discussion off-topic, but I have absolutely zero issue with spanking kids. There's a difference between a spanking and a beating.
That depends entirely on the severity.
That's what I said, yes. What's the difference between telling your kid that what they did was wrong versus telling them that they're a fething moron who should jump off a building?
Also, punishment by physical violence is not officially condoned in any US prisons (even the death penalty is attempted to be done with zero pain), no matter what the criminal in question has done, so why is it an acceptable punishment for children who may be too young to fully understand that the action that they are being punished for is wrong at the time of them doing that act?
Because it works? If it doesn't work on your specific child then try something else.
EDIT- Also, I'm glad that after specifically saying "not to draw the discussion off-topic" everyone immediately drags the discussion off-topic. Never change, Dakka.
Many countries are incorrect and misguided in called it abuse. Like anything, it can be abusive. But the act itself can be done properly and not in an abusive way, and its not difficult to do that either.
What if the spankee enjoys getting spanked, regardless of what the spanker intends to communicate, and therefore acts in a way to continue getting spanked? Is that abuse?
Nobody wants to hear about your sex life Dogma.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: How exactly is ignoring negative reinforcement "very harmful"? You give no positive reinforcement for the bad behavior. That is the punishment (along with a stern word and look). The violence is more a result of frustration on the trainer/parent than any sort of effective training device.
That doesn't tell kids that bad stuff is bad. It tells them that bad stuff doesn't get them in trouble. They need to associate doing bad things with actual punishment. Otherwise, they're going to be confused if they do something horrendously bad and get in actual trouble.
This is the root cause of Affleuenza. Kids we never got in trouble for doing bad things, and their parents refuse to discipline them(weather that be with corporeal punishment or otherwise)
Grey Templar wrote: I did not say it was the only form of punishment. You fit it to the situation. Obviously someone with mental deformities would need to be punished differently to a normal person(which might still include spanking)
But nice attempt at moving the goal post
It''s not really moving the goalposts.
Both children and people with certain mental issues are regarded by law to be less capable of understanding the implications of their actions as those who are older. Saying that one instance of lack of mental development (being a child) means that it is acceptable to hit them as a form of punishment but that the other (having a condition which limits mental development, even into adulthood) is not is a pretty big double standard.
What spanking does is enforce the idea that violence is an acceptable means of punishing those who you feel have done you wrong. It does not enforce discipline or good behaviour any more than positive reinforcement or non-violent punishments.
Grey Templar wrote: I did not say it was the only form of punishment. You fit it to the situation. Obviously someone with mental deformities would need to be punished differently to a normal person(which might still include spanking)
But nice attempt at moving the goal post
It''s not really moving the goalposts.
Both children and people with certain mental issues are regarded by law to be less capable of understanding the implications of their actions as those who are older. Saying that one instance of lack of mental development (being a child) means that it is acceptable to hit them as a form of punishment but that the other (having a condition which limits mental development, even into adulthood) is not is a pretty big double standard.
What spanking does is enforce the idea that violence is an acceptable means of punishing those who you feel have done you wrong. It does not enforce discipline or good behaviour any more than positive reinforcement or non-violent punishments.
Given that physical punishment was used for thousands of years, and is still used today, and most people turned out ok I think you are wrong in saying it is directly harmful on its face.
You are acting like I am advocating for only physical punishment and not using other methods as well. Not at all. You use all types, positive and negative reinforcement. Spanking is a useful tool in the tool box, nothing more and nothing less.
My dad spanked me, but never in anger and he always told me he loved me afterwards. I quickly learned not to do the things he spanked me for.
I'm not talking about my sex life. I am simply referring to the fact that there are people who find spanking arousing and therefore it could be easily construed as molestation or sexual abuse.
I'm not talking about my sex life. I am simply referring to the fact that there are people who find spanking arousing and therefore it could be easily construed as molestation or sexual abuse.
Its a pretty big leap to make that connection.
You realize you are basically asserting millions of people are child molesters because a minor portion of the population finds spanking a little kinky.
BlaxicanX wrote: Because it works? If it doesn't work on your specific child then try something else.
Citation needed. If physical violence actually worked to improve behaviour then it would still be used in prisons and the military as a means of punishment.
Grey Templar wrote: Thats fine for you, but don't try and claim people who use spanking are automatically abusive parents. Its insulting.
I'm with GT on this one.
That said however, it's NEVER a good idea to go out in public and basically brag about spanking your children, the way Ted Cruz did. At least from the article's perspective, there seems to be no indication that he was given a question regarding how he punishes his children. This manner of speaking is, to me, yet another reason why this clown should not be anywhere near the oval office.
BlaxicanX wrote: Because it works? If it doesn't work on your specific child then try something else.
Citation needed. If physical violence actually worked to improve behaviour then it would still be used in prisons and the military as a means of punishment.
They didn't stop using it because it didn't work. They stopped using it because of political pressure from bleeding heart left-wingers.
It is illegal in many countries for a good reason. Here is would be child abuse.
Many countries are incorrect and misguided in called it abuse. Like anything, it can be abusive. But the act itself can be done properly and not in an abusive way, and its not difficult to do that either.
If you're such a failure of a parent that the only way you can teach your kids what is right or wrong is through hurting them then I frankly don't care if you think it's insulting that you get called out on the BS.
It is illegal in many countries for a good reason. Here is would be child abuse.
Many countries are incorrect and misguided in called it abuse. Like anything, it can be abusive. But the act itself can be done properly and not in an abusive way, and its not difficult to do that either.
If you're such a failure of a parent that the only way you can teach your kids what is right or wrong is through hurting them then I frankly don't care if you think it's insulting that you get called out on the BS.
Again, you are incorrect. I have said repeatedly its not the only way to teach your kids. Its only one part of how you teach your kids. But feel free to ignore that and think I think the only way is to beat them.
So... Maybe the spanking discussion can go to another thread and we can talk about politics here.
On the topic of Obama's veto of ACA repeal, when the justification for passing it becomes "it will help more of us get elected" how is that NOT a waste of time and money? Getting elected is not Congress' job. Serving the nation is. Passing this bill did not serve the nation, hence waste of time and money.
It is illegal in many countries for a good reason. Here is would be child abuse.
Many countries are incorrect and misguided in called it abuse. Like anything, it can be abusive. But the act itself can be done properly and not in an abusive way, and its not difficult to do that either.
If you're such a failure of a parent that the only way you can teach your kids what is right or wrong is through hurting them then I frankly don't care if you think it's insulting that you get called out on the BS.
Again, you are incorrect. I have said repeatedly its not the only way to teach your kids. Its only one part of how you teach your kids. But feel free to ignore that and think I think the only way is to beat them.
That makes no sense. How can there be a need for physical punishment despite there being other alternatives?
BlaxicanX wrote: Because it works? If it doesn't work on your specific child then try something else.
Citation needed. If physical violence actually worked to improve behaviour then it would still be used in prisons and the military as a means of punishment.
They didn't stop using it because it didn't work. They stopped using it because of political pressure from bleeding heart left-wingers.
And because it didn't work. And because officers didn't want to have to flog their soldiers as that was the only punishment available and then get fragged whilst they slept.
Would you be okay with a teacher or police officer spanking your child, if they did it "responsibly"?
If not, then why is it okay for you as a parent to inflict physical violence onto your child but not okay for other authority figures?
It is illegal in many countries for a good reason. Here is would be child abuse.
Many countries are incorrect and misguided in called it abuse. Like anything, it can be abusive. But the act itself can be done properly and not in an abusive way, and its not difficult to do that either.
If you're such a failure of a parent that the only way you can teach your kids what is right or wrong is through hurting them then I frankly don't care if you think it's insulting that you get called out on the BS.
Again, you are incorrect. I have said repeatedly its not the only way to teach your kids. Its only one part of how you teach your kids. But feel free to ignore that and think I think the only way is to beat them.
That makes no sense. How can there be a need for physical punishment despite there being other alternatives?
You need a different disciplinary tool for different situations. Sometimes spanking will be appropriate, sometimes you'll take away a favorite toy, sometimes they won't get dessert, etc...
But as NinthMusketeer said this has gotten off topic.
You realize you are basically asserting millions of people are child molesters because a minor portion of the population finds spanking a little kinky.
No, I'm not asserting that at all, hence the phrase "could be easily construed". Generally speaking I think striking your kid is unwise, and comparing your striking of a kid to striking an of age woman is doubly so.
If not, then why is it okay for you as a parent to inflict physical violence onto your child but other authority figures not to?
Because punishment needs to be consistent. The teacher or police officer isn't aware of what my disciplinary standards are so they shouldn't be the ones to enforce them.
And calling it "physical violence" is disingenuous and misrepresenting what it actually is.
You realize you are basically asserting millions of people are child molesters because a minor portion of the population finds spanking a little kinky.
No, I'm not asserting that at all, hence the phrase "could be easily construed". Generally speaking I think striking your kid is unwise, and comparing your striking of a kid to striking an of age woman is doubly so.
So don't make the comparison then if you don't wish to make that assertion.
Spanking, when done properly, isn't meant to injure or abuse.
Do you even read your own links?
Merriam-Webster wrote:
Full Definition of violence
1
a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2
: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage
3
a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm> b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance
4
: undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)
Emphasis mine.
In fact, according to your own link, what you did to the definition of violence was in itself violence.
So don't make the comparison then if you don't wish to make that assertion.
Why should I avoid stating that an action could be construed as molestation, or sexual abuse, when I am not at all asserting that it must be? You are the only person arguing that I'm making such a claim.
I have alwats found it interesting how people will find it ok to hit a child(Which spanking is) the most defenseless of us all, but not ok to hit an adult. Why cant I spank someone else if I dont like what they are doing.
On the topic of Obama's veto of ACA repeal, when the justification for passing it becomes "it will help more of us get elected" how is that NOT a waste of time and money? Getting elected is not Congress' job. Serving the nation is. Passing this bill did not serve the nation, hence waste of time and money.
#impeachcongress
Speaking of which, anybody else see this new proposal to get together a new Constitutional Convention to create as many as NINE new amendments? I mean, do none of these people realize that all of the problems they're thinking these amendments will correct, will actually just shift the same problems down to the state level instead, if it does anything at all (and I'll bet dollars to pesos that every person who loves all these amendments right now will hate every one of them when the other party is in the majority)? The real fix is to elect better people, and not the constant influx of intractable extremist idiots we have now. It's just so sad that for every John McCain we have, we also get three or four Ted Cruzes.
On the topic of Obama's veto of ACA repeal, when the justification for passing it becomes "it will help more of us get elected" how is that NOT a waste of time and money? Getting elected is not Congress' job. Serving the nation is. Passing this bill did not serve the nation, hence waste of time and money.
#impeachcongress
Speaking of which, anybody else see this new proposal to get together a new Constitutional Convention to create as many as NINE new amendments? I mean, do none of these people realize that all of the problems they're thinking these amendments will correct, will actually just shift the same problems down to the state level instead, if it does anything at all (and I'll bet dollars to pesos that every person who loves all these amendments right now will hate every one of them when the other party is in the majority)? The real fix is to elect better people, and not the constant influx of intractable extremist idiots we have now. It's just so sad that for every John McCain we have, we also get three or four Ted Cruzes.
I saw and I laughed Hilarious stuff.
Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State. <What does this even mean? I mean, can't we define almost anything as this? Why have Federal law, or government at all?
Require Congress to balance its budget. >< Not even bothering
Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law. <That's already the case, exaggerating "thanks Obama" to ludicrous proportions doesn't change that.
Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law. < Why have Federal law at all?
Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision. ><We get it. Republicans hate Roe and want DOMA back.
Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law. <Why even have a Supreme Court at all?
Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution. <So... What we already have?
Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds. <Why? You've already repealed Federal Government. Need some strawmen eh?
Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation. <Again, why? You've already repealed Federal Government
On the topic of Obama's veto of ACA repeal, when the justification for passing it becomes "it will help more of us get elected" how is that NOT a waste of time and money? Getting elected is not Congress' job. Serving the nation is. Passing this bill did not serve the nation, hence waste of time and money.
#impeachcongress
Speaking of which, anybody else see this new proposal to get together a new Constitutional Convention to create as many as NINE new amendments? I mean, do none of these people realize that all of the problems they're thinking these amendments will correct, will actually just shift the same problems down to the state level instead, if it does anything at all (and I'll bet dollars to pesos that every person who loves all these amendments right now will hate every one of them when the other party is in the majority)? The real fix is to elect better people, and not the constant influx of intractable extremist idiots we have now. It's just so sad that for every John McCain we have, we also get three or four Ted Cruzes.
I saw and I laughed Hilarious stuff.
Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State. <What does this even mean? I mean, can't we define almost anything as this? Why have Federal law, or government at all? Essentially reaffirming the 10th amendment and weakening the Commerce Clause. Require Congress to balance its budget. >< Not even botheringBecause shutdown theater is politically more useful? Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law. <That's already the case, exaggerating "thanks Obama" to ludicrous proportions doesn't change that. I don't get this either... it's congress' fault if their laws are too ambiguous. Hence the rise of the Chevron deference. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law. < Why have Federal law at all?I don't get this either... he want's to get rid of incorporation? Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision. ><We get it. Republicans hate Roe and want DOMA back. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law. <Why even have a Supreme Court at all?Why not? Seems like a decent 'check' on SC. Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution. <So... What we already have?Reaffirming the 10th amendment I guess... Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds. <Why? You've already repealed Federal Government. Need some strawmen eh?No... this codifies the states have "standing". Not a bad idea. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation. <Again, why? You've already repealed Federal Government I like this. A mechnism to subtract laws or regulations.
The SC being required to have a 7 man majority is tantamount to saying "no decisions unless they're virtually unanimous" and law doesn't work that way. It would essentially take away the right of judicial review.
The government should never be allowed to sue the government or decide they don't want to follow a law. We've already seen where the later goes, and the former is just asinine.
In essence, the Governor of Texas thinks that only Congress and State Legislatures should have any real power, and far and above those are the two areas our government is most dysfunctional. Why would we want them to be unchallenged (or anyone for that matter) in power?
LordofHats wrote: The SC being required to have a 7 man majority is tantamount to saying "no decisions unless they're virtually unanimous" and law doesn't work that way. It would essentially take away the right of judicial review.
I'm going to walk that back and agree with you. I don't like that idea after thinking on it...
The government should never be allowed to sue the government or decide they don't want to follow a law. We've already seen where the later goes, and the former is just asinine.
The state is a distinct entity from the Federal Government... no? The issue is that you have to prove damage(as in, once it's in effect) before being able to challenge something in court. There are school of thoughts out there that it'd be good to challenge new laws before it's in place.
In essence, the Governor of Texas thinks that only Congress and State Legislatures should have any real power, and far and above those are the two areas our government is most dysfunctional. Why would we want them to be unchallenged (or anyone for that matter) in power?
Plus, what he's advocating for is largely redundent in many ways...
LordofHats wrote: The SC being required to have a 7 man majority is tantamount to saying "no decisions unless they're virtually unanimous" and law doesn't work that way. It would essentially take away the right of judicial review.
Exactly. Demanding a 7-2 majority effectively shuts down the supreme court and removes a whole branch of government. And what's hilarious is that it's so self-destructive no matter what part of the political spectrum you're on. It's blatantly "don't let the federal government take away our right to ban gay marriage", and yet the same rule would also apply to things like recent supreme court decisions against gun control laws. It's just short-sighted and stupid all around.
Well I mean, it's blatantly obvious pandering so I doubt he thinks any of that will ever happen.
The state is a distinct entity from the Federal Government... no?
Insofar as they are separately elected and can enact their own laws, but they are not allowed to violate Constitutionally assured rights or override Federal law just because they feel like it. I'm fond of the former, and as to the later I don't think there's any way for Federal government to function if that isn't the case.
I think a case can be made that the States have no real say in Federal politics, and that the Fed has no real obligation to listen to the states. I kind of like that at times, but I'd rather kill the more annoying bird. Congress needs people who aren't constantly running for reelection. Repeal that section of the 17th Amendment.
The issue is that you have to prove damage(as in, once it's in effect) before being able to challenge something in court. There are school of thoughts out there that it'd be good to challenge new laws before it's in place.
I think that's a different issue, and while I think there's merit to the idea of "it's too late to stop it once the damage is done" I don't think any legal system can function when you can bring suit over any and all hypothetical problems that will come up maybe but maybe not. Nothing would ever be done and the government would be little more than a giant lawsuit of hypotheticals where nothing real ever happens.
The time to stop passage of a bill is when it's on the debating floor.
LordofHats wrote: The SC being required to have a 7 man majority is tantamount to saying "no decisions unless they're virtually unanimous" and law doesn't work that way. It would essentially take away the right of judicial review.
Exactly. Demanding a 7-2 majority effectively shuts down the supreme court and removes a whole branch of government. And what's hilarious is that it's so self-destructive no matter what part of the political spectrum you're on. It's blatantly "don't let the federal government take away our right to ban gay marriage", and yet the same rule would also apply to things like recent supreme court decisions against gun control laws. It's just short-sighted and stupid all around.
Exactly. There's a reason SCOTUS isn't a 1 person body.
As an outsider, I thought the entire purpose of having three branches of government was that they were supposed to balance each other?
Surely requiring a 7-2 majority in the Supreme Court is effectively the Legislative Branch declaring that it doesn't want to have to listen to the Judicial?
The thing about the Supreme Court is that people like to complain about activist judges or legislating from the bench and so. Strangely enough, though, you only ever hear these complaints when people disagree with the court's rulings, and not when they agree with them.
I always thought this was a good brief article on the subject.
The Intro;
The term “legislating from the bench” is frequently used but rarely explained. In the 2008 presidential debates Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) promised he would not appoint judges who legislate from the bench. But as Bruce Peabody, author of Legislating from the Bench, a Definition and a Defense, told the HPR, “I don’t think we can know what he means … it’s hard to get much intellectual traction from the way politicians use the term.” “Legislating from the bench” implies a justice system comprised of two types of judges: those who merely interpret law and those with political agendas who create law.
This distinction, however, covers up the fact that vague language and political and societal change necessitate that law be created through legal interpretation. A.E. Dick Howard, professor of Constitutional law at the University of Virginia, told the HPR that ambiguous phrases found in the Constitution such as “due process of law, equal protection of law, and cruel and unusual punishment” require interpretation to be applied. The interpretations of these phrases must change as unforeseeable circumstances arise, making the courts an avenue for interpretation to substantially affect law. Accordingly, the phrase “legislating from the bench” is at best misleading, and analysis of its historical application reveals its necessity.
The sheer fact that it took over 200 years for the court to actually affirm a decision on whether or not one had to be in a militia to have any right to bear arms, should be clear indication that legal interpretation is a complicated thing and a necessary one (for conservatives at the very least).
Tannhauser42 wrote: The thing about the Supreme Court is that people like to complain about activist judges or legislating from the bench and so. Strangely enough, though, you only ever hear these complaints when people disagree with the court's rulings, and not when they agree with them.
It is true that the Supreme Court, and courts in general, have way too much power. They need some actual checks on their powers. I don't think requiring a 7-2 majority is the answer, but they need to be accountable.
Grey Templar wrote: It is true that the Supreme Court, and courts in general, have way too much power. They need some actual checks on their powers. I don't think requiring a 7-2 majority is the answer, but they need to be accountable.
What kind of checks? Who should they be held accountable to? And how do these goals avoid undermining the primary role of the supreme court, which is to determine if laws are acceptable or not?
Does the latest release of Hillary’s State Department emails include highly classified U.S. intelligence?
Back in October I told you that Hillary Clinton’s email troubles were anything but over, and that the scandal over her misuse of communications while she was Secretary of State was sure to get worse. Sure enough, EmailGate continues to be a thorn in the side of Hillary’s presidential campaign and may have just entered a new, potentially explosive phase with grave ramifications, both political and legal.
The latest court-ordered dump of her email, just placed online by the State Department, brings more troubles for Team Hillary. This release of over 3,000 pages includes 66 “Unclassified” messages that the State Department subsequently determined actually were classified; however, all but one of those 66 were deemed Confidential, the lowest classification level, while one was found to be Secret, bringing the total of Secret messages discovered so far to seven. In all, 1,340 Hillary emails at State have been reassessed as classified.
There are gems here. It’s hard to miss the irony of Hillary expressing surprise about a State Department staffer using personal email for work, which the Secretary of State noted in her own personal email. More consequential was Hillary’s ordering a staffer to send classified talking points for a coming meeting via a non-secure fax machine, stripped of their classification markings. This appears to be a clear violation of Federal law and the sort of thing that is a career-ender, or worse, for normals. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee termed that July 2011 incident “disturbing,” and so it is to anyone acquainted with U.S. Government laws and regulations regarding the handling of classified material.
But the biggest problem may be in a just-released email that has gotten little attention here, but plenty on the other side of the world. An email to Hillary from a close Clinton confidant late on June 8, 2011 about Sudan turns out to have explosive material in it. This message includes a detailed intelligence report from Sid Blumenthal, Hillary’s close friend, confidant, and factotum, who regularly supplied her with information from his private intelligence service. His usual source was Tyler Drumheller, a former CIA senior official and veteran spy-gadfly, who conveniently died just before EmailGate became a serious problem for Hillary’s campaign.
However, the uncredited June 8 memo, which Blumenthal labeled as “Confidential” – his personal classification system, apparently – but which the State Department has labeled Unclassified, doesn’t appear to be from Drumheller, whose assessments were written just like CIA intelligence reports. This is not.
Remarkably, the report emailed to Hillary by “sbwhoeop,” which was Blumenthal’s email handle, explains how Sudan’s government devised a clandestine plan, in coordination with two rebel generals, to secure control of oil reserves in the disputed region of Abyei. This is juicy, front-page stuff, straight out of an action movie, about a region of Africa that’s of high interest to the American and many other governments, and the report is astonishingly detailed.
Its information comes from a high-ranking source with direct access to Sudan’s top military and intelligence officials, and Blumenthal’s write-up repeatedly states the sources – there turn out to be more than one – are well placed and credible, with excellent access. It’s the usual spytalk boilerplate when you want the reader to understand this is golden information, not just gossip or rumors circulating on the street, what professionals dismiss as “RUMINT.” Needless to add, this is generating a lot of talk in Sudan, where the media is asking about this shady affair – and how Sid Blumenthal, who’s not exactly an old Africa hand, knew all about it.
But the most interesting part is that the report describes a conversation “in confidence” that happened on the evening of June 7, just one day before Blumenthal sent the report to Secretary Clinton. It beggars the imagination to think that Sid’s private intelligence operation, which was just a handful of people, had operators who were well placed in Sudan, with top-level spy access, able to get this secret information, place it in a decently written assessment with proper espionage verbiage, and pass it all back to Washington, DC, inside 24 hours. That would be a feat even for the CIA, which has stations and officers all over Africa.
In fact, the June 8, 2011 Blumenthal report doesn’t read like CIA material at all, in other words human intelligence or HUMINT, but very much like signals intelligence or SIGINT (for the differences see here). I know what SIGINT reports look like, because I used to write them for the National Security Agency, America’s biggest source of intelligence. SIGINT reports, which I’ve read thousands of, have a very distinct style and flavor to them and Blumenthal’s write-up matches it, right down to the “Source Comments,” which smack very much of NSA reporting and its “house rules.”
But is this an NSA assessment? If so, it would have to be classified at least Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information, a handling caveat that applies to most SIGINT, and quite possibly Top Secret/SCI, the highest normal classification we have. In that case, it was about as far from Unclassified as it’s possible for an email to be.
No surprise, NSA is aflutter this weekend over this strange matter. One Agency official expressed to me “at least 90 percent confidence” that Blumenthal’s June 8 report was derived from NSA reports, and the Agency ought to be investigating the matter right now.
There are many questions here. How did Sid Blumenthal, who had no position in the U.S. Government in 2011, and hasn’t since Bill Clinton left the White House fifteen years ago, possibly get his hands on such highly classified NSA reporting? Why did he place it an open, non-secure email to Hillary, who after all had plenty of legitimate access, as Secretary of State, to intelligence assessments from all our spy agencies? Moreover, how did the State Department think this was Unclassified and why did it release it to the public?
It’s possible this Blumenthal report did not come from NSA, but perhaps from another, non-American intelligence agency – but whose? If Sid was really able to get top-level intelligence like this for Hillary, using just his shoestring operation, and get it into her hands a day later, with precise information about the high-level conspiracy that was just discussed over in Sudan, the Intelligence Community needs to get him on our payroll stat. He’s a pro at the spy business.
And remember, these are the emails that Hillary's staff chose to send to DoS... these aren't the ones that were deleted.
Grey Templar wrote: It is true that the Supreme Court, and courts in general, have way too much power. They need some actual checks on their powers. I don't think requiring a 7-2 majority is the answer, but they need to be accountable.
What kind of checks? Who should they be held accountable to? And how do these goals avoid undermining the primary role of the supreme court, which is to determine if laws are acceptable or not?
Well for one, something to prevent them from inventing rights out of thin air.
They should also not serve life long terms. Maybe a 7 year term, limit of 2 consecutive terms.
Grey Templar wrote: It is true that the Supreme Court, and courts in general, have way too much power. They need some actual checks on their powers. I don't think requiring a 7-2 majority is the answer, but they need to be accountable.
What kind of checks? Who should they be held accountable to? And how do these goals avoid undermining the primary role of the supreme court, which is to determine if laws are acceptable or not?
Well for one, something to prevent them from inventing rights out of thin air.
They should also not serve life long terms. Maybe a 7 year term, limit of 2 consecutive terms.
I disagree with you there Gary... then, the Justices would be beholden politically.
This is one of those arguments why your vote for your party's nomination for Senate and President.
whembly wrote: Oh my... buckle y our seatbelts amigos, because:
TL;DR. Why exactly should anyone besides you care about this?
Grey Templar wrote: Well for one, something to prevent them from inventing rights out of thin air.
And how exactly do you plan to do this? Create a supremer court that exists for the sole purpose of hearing appeals from the supreme court?
They should also not serve life long terms. Maybe a 7 year term, limit of 2 consecutive terms.
You don't see any merit in the argument that they shouldn't have to worry about being "reelected" or have each new administration get to remake the entire court in line with its party ideology (complete with bringing congress to a standstill over every nomination)?
Well it wouldn't be the entire court up for a new position every 7 years. There would be alternation. And it wouldn't have to be 7 years. Could be another number.
I think Judges need to be accountable to the people. Unlike every other branch, they're independent and unsupervised once they are in office. Which can be a very very long time. Appointing a new judge shouldn't be so far reaching and impactful.
This is one place where the writers of the Constitution messed up a little, they didn't think out the Judicial Branch as thoroughly as the other two.
whembly wrote: Oh my... buckle y our seatbelts amigos, because:
TL;DR. Why exactly should anyone besides you care about this?
If you support the idea that elected officials operate under different rules/laws... then, you wouldn't care. However, if you believe elected officials ought to be held by the same standards as everyone else, then you'd have interest in this.
The Intelligence Community are taking this very seriously.
There's a very real chance that the FBI will recommend the DOJ to indict her and we just know that Obama/AG Lorretta *wont*. If you thought that the FBI/Intelligence Community leaked badly during Bush's years... prepare for the tsunami.
Deep Throat™ happened under similar circumstances.
whembly wrote: If you support the idea that elected officials operate under different rules/laws... then, you wouldn't care.
I don't support the idea, but I'm realistic enough to acknowledge that it's just the way things are, regardless of party. And all I see here is more attempts to turn a business-as-usual "scandal" into an opportunity to attack a political opponent.
Grey Templar wrote: It is true that the Supreme Court, and courts in general, have way too much power. They need some actual checks on their powers. I don't think requiring a 7-2 majority is the answer, but they need to be accountable.
What kind of checks? Who should they be held accountable to? And how do these goals avoid undermining the primary role of the supreme court, which is to determine if laws are acceptable or not?
Well, while I personally think that something in regards to the SC should change, the one thing that I personally think would go a long way to actually creating that change, is actually a recent rumbling/rumored bill: Basically, the SCOTUS judges need to be held to some form of ethical standard, as lower court judges are. By this I mean that if they are in someway personally vested in an issue (perhaps their spouse works for a major lobby group and would stand to greatly profit/ receive harm), they should be recused of their duties.
Grey Templar wrote: Well it wouldn't be the entire court up for a new position every 7 years. There would be alternation. And it wouldn't have to be 7 years. Could be another number.
Nine positions, replaced every seven years, means one ever 1.28 years. So 3.125 on average for a one-term president, 6.5 if they get a second term. You're essentially letting each party give themselves a majority on the supreme court every time they win an election. And that turns an independent judicial branch into an extension of the legislative and/or executive branches.
I think Judges need to be accountable to the people. Unlike every other branch, they're independent and unsupervised once they are in office. Which can be a very very long time. Appointing a new judge shouldn't be so far reaching and impactful.
Not having them be accountable to the people is the whole point of an independent judicial branch! If judges are held accountable for every decision then it makes it a lot harder for them to make rulings based on precedent instead of popular opinion or party ideology. And we don't want an "independent" supreme court constantly worrying about how a decision is going to impact their reelection chances instead of interpreting the law as it is written.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Well, while I personally think that something in regards to the SC should change, the one thing that I personally think would go a long way to actually creating that change, is actually a recent rumbling/rumored bill: Basically, the SCOTUS judges need to be held to some form of ethical standard, as lower court judges are. By this I mean that if they are in someway personally vested in an issue (perhaps their spouse works for a major lobby group and would stand to greatly profit/ receive harm), they should be recused of their duties.
This is nice in theory, but who do you hold the highest court accountable to if there's a dispute over whether a conflict of interest exists? There's no higher court to appeal to, and you really don't want to give another branch of government the ability to make that call.
whembly wrote: Oh my... buckle y our seatbelts amigos, because:
TL;DR. Why exactly should anyone besides you care about this?
One look at the byline should tell you nobody should.
That author is an ex-spook.
Look, General Patreaus was convicted of breaking laws on handling classified information... even though the person he show it to had top clearance, she wasn't "cleared" to see it. THe FBI/IC are still miffed that he got off lightly, but at least he was charged.
Hillary and her minions? Duuude, if they skate, Patreaus should demand a redo. Or at least, a major concerted leak campaign.
When Hillary says:
“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”
Look at that email that I linked, and chew on this:
-nonclassified material doesn’t need to be transmitted by secure fax... if the material wasn’t classified, Sullivan would have had them faxed normally... right? Hillary needed the danged thing stat, laws be damned.
-Ordering aides to remove headers to facilitate the transmission over unsecured means strongly suggests that the information was not unclassified... yes? On top of that, removing headers to avoid transmission security would be a violation of 18 USC 793 anyway, which does not require material to be classified...only sensitive to national security.
The big *smoking gun* here is Hillary's ordering the headings stripped, and Sullivan’s apparent reluctance to work around the secure fax system, makes it all but certain that the material was classified at some level... and Hillary obviously knew it, hence that order.
TL;DR. If you grant the assumption that high-level officials getting away with scandals is just business as usual (which is a pretty indisputable fact) why should anyone care about this? Was there evidence of malicious intent (leaking material to hurt a political opponent or provide an advantage to a business ally, for example) rather than just sloppy security procedures? Were there any serious consequences to the mishandling of information, or was this a non-event that is only mentioned because it's a useful campaign tool?
Grey Templar wrote: Well it wouldn't be the entire court up for a new position every 7 years. There would be alternation. And it wouldn't have to be 7 years. Could be another number.
Nine positions, replaced every seven years, means one ever 1.28 years. So 3.125 on average for a one-term president, 6.5 if they get a second term. You're essentially letting each party give themselves a majority on the supreme court every time they win an election. And that turns an independent judicial branch into an extension of the legislative and/or executive branches.
I think Judges need to be accountable to the people. Unlike every other branch, they're independent and unsupervised once they are in office. Which can be a very very long time. Appointing a new judge shouldn't be so far reaching and impactful.
Not having them be accountable to the people is the whole point of an independent judicial branch! If judges are held accountable for every decision then it makes it a lot harder for them to make rulings based on precedent instead of popular opinion or party ideology. And we don't want an "independent" supreme court constantly worrying about how a decision is going to impact their reelection chances instead of interpreting the law as it is written.
We could solve that by making Justices only be allowed to serve one term. No reelection to worry about then.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Well, while I personally think that something in regards to the SC should change, the one thing that I personally think would go a long way to actually creating that change, is actually a recent rumbling/rumored bill: Basically, the SCOTUS judges need to be held to some form of ethical standard, as lower court judges are. By this I mean that if they are in someway personally vested in an issue (perhaps their spouse works for a major lobby group and would stand to greatly profit/ receive harm), they should be recused of their duties.
This is nice in theory, but who do you hold the highest court accountable to if there's a dispute over whether a conflict of interest exists? There's no higher court to appeal to, and you really don't want to give another branch of government the ability to make that call.
Thats the entire point of checks and balances, so each branch is beholden to the others. Currently, the Justices are under no checks from the other branches once they're in power.
Then why are you responding to me if you didn't read it. That tells me your mind is made up because look "whembly posted something, something on Hillary", here lemme give some whacks along the way...
If you grant the assumption that high-level officials getting away with scandals is just business as usual (which is a pretty indisputable fact)
I don't grant that.
why should anyone care about this?
I want a politician, not a crime lord.
Was there evidence of malicious intent (leaking material to hurt a political opponent or provide an advantage to a business ally, for example) rather than just sloppy security procedures? Were there any serious consequences to the mishandling of information, or was this a non-event that is only mentioned because it's a useful campaign tool?
Maliciousness, sloppiness, serious consequences... all have no bearings on whether or not Clinton and her staff broke any laws with respect to handling classified information.
whembly wrote: Then why are you responding to me if you didn't read it.
I read enough to see that it's more of your habit of posting long elaborate explanations of every tiny detail of the email "scandal" without ever bothering to explain why anyone should care about those details. Perhaps you think that if you pile up enough details people will be too busy reading them to see that the whole thing is meaningless?
I want a politician, not a crime lord.
Too bad, because that's what you get from both parties.
Maliciousness, sloppiness, serious consequences... all have no bearings on whether or not Clinton and her staff broke any laws with respect to handling classified information.
And, again, why should we care about whether the law was broken if there was no malicious intent or serious consequences? Are you also going to post hourly updates on the shocking revelation that Hillary was caught going 5mph over the speed limit?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Well, while I personally think that something in regards to the SC should change, the one thing that I personally think would go a long way to actually creating that change, is actually a recent rumbling/rumored bill: Basically, the SCOTUS judges need to be held to some form of ethical standard, as lower court judges are. By this I mean that if they are in someway personally vested in an issue (perhaps their spouse works for a major lobby group and would stand to greatly profit/ receive harm), they should be recused of their duties.
This is nice in theory, but who do you hold the highest court accountable to if there's a dispute over whether a conflict of interest exists? There's no higher court to appeal to, and you really don't want to give another branch of government the ability to make that call.
Perhaps you'd have to have something in place where other justices would have to out an "offender" or.... and I think it'd be abused in today's climate, you could have something where in the event of a perceived/actual conflict of interest (SCOTUS Justices pasts are fairly public knowledge once they're in office, as are their spouses businesses, etc), there could be a tribunal or committee who had a set and very limited time to judge whether there was indeed a conflict of interest. Obviously, I don't think it could be a congressional committee, because you'd be guaranteed to see both sides of the aisle raising a stink on ANY ruling that didn't go their way. But I would think that in any sort of situation where this kind of committee or whatever, the key factor has to be the time table. There should be a set in stone, no extensions, no BS rule, like 6 months to make the determination, and then that "committee" is disbanded, never to use that same group of people again (perhaps it'd have to work like a Jury Duty summons?)
I think that, for it to work, the "best" that could happen is that in the event that a Justice had conflict of interest, but didn't recuse themselves in a case, said case would be reopened, and the Justice removed from ALL proceedings for it.
Peregrine... breaking the law with respect to classified information is not as trivial as speeding 5mph over the limit. Where if it's anyone else, Peregrine, that person would be in prison in short time.
But, since Clinton is running for President, she deserves some leeway?
High level politicians get off of crimes easy if not entirely. The only group that has it easier is the wealthy ones, who can pretty much do anything they like. Such as crashing a nation's economy.
whembly wrote: But, since Clinton is running for President, she deserves some leeway?
Deserves has nothing to do with it, it's simply acknowledgement of the situation. If she was a republican the lack of consequences would be exactly the same. Whether or not it's right is irrelevant, there's no option to have high-level officials held to the same standards as everyone else because neither party wants it to work that way. The only reason anyone is acting like this "scandal" is more than business as usual for both parties is that it's a useful opportunity to attack an enemy candidate.
We could solve that by making Justices only be allowed to serve one term. No reelection to worry about then.
Which would leave them unaccountable, and lead to more frequent Court packing. The system, as it exists, is fine. Republicans are only upset about it right now because they lost on a couple of their key issues. I find this hilarious because the last person who seriously tried to screw with the Court was FDR, someone I doubt many current GOP supporters are especially fond of.
You could make a requirement that supreme justices must either renounce or show no party affiliation or specific political ideology. So if they hang out with only politicians from one party that might disqualify them. Or if they spend all their time talking at conservative/liberal colleges, media, events, etc, that should disqualify them. Basically they should be able to objectively consider law without their political ideology or trying to help their party politically.
They should probably be required to have a PH.D in law. Unless they already are of course. I see a higher level of education with their experience should help them be more objective.
Another approach is not to fiddle with the supreme court but to make laws against those that try to. So make a severe pushiment to lobbyists that try to influence judges. An automatic loss of position if a politican tries to influence them. A loss of the judge's position if they allow themselves to be influenced rather than reporting the incident.
Another approach is to also increase their face in public. So people are more aware of them and what they do and say. As of right now because judges are politically and ideologically motivated, people only hear positive things about the ones they are told are good and only learn negative things about the ones they are told are bad. This is all to further party rhetoric and cement ideology.
We could solve that by making Justices only be allowed to serve one term. No reelection to worry about then.
Which would leave them unaccountable, and lead to more frequent Court packing. The system, as it exists, is fine. Republicans are only upset about it right now because they lost on a couple of their key issues. I find this hilarious because the last person who seriously tried to screw with the Court was FDR, someone I doubt many current GOP supporters are especially fond of.
This. Seriously Republicans. We get it. You hate Roe and want DOMA back.
Grey Templar wrote: Well it wouldn't be the entire court up for a new position every 7 years. There would be alternation. And it wouldn't have to be 7 years. Could be another number.
Nine positions, replaced every seven years, means one ever 1.28 years. So 3.125 on average for a one-term president, 6.5 if they get a second term. You're essentially letting each party give themselves a majority on the supreme court every time they win an election. And that turns an independent judicial branch into an extension of the legislative and/or executive branches.
I think Judges need to be accountable to the people. Unlike every other branch, they're independent and unsupervised once they are in office. Which can be a very very long time. Appointing a new judge shouldn't be so far reaching and impactful.
Not having them be accountable to the people is the whole point of an independent judicial branch! If judges are held accountable for every decision then it makes it a lot harder for them to make rulings based on precedent instead of popular opinion or party ideology. And we don't want an "independent" supreme court constantly worrying about how a decision is going to impact their reelection chances instead of interpreting the law as it is written.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Well, while I personally think that something in regards to the SC should change, the one thing that I personally think would go a long way to actually creating that change, is actually a recent rumbling/rumored bill: Basically, the SCOTUS judges need to be held to some form of ethical standard, as lower court judges are. By this I mean that if they are in someway personally vested in an issue (perhaps their spouse works for a major lobby group and would stand to greatly profit/ receive harm), they should be recused of their duties.
This is nice in theory, but who do you hold the highest court accountable to if there's a dispute over whether a conflict of interest exists? There's no higher court to appeal to, and you really don't want to give another branch of government the ability to make that call.
SCOTUS judges including current justices have recused themselves from cases where there has been a conflict of interest or the appearance of a potential conflict. It already happens. Requiring that the justices be appointed and vetted by Congress is the means by which the people are assured that the justices are ethical people. If politicians could control judges it would make the courts more political not less.
BrotherGecko wrote: You could make a requirement that supreme justices must either renounce or show no party affiliation or specific political ideology.
So judges aren't allowed to have political opinions?
People need to get over this myth that there are two kinds of judges. There's only one kind of judge; one with a legal opinion. That's it. Some have progressive ideas about how the law should be applied and interpreted. Some have more strict ideas. Some prefer to see the law as something that must adapt and change to remain relevant. Others agree but don't think the court should be keeping it relevant via judicial review. They're all political judges. This is why SCOTUS and Appeals Courts are not 1 person bodies but a committee where majority rules. So we can stack it with all the different kinds of judges and let them work that crap out. This is why they write their opinions down, even if they were the minority, and judges in future cases can read them and decide the minority was right and the majority was wrong. Because law isn't clear cut or simple.
They should probably be required to have a PH.D in law.
I think they do already have this for the most part.
Another approach is not to fiddle with the supreme court but to make laws against those that try to.
I think this is a case of a problem that doesn't really exist. Judges are in place for life unless they get appointed to a higher court. There's really no way to lobby them (especially when they're already in the highest court).
I've got to say, this is all very interesting, the discussion seem to suggest that the US Supreme Court is more similar to the UK's "House of Lords" than, well, judges.
In saying that, I'm really rather ignorant of the whole topic but various points and arguments seem surprisingly similar on both sides.
Compel wrote: I've got to say, this is all very interesting, the discussion seem to suggest that the US Supreme Court is more similar to the UK's "House of Lords" than, well, judges.
In saying that, I'm really rather ignorant of the whole topic but various points and arguments seem surprisingly similar on both sides.
I wouldn't say that, as ordinary people can appeal a decision up to the Supreme Court which cannot happen with the House of Lords, to my knowledge. Also once a law is passed, the House of Lords cannot overturn it like the Supreme Court can.
Also, the people on the Supreme Court are actual professional judges, rather than the political cronies and landowners which fill up the House of Lords.
We do have our own Supreme Court here in the UK, which acts in a similar capacity to the US one, being the final court in the appeals process.
Compel wrote: I've got to say, this is all very interesting, the discussion seem to suggest that the US Supreme Court is more similar to the UK's "House of Lords" than, well, judges.
In saying that, I'm really rather ignorant of the whole topic but various points and arguments seem surprisingly similar on both sides.
My understanding is that the House of Lords is more akin to the Senate pre-17th Amendment. Prior to the passage of the 17th, senators were appointed by the States and served as a check against 'electoral pandering' and representatives of state interests in Federal government. Senators however were not permanent appointees. They served until a new legislature was elected in the state and then the new legislature appointed a new senator.
Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President, then voted on by Congress (so I can see why it would look similar ). Once on the Court they can only be removed via impeachment, stepping down, or death. Most judges step down or die. Only one Court Justice has ever been impeached and that was like... 100 years ago I think, and he was acquitted of the charges against him in the end so remained on the court.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Sounds like the US could use a separate consitutional court whose sole job would be to determine the constitutionality of new laws.
In general, Congress and the White House have teams of lawyers at their disposal to advise them on this. For example, Obama consulted the White House legal team when he started looking at making new Executive Orders on Gun Control.
Establishing a preliminary court I think has the same problem I had before when Whembly brought up the idea. How can a court function when the case being brought before it is hypothetical?
BrotherGecko wrote: You could make a requirement that supreme justices must either renounce or show no party affiliation or specific political ideology.
That would be pretty much impossible as there's no way you spend that much time thinking about law without developing an ideology which can be considered political.
They should probably be required to have a PH.D in law. Unless they already are of course. I see a higher level of education with their experience should help them be more objective.
No current member of the Court has a doctorate in law (very few such programs even exist), but all of them have studied, practiced, and taught law extensively.
Another approach is not to fiddle with the supreme court but to make laws against those that try to. So make a severe pushiment to lobbyists that try to influence judges. An automatic loss of position if a politican tries to influence them. A loss of the judge's position if they allow themselves to be influenced rather than reporting the incident.
How would you determine what constitutes "influence"?
Another approach is to also increase their face in public. So people are more aware of them and what they do and say. As of right now because judges are politically and ideologically motivated, people only hear positive things about the ones they are told are good and only learn negative things about the ones they are told are bad. This is all to further party rhetoric and cement ideology.
So, basically, you want Justices to be on the campaign trail? As it stands the opinions of Justices are freely available, people just don't read them because they lack the patience and relevant background knowledge.
Well for one, something to prevent them from inventing rights out of thin air.
That's a cute way of saying "people you don't like getting the same rights as you."
Marriage isn't a right, and it doesn't exist in the Constitution. Its a privilege. The SCOTUS saying it is was inventing a right out of thin air.
So, you'd be okay with the federal/state/whatever government introducing a law which banned all marriages as they are not a right?
Seems to me that some people not having access to a privilege just because they happen to not be heterosexual is still pretty damn discriminatory.
[sarcasm]After all, when schools were segregated there were black schools so why did blacks need to go to white schools? It wasn't their right to get an education in a white school, it was just the whites privilege to be able to go there.[/sarcasm]
Well for one, something to prevent them from inventing rights out of thin air.
That's a cute way of saying "people you don't like getting the same rights as you."
Marriage isn't a right, and it doesn't exist in the Constitution. Its a privilege. The SCOTUS saying it is was inventing a right out of thin air.
So, you'd be okay with the federal/state/whatever government introducing a law which banned all marriages as they are not a right?
I back that. Gets all form of government in the US out the marriage debate Separation of Church and State
The wedding license fee is to much a cash cow for states
Joint Filing for Taxes is a cash cow...well maybe...
Anyway, the best way to curtail any perceived overreach on the part of SCOTUS? It's the answer I gave earlier regarding these proposed amendments: elect better people. If Congress did their job properly to begin with, by writing good, clear, and intelligent laws, and actually following that whole concept of "liberty and justice FOR ALL", then 75% of the cases that go to the Supreme Court every year wouldn't happen to begin with.
That's Congress's check against the Supreme Court: do their job right and the Court doesn't get a chance to get involved. That's the Court's check against Congress: the Court gets involved when Congress does their job badly.
Grey Templar wrote: The SCOTUS saying it is was inventing a right out of thin air.
And when exactly did SCOTUS declare marriage a right? They struck down DOMA as a violation of the Due Process clause, not as a violation of the 'right to marry.'
And I'll add, the court that rendered that decision has been fairly conservative from a Constitutional standpoint.
SCOTUS judges including current justices have recused themselves from cases where there has been a conflict of interest or the appearance of a potential conflict. It already happens. Requiring that the justices be appointed and vetted by Congress is the means by which the people are assured that the justices are ethical people. If politicians could control judges it would make the courts more political not less.
Some have, and some havent. As I mentioned, I cannot recall the exact case, but one of the Justices is/was married to a woman who was an executive for a very large gun lobby group. He did not recuse himself from a case regarding gun control, even though it should be quite obvious to most of us lay-people that there was ample opportunity and a high probability that his wife "helped" his decision (either by kicking him to the couch for a few nights or, ya know... whatever old wives do ).
One article I found through google when searching for SCOTUS recusing, was that right-wing religious groups were calling for Justice Ginsburg to recuse herself from the gay marriage rulings last February because she had in the past spoken in favorable terms toward the LGBT community. But, to me, those mere statements, especially the quotes provided in the article are not signs that she'd have shown special favor or been unable to properly do the job of a Justice. Now, if she turned out to be lesbian, or was married to an executive member or a pro-LGBT lobby group, or once owned a LGBT "help" business or something, then I can see a conflict of interest.
My point here is, really, that Justices NEED to recuse themselves, not merely have the option for it.
Well, if someone lacks even a very basic understanding of why the court ruled the way it did with regards of marriage then it makes sense that they might think SCOTUS is inventing rights.
Well for one, something to prevent them from inventing rights out of thin air.
That's a cute way of saying "people you don't like getting the same rights as you."
Marriage isn't a right, and it doesn't exist in the Constitution. Its a privilege. The SCOTUS saying it is was inventing a right out of thin air.
I assume you where equally upset with the SCOTUS for the Heller vs DC decision, where they invented a constitutional right to self defense out of thin air where none previously existed.
SCOTUS judges including current justices have recused themselves from cases where there has been a conflict of interest or the appearance of a potential conflict. It already happens. Requiring that the justices be appointed and vetted by Congress is the means by which the people are assured that the justices are ethical people. If politicians could control judges it would make the courts more political not less.
Some have, and some havent. As I mentioned, I cannot recall the exact case, but one of the Justices is/was married to a woman who was an executive for a very large gun lobby group. He did not recuse himself from a case regarding gun control, even though it should be quite obvious to most of us lay-people that there was ample opportunity and a high probability that his wife "helped" his decision (either by kicking him to the couch for a few nights or, ya know... whatever old wives do ).
One article I found through google when searching for SCOTUS recusing, was that right-wing religious groups were calling for Justice Ginsburg to recuse herself from the gay marriage rulings last February because she had in the past spoken in favorable terms toward the LGBT community. But, to me, those mere statements, especially the quotes provided in the article are not signs that she'd have shown special favor or been unable to properly do the job of a Justice. Now, if she turned out to be lesbian, or was married to an executive member or a pro-LGBT lobby group, or once owned a LGBT "help" business or something, then I can see a conflict of interest.
My point here is, really, that Justices NEED to recuse themselves, not merely have the option for it.
Actually those exact statements showed she is unable to deliver an impartial verdict on the matter. And yes, that other judge should also have stepped down from that case as well.
Well for one, something to prevent them from inventing rights out of thin air.
That's a cute way of saying "people you don't like getting the same rights as you."
Marriage isn't a right, and it doesn't exist in the Constitution. Its a privilege. The SCOTUS saying it is was inventing a right out of thin air.
I assume you where equally upset with the SCOTUS for the Heller vs DC decision, where they invented a constitutional right to self defense out of thin air where none previously existed.
Grey Templar wrote: Self-defense isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.
But it isn't in the Constitution, so I guess the Court overreached when they handed it out, or is it only an overreach when you don't like the decision?
"If we list the set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no longer. By the way, I did not just call you 'fools.' The new state of Georgia did." ~ Some guy who had sense to recognize that the Constitution and BoR should never be taken as exclusive
Grey Templar wrote: Self-defense isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.
I would definitely agree that, just as I would agree it's a woman's fundamental right to have an abortion or that one consenting adult is free to enter into a marriage with another legally consenting adult.
That's why "well, there is no right to x in the constitution", "legislating from the bench" and "creating rights out of thin air" are problematic arguments. I strongly suspect that you have an issue with 2 out of 3 of those, despite the fact that all of them came to be in identical manners. You can't decide self-defense isn't provided for, but it's ok because reasons while also handwaving away the others without looking like a pretty big hypocrite.
Grey Templar wrote: Self-defense isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.
Grey Templar wrote: Marriage isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.
Grey Templar wrote: Bodily Autonomy isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.
EXCLUSIVE: The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News.
This new investigative track is in addition to the focus on classified material found on Clinton’s personal server.
"The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," one source said.
The development follows press reports over the past year about the potential overlap of State Department and Clinton Foundation work, and questions over whether donors benefited from their contacts inside the administration.
The Clinton Foundation is a public charity, known as a 501(c)(3). It had grants and contributions in excess of $144 million in 2013, the most current available data.
Inside the FBI, pressure is growing to pursue the case.
One intelligence source told Fox News that FBI agents would be “screaming” if a prosecution is not pursued because “many previous public corruption cases have been made and successfully prosecuted with much less evidence than what is emerging in this investigation.”
The FBI is particularly on edge in the wake of how the case of former CIA Director David Petraeus was handled.
One of the three sources said some FBI agents felt Petraeus was given a slap on the wrist for sharing highly classified information with his mistress and biographer Paula Broadwell, as well as lying to FBI agents about his actions. Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in March 2015 after a two-plus-year federal investigation in which Attorney General Eric Holder initially declined to prosecute.
In the Petraeus case, the exposure of classified information was assessed to be limited.
By contrast, in the Clinton case, the number of classified emails has risen to at least 1,340. A 2015 appeal by the State Department to challenge the “Top Secret” classification of at least two emails failed and, as Fox News first reported, is now considered a settled matter.
It is unclear which of the two lines of inquiry was opened first by the FBI and whether they eventually will be combined and presented before a special grand jury. One intelligence source said the public corruption angle dates back to at least April 2015. On their official website, the FBI lists "public corruption as the FBI's top criminal priority."
Fox News is told that about 100 special agents assigned to the investigations also were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements, with as many as 50 additional agents on “temporary duty assignment,” or TDY. The request to sign a new NDA could reflect that agents are handling the highly classified material in the emails, or serve as a reminder not to leak about the case, or both.
"The pressure on the lead agents is brutal," a second source said. "Think of it like a military operation, you might need tanks called in along with infantry."
Separately, a former high-ranking State Department official emphasized to Fox News that Clinton’s deliberate non-use of her government email address may be increasingly “significant.”
“It is virtually automatic when one comes on board at the State Department to be assigned an email address,” the source said.
“It would have taken an affirmative act not to have one assigned ... and it would also mean it was all planned out before she took office. This certainly raises questions about the so-called legal advice she claimed to have received from inside the State Department that what she was doing was proper."
On Sunday, when asked about her email practices while secretary of state, Clinton insisted to CBS News’ "Face The Nation," "there is no there, there."
Wow... the FBI probe appears to have significantly expanded the investigation.
Well, given how the politically connected seed to get away with murder (metaphorically) I don't know what to expect from this.
The FBI is particularly on edge in the wake of how the case of former CIA Director David Petraeus was handled.
One of the three sources said some FBI agents felt Petraeus was given a slap on the wrist for sharing highly classified information with his mistress and biographer Paula Broadwell, as well as lying to FBI agents about his actions. Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in March 2015 after a two-plus-year federal investigation in which Attorney General Eric Holder initially declined to prosecute.
Yes, the former Attorney General declined to prosecute. I have to wonder what the current one will do, given Hillary is the presumptive Democrat Party nominee. Does she uphold the law? Or does she maintain party loyalty?
Grey Templar wrote: Self-defense isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.
Grey Templar wrote: Marriage isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.
Grey Templar wrote: Bodily Autonomy isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.
The funny thing about editing quotes is you can make anybody say anything you want.
Grey Templar wrote: Self-defense isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.
well I say that falls under the right to life. which is ironic in a way, they call it a unalienable right, yet the cops and some states will take away that right.
kronk wrote: I troll to get my quick reply taken away from me for 3 to 5 days!
Aha! Finally a confession! Your reign of rhythmic, cowbell infused terror will at last come crumbling down!
Breotan wrote:Yes, the former Attorney General declined to prosecute. I have to wonder what the current one will do, given Hillary is the presumptive Democrat Party nominee. Does she uphold the law? Or does she maintain party loyalty?
Hopefully, if there is enough evidence to support prosecution, then she will uphold the law. Now, peoples opinions of enough evidence will vary quite a bit, though.
Grey Templar wrote: Self-defense isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.
Grey Templar wrote: Marriage isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.
Grey Templar wrote: Bodily Autonomy isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.
The funny thing about editing quotes is you can make anybody say anything you want.
It's almost as if I was drawing a comparison between the three cases using your own line of logic.
If you actually think I was trying to make it look like you said those then I don't really know what to say. I mean, I kind of assumed that the average Dakkanaut would be willing to scroll up the three comments it would require to verify.
Grey Templar wrote: Self-defense isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.
I would definitely agree that, just as I would agree it's a woman's fundamental right to have an abortion or that one consenting adult is free to enter into a marriage with another legally consenting adult.
That's why "well, there is no right to x in the constitution", "legislating from the bench" and "creating rights out of thin air" are problematic arguments. I strongly suspect that you have an issue with 2 out of 3 of those, despite the fact that all of them came to be in identical manners. You can't decide self-defense isn't provided for, but it's ok because reasons while also handwaving away the others without looking like a pretty big hypocrite.
The right to self defense isn't in the US constitution because the constitution only deals with Negative Rights and the right to self defense is a Liberty Right. The constitution consists of laying out the framework for the Federal government and the Bill of Rights is a list of 10 Negative Rights, which are limitations on the ability of the Federal government to infringe on the liberty of its citizens. The constitution does not attempt to list every Liberty Right to which US citizens are entitled which is why they aren't there. The fact that they aren't listed in the constitution doesn't mean they don't exist, the constitution is an important foundational document but it is not the be all end all of our laws and rights. The founders who wrote the constitution were fully aware of Common Law which is the reason why we have the Judicial Branch, to make rulings that set precedents. The constitution doesn't need to include rights to self defense or marriage because the precedence of existing common law already codifies such rights. The courts don't "legislate from the bench" they issue rulings that both set and adhere to precedent, they create Common Law which is equally valid as the Legislature passing laws and the Executive issuing regulations. It is the direct opposite of being unconstitutional as it is in keeping with the specific reasoning behind the creation of the Three Branches of Government in the constitution. We are not reliant on the legislative branch to pass laws to cover absolutely everything, that is precisely what Common Law is for. We can legislate laws to create more specificity and clarity on rights like self defense but such a right has already been codified into Common Law for several centuries so it already exists.
Bans on homosexual marriage are unconstitutional because they take citizens that are equal in the eyes of the law (heterosexuals and homosexuals) and force the State to make them unequal for no compelling reason and in the absence of any criminal behavior. That forced inequality violates the constitution. The right to marry another consenting adult already existed in Common Law so there is no constitutional challenge for the right to marry, there is only a constitutional challenge to the government's ability to prohibit the exercise by a citizen of their right to marry the consenting adult of their choice.
LordofHats wrote: Still not sure how not having your religion enshrined into law = liberty being trampled. I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of liberty being trampled
Dont you see, Liberty is about what I want and what I believe, not anything else.
Now, where is the trump to suggest concentration camps.
LordofHats wrote: Still not sure how not having your religion enshrined into law = liberty being trampled. I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of liberty being trampled
Yeah it is too bad that they can't wear symbols of their religion around their neck or openly pray
LordofHats wrote: Still not sure how not having your religion enshrined into law = liberty being trampled. I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of liberty being trampled
Yeah it is too bad that they can't wear symbols of their religion around their neck or openly pray
Hey, if they want to go against what their God said then they can go and openly pray
Matthew 6:6 wrote:When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.…
LordofHats wrote: Still not sure how not having your religion enshrined into law = liberty being trampled. I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of liberty being trampled
Yeah it is too bad that they can't wear symbols of their religion around their neck or openly pray
LordofHats wrote: Still not sure how not having your religion enshrined into law = liberty being trampled. I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of liberty being trampled
Yeah it is too bad that they can't wear symbols of their religion around their neck or openly pray
And what laws say that?
I was making a joke that some christians are saying they are being persecuted/liberty being trampled and yet they are allowed to openly pray and show their religion etc.
I was making a joke that some christians are saying they are being persecuted/liberty being trampled and yet they are allowed to openly pray and show their religion etc.
Though going back to the Davis thing, she has a surprising amount of limbs for someone who takes the bible so literally
Matthew 5:29-30 New International Version (NIV)
29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Well now I don't think we need to go that far in mocking her XD She was an idiot with unreasonable expectations and who is now held up by people with unreasonable expectations as a symbol of the persecution that exists only in their heads.
Let's not drift to far in our mocking, least we go dangerously close to Christian bashing
Jesus... did they think this thru??? They're channeling Eastwood?
This is why it is hard to take any of your comments as anything but partisan trash.
Your opinion is duly noted.
Would be hysterical if someone brought an empty baby crib to represent "the abortion victims who no longer have a voice".
If you cannot figure out the difference between individuals who were aware of their being posted to warzones to serve as ambassadors/representatives of the United States and people killed by random acts of violence within our own country and think that those people are somehow equatable to a valid, voluntary medical procedure?
Jesus... did they think this thru??? They're channeling Eastwood?
This is why it is hard to take any of your comments as anything but partisan trash.
Your opinion is duly noted.
Would be hysterical if someone brought an empty baby crib to represent "the abortion victims who no longer have a voice".
If you cannot figure out the difference between individuals who were aware of their being posted to warzones to serve as ambassadors/representatives of the United States and people killed by random acts of violence within our own country and think that those people are somehow equatable to a valid, voluntary medical procedure?
If you cannot see how Obama is exploiting the dead by leaving an empty chair in the First Lady's skybox to represent those killed by gun violence as anything but a blatant political act...
Jesus... did they think this thru??? They're channeling Eastwood?
This is why it is hard to take any of your comments as anything but partisan trash.
Your opinion is duly noted.
Would be hysterical if someone brought an empty baby crib to represent "the abortion victims who no longer have a voice".
Thats a good idea, we can leave an empty chair for all of the people that were killed by militant anti abortion people, seeing as you know they were actually people.
d-usa wrote: Yet you just exploited the dead a few posts ago...
Right. I'm trying to prove a point.
And failing miserably in doing so.
Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty were all individuals who knew the situation they were going into. They weren't killed by someone who just woke up one day and decided to go shoot up a friggin' school or shopping mall.
d-usa wrote: Yet you just exploited the dead a few posts ago...
Right. I'm trying to prove a point.
And failing miserably in doing so.
Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty were all individuals who knew the situation they were going into. They weren't killed by someone who just woke up one day and decided to go shoot up a friggin' school or shopping mall.
No... I used those as examples to call out the President for using the dead as a political prop to achieve whatever gun-control measures he wants to push.
Jesus... did they think this thru??? They're channeling Eastwood?
This is why it is hard to take any of your comments as anything but partisan trash.
Your opinion is duly noted.
Would be hysterical if someone brought an empty baby crib to represent "the abortion victims who no longer have a voice".
Thats a good idea, we can leave an empty chair for all of the people that were killed by militant anti abortion people, seeing as you know they were actually people.
Sure, throw them in too.
And Kate Steinle too (oh wait, he'd have to answer questions about Sanctuary Cities... can't have that!)
Maybe instead of a Response to the Union speech the GOP can just put a camera in an empty stadium somewhere so that everyone has a seat for everything?
d-usa wrote: Maybe instead of a Response to the Union speech the GOP can just put a camera in an empty stadium somewhere so that everyone has a seat for everything?
It should just be a camera pointed at an empty chair to symbolize how dead the current GOP's backwards ideology is.
d-usa wrote: Maybe instead of a Response to the Union speech the GOP can just put a camera in an empty stadium somewhere so that everyone has a seat for everything?
AT&T Stadium in Dallas would be a perfect place... It's got plenty of seating, as well as a huge screen
d-usa wrote: Maybe instead of a Response to the Union speech the GOP can just put a camera in an empty stadium somewhere so that everyone has a seat for everything?
AT&T Stadium in Dallas would be a perfect place... It's got plenty of seating, as well as a huge screen
Also, there is never any NFL football games there after December so we know scheduling conflicts wouldn't have been an issue.
d-usa wrote: Maybe instead of a Response to the Union speech the GOP can just put a camera in an empty stadium somewhere so that everyone has a seat for everything?
AT&T Stadium in Dallas would be a perfect place... It's got plenty of seating, as well as a huge screen
Also, there is never any NFL football games there after December so we know scheduling conflicts wouldn't have been an issue.
d-usa wrote: Maybe instead of a Response to the Union speech the GOP can just put a camera in an empty stadium somewhere so that everyone has a seat for everything?
Or maybe, Obama can keep on Trucking.
Gun Manufacturers and Dealers can keep nominating Obama as Employee of the Month.
d-usa wrote: Maybe instead of a Response to the Union speech the GOP can just put a camera in an empty stadium somewhere so that everyone has a seat for everything?
AT&T Stadium in Dallas would be a perfect place... It's got plenty of seating, as well as a huge screen
Also, there is never any NFL football games there after December so we know scheduling conflicts wouldn't have been an issue.
You could probably get Tony Romo to MC the event.... but he'd probably choke
Automatically Appended Next Post: Watching the State of the Union, and I think watching Ryan's expressions is turning out to be better than the speech itself.
jasper76 wrote: He's giving a pretty good lecture to Trump and the Republican field, but I wonder if he's preaching to the choir.
I think he was doing pretty good till he briefly went pro-TPP.
Also... I can't be the only one, but when he said, "We're the strongest military on the planet" I was waiting for him to go full Sam Jackson with "If you feth with us, we'll feth with you!"
College ain't cheap, y'all... Biden's going to the moon to cure cancer... Bin Laden still dead as hell... We spend too much money on our Military... Keep trying to shut down club Gitmo...
"It will only happen if we have rational, constructive debates." -Barack Obama, 2016. (in 2009, he's Mr. "I won")
Obama went to war against Libya without consulting Congress and just blamed Congress for not giving approval (which he never asked for) to his phony war against ISIS. I can't just can't even...
Ustrello wrote: Ha, he just called out cruz for wanting to carpet bomb civilians
That's rather weak and extremely hypocritical coming from a president that orders civilians including US citizens to be killed via drone strikes.
Us citizens that have gone and joined terrorist groups, but thats besides the point. You can kill a lot more civilians bombing a city than you can drone striking every once and a while.
Obama went to war against Libya without consulting Congress and just blamed Congress for not giving approval (which he never asked for) to his phony war against ISIS. I can't just can't even...
He basically suggested that if they want to do more, is to authorize boots on the ground, something that I don't think he's really asked for, or will really happen.
Ustrello wrote: Ha, he just called out cruz for wanting to carpet bomb civilians
That's rather weak and extremely hypocritical coming from a president that orders civilians including US citizens to be killed via drone strikes.
Us citizens that have gone and joined terrorist groups, but thats besides the point. You can kill a lot more civilians bombing a city than you can drone striking every once and a while.
A US citizen is still a US citizen. You don't lose your citizenship just because the government thinks your doing bad things that's why we have a criminal justice system. The Feds can't just label a citizen a terrorist and assassinate him.
whembly wrote: Of course we're the most powerful nation on earth. Is that position relatively weaker or relatively stronger than it was seven years ago?
"No nation attacks us directly," Obama's last SOTU address... on the night Iran seized two of our boats and ten of our sailors.
Who are released. If that is our metric then I guess we must be doing OK after all then?
whembly wrote: Of course we're the most powerful nation on earth. Is that position relatively weaker or relatively stronger than it was seven years ago?
"No nation attacks us directly," Obama's last SOTU address... on the night Iran seized two of our boats and ten of our sailors.
Who are released. If that is our metric then I guess we must be doing OK after all then?
To answer your question, no... in the grand scheme of things, we're not doing "ok".
Consider this, would the UK do this if our boats accidently drifted into their waters? (at least the Brits would offer tea or something... no? )
If our “new best buds in the ME” saw two of our small vessels in their water they could easily have approached and asked if the sailors required assistance. If the answer was yes, then help could be rendered. If our sailors declined they could have remained in the area and waited for another US vessel to arrive.
This is just another provocation by Iran *only* because the Obama administration's weak international face.
Bit harsh, loads of jobs opened up in the dancing girl market.
Okay... that's awesome.
However, when the president states:
"It's one of the few regrets of my presidency - that the rancor and suspicion between parties has gotten worse instead of better."
whembly wrote: This is just another provocation by Iran *only* because the Obama administration's weak international face.
Going to repeat what I said in the thread about this; There's actually nothing to suggest that this is a significant incident other than all the Republicans jumping on it for political points. All the 'hard' language about it seems to stem from an original report by Tasnim News (an Iranian News service) that used the word 'arrested' and a report from Fars News (another Iranian News service) that said someone said this was a 'grave incident.' The thing about Tasnim and Fars News is that they're both ultra-nationalist and pro-Republican Guard, and are very hawkish in their reporting. Normally if they both say the same thing it means someone in the Republican Guard is talking to them, but their original reports don't say the same thing. Which means one or both of them is probably just making it up.
There's been little to actually come officially from Iran on our end. We're mostly getting what US Politicians and Officials have said happened in discussions with the Iranians, but there's nothing that clearly indicates they've taken this matter as anything more than "we found some boats in our waters that weren't moving so we towed them somewhere to sort it out as per common practice when you find someone who isn't supposed to be in your waters in your waters."
The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, quoted in National Journal, November 4, 2010
We're lucky that the American right haven't wasted everyone's time with a procession of losers, last chancers and abysmal liars/no hopers whose main tactic has been to accuse him of everything from destroying the economy, to not being an American or being the actual anti-christ.
And they weren't even good at that.
So, in essence, we're left with a president who we're told over and over again is useless beyond belief in every way -- whilst simultaneously of course having the cunning and trustiness of an Sheik's Vizier.
Who the GOP was unable to beat.
Comes a point -- especially in politics -- when you've gotta stop yelling at the opposition and have a long hard look at yourself if you're not winning.
Course mirrors involve science so that's akin to witchcraft so that won't happen.
The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, quoted in National Journal, November 4, 2010
We're lucky that the American right haven't wasted everyone's time with a procession of losers, last chancers and abysmal liars/no hopers whose main tactic has been to accuse him of everything from destroying the economy, to not being an American or being the actual anti-christ.
And they weren't even good at that.
So, in essence, we're left with a president who we're told over and over again is useless beyond belief in every way -- whilst simultaneously of course having the cunning and trustiness of an Sheik's Vizier.
Who the GOP was unable to beat.
Comes a point -- especially in politics -- when you've gotta stop yelling at the opposition and have a long hard look at yourself if you're not winning.
Course mirrors involve science so that's akin to witchcraft so that won't happen.
We're not winning?
Who has both the house and senate now?
Who kicked major assed during Obama's tenure in all the State govenorships and legislatures?
Who kicked major assed during Obama's tenure in all the State govenorships and legislatures?
And as people have continually pointed out, it's easy to do all that when you've restructured voting districts across the country to rig the race So yeah, the Republicans won, but we can have some perspective on how that happened and what it means Namely that the Reds will probably keep the House and maybe even the Senate in 2016. None of the stuff that helps them do that is going to be much help in the Presidential
How was President Romney's State of the Union address ?
Was it as good as McCain's unifying inaugural address -- or that destined to be quoted-through-the-ages speech VP Palin made after the umpteenth mass shooting ..?
You should see my voting district, it looks like a coiled serpent or some gak. Rigging the district's is really horrible for our democracy, and I'm aware that both sides do it.
I'd be much more in favor of just using County borders to identiy voting districts.
whembly wrote: First of all, I'm happy the sailors are back.
To answer your question, no... in the grand scheme of things, we're not doing "ok".
Consider this, would the UK do this if our boats accidently drifted into their waters? (at least the Brits would offer tea or something... no? )
If our “new best buds in the ME” saw two of our small vessels in their water they could easily have approached and asked if the sailors required assistance. If the answer was yes, then help could be rendered. If our sailors declined they could have remained in the area and waited for another US vessel to arrive.
This is just another provocation by Iran *only* because the Obama administration's weak international face.
Well, it's a little unreasonable to contrast a response from the UK - our most stalwart international ally - with guys who we literally still have sanctions on and were recently calling part of the Axis of Evil. Just because we're gotten some tentative nuclear discussions going with them doesn't mean we're allies.
The fact they were briefly detained and then released is pretty normal, I think. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet that if it hadn't been for those nuclear talks - the ones that Obama was weak for appeasing to, or whatever - that the detention wouldn't have been very brief at all. My guess is those sailors would have been detained until a formal apology was issued. Maybe even two sorries.
What specifically should we have done? I expect a lot of nonspecific strength type phrases, but who knows.
If Obama picked up Iranian boats and released them the same folks would be screaming Boatgazi and saying how they would have held them prisoners until Iran defeats Isis.
Who kicked major assed during Obama's tenure in all the State govenorships and legislatures?
And as people have continually pointed out, it's easy to do all that when you've restructured voting districts across the country to rig the race
Political critters will push for changes to strengthen the incumbent... so don't act like only Republicans does this.
So yeah, the Republicans won,
Glad it's acknowledge.
but we can have some perspective on how that happened and what it means Namely that the Reds will probably keep the House and maybe even the Senate in 2016.
Actually, I don't think they'll hang onto the Senate.
None of the stuff that helps them do that is going to be much help in the Presidential
Oh, you aint wrong... but, having a divided government is better than the gak we got in 2008-2010 when Democrats held all three.
How was President Romney's State of the Union address ?
Was it as good as McCain's unifying inaugural address -- or that destined to be quoted-through-the-ages speech VP Palin made after the umpteenth mass shooting ..?
whembly wrote: First of all, I'm happy the sailors are back.
To answer your question, no... in the grand scheme of things, we're not doing "ok".
Consider this, would the UK do this if our boats accidently drifted into their waters? (at least the Brits would offer tea or something... no? )
If our “new best buds in the ME” saw two of our small vessels in their water they could easily have approached and asked if the sailors required assistance. If the answer was yes, then help could be rendered. If our sailors declined they could have remained in the area and waited for another US vessel to arrive.
This is just another provocation by Iran *only* because the Obama administration's weak international face.
Well, it's a little unreasonable to contrast a response from the UK - our most stalwart international ally - with guys who we literally still have sanctions on and were recently calling part of the Axis of Evil. Just because we're gotten some tentative nuclear discussions going with them doesn't mean we're allies.
The fact they were briefly detained and then released is pretty normal, I think. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet that if it hadn't been for those nuclear talks - the ones that Obama was weak for appeasing to, or whatever - that the detention wouldn't have been very brief at all. My guess is those sailors would have been detained until a formal apology was issued. Maybe even two sorries.
What specifically should we have done? I expect a lot of nonspecific strength type phrases, but who knows.
Namely the same sort of thing that the USN is known to do in that region. We've helped out Iranian military/civvies distressed in that region w/o doing what the Iranian Guard did...
An interesting opinion piece on Cruz and his eligibility or lack thereof to hold the office of POTUS. Be interesting to see how this plays out. Should Cruz be able to win the nomination, you can bet someone out there will file a lawsuit.
Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.
The Constitution provides that “No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The concept of “natural born” comes from common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept’s definition. On this subject, common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are “such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,” while aliens are “such as are born out of it.” The key to this division is the assumption of allegiance to one’s country of birth. The Americans who drafted the Constitution adopted this principle for the United States. James Madison, known as the “father of the Constitution,” stated, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. . . . [And] place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”
Cruz is, of course, a U.S. citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural-born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens. Because of the senator’s parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth. This provision has not always been available. For example, there were several decades in the 19th century when children of Americans born abroad were not given automatic naturalization.
Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the power to naturalize an alien — that is, Congress may remove an alien’s legal disabilities, such as not being allowed to vote. But Article II of the Constitution expressly adopts the legal status of the natural-born citizen and requires that a president possess that status. However we feel about allowing naturalized immigrants to reach for the stars, the Constitution must be amended before one of them can attain the office of president. Congress simply does not have the power to convert someone born outside the United States into a natural-born citizen.
Let me be clear: I am not a so-called birther. I am a legal historian. President Obama is without question eligible for the office he serves. The distinction between the president and Cruz is simple: The president was born within the United States, and the senator was born outside of it. That is a distinction with a difference.
In this election cycle, numerous pundits have declared that Cruz is eligible to be president. They rely on a supposed consensus among legal experts. This notion appears to emanate largely from a recent comment in the Harvard Law Review Forum by former solicitors general Neal Katyal and Paul Clement. In trying to put the question of who is a natural-born citizen to rest, however, the authors misunderstand, misapply and ignore the relevant law.
First, although Katyal and Clement correctly declare that the Supreme Court has recognized that common law is useful to explain constitutional terms, they ignore that law. Instead, they rely on three radical 18th-century British statutes. While it is understandable for a layperson to make such a mistake, it is unforgivable for two lawyers of such experience to equate the common law with statutory law. The common law was unequivocal: Natural-born subjects had to be born in English territory. The then-new statutes were a revolutionary departure from that law.
Second, the authors appropriately ask the question whether the Constitution includes the common-law definition or the statutory approach. But they fail to examine any U.S. sources for the answer. Instead, Katyal and Clement refer to the brand-new British statutes as part of a “longstanding tradition” and conclude that the framers followed that law because they “would have been intimately familiar with these statutes.” But when one reviews all the relevant American writings of the early period, including congressional debates, well-respected treatises and Supreme Court precedent, it becomes clear that the common-law definition was accepted in the United States, not the newfangled British statutory approach.
Third, Katyal and Clement put much weight on the first U.S. naturalization statute, enacted in 1790. Because it contains the phrase “natural born,” they infer that such citizens must include children born abroad to American parents. The first Congress, however, had no such intent. The debates on the matter reveal that the congressmen were aware that such children were not citizens and had to be naturalized; hence, Congress enacted a statute to provide for them. Moreover, that statute did not say the children were natural born, only that they should “be considered as” such. Finally, as soon as Madison, then a member of Congress, was assigned to redraft the statute in 1795, he deleted the phrase “natural born,” and it has never reappeared in a naturalization statute.
When discussing the meaning of a constitutional term, it is important to go beyond secondary sources and look to the law itself. And on this issue, the law is clear: The framers of the Constitution required the president of the United States to be born in the United States.
What's hilarious is that the 'Cruz isn't a US citizen' thing is a much lower key story than all the raging about how Obama was a secret Muslim born in Kenya
Ouze wrote: What specifically should we have done? I expect a lot of nonspecific strength type phrases, but who knows.
Namely the same sort of thing that the USN is known to do in that region. We've helped out Iranian military/civvies distressed in that region w/o doing what the Iranian Guard did...
The milblogs are hopping mad about this.
The milblogs have been perpetually butthurt about Obama simply being president since he was sworn in. That's their default speed and it's not going to change until a Republican becomes president, because the "Democrats are weak and hate the military" meme is never going to die.
Circling back though, what specifically? What specific thing should we have done, and how would it have improved over what actually happened?
Also, the Navy assisting Iranian sailors in distress\hijacked by pirates\etc in Iranian or International waters isn't an apples to apples comparison. Do you believe if 2 boats loaded with Quds Force guys ran aground or drifted into Florida, we'd let them go without questioning them at all?
whembly wrote: It will take either a Supreme Court ruling and an explicit Congressional law to clarify this.
Until then... this won't end.
Yeah. And a lawsuit is highly likely if not inevitable should Cruz win the nomination. I'd be interested to see how it played out in the courts, because to my limited knowledge this issue has never been litigated.
jasper76 wrote: Yeah. And a lawsuit is highly likely if not inevitable should Cruz win the nomination. I'd be interested to see how it played out in the courts, because to my limited knowledge this issue has never been litigated.
My guess is they would deny cert without comment. They don't want any part of that - it needs to be remedied by Congress. I use the term remedied loosely because it's not really a problem.
Circling back though, what specifically? What specific thing should we have done, and how would it have improved over what actually happened?
Are you willing to submit that we don't know the full story yet?
If these two boats truly been “in distress,” then would it not be customary to allow our own navy to effect a rescue under the watchful gaze of the Iranian Navy?
Again, if they were "in distress"... where the feth the other USN ships?
Ideally we'd have Joaquim de Almeida as the evil Iranian admiral, Michael Biehn as the brave Navy commander who tries to get them out and gets shut down by the state department, and I think the History Channel had a good casting for Obama.
jasper76 wrote: Yeah. And a lawsuit is highly likely if not inevitable should Cruz win the nomination. I'd be interested to see how it played out in the courts, because to my limited knowledge this issue has never been litigated.
My guess is they would deny cert without comment. They don't want any part of that - it needs to be remedied by Congress. I use the term remedied loosely because it's not really a problem.
Well, it may not be a big problem for you and me and America, but it would certainly be a problem for Cruz.
Well, heres Ted Cruz's argument. I don't find it convincing. John McCain and George Romney never had a lawsuit filed challenging their eligibility for office.
jasper76 wrote: Well, heres Ted Cruz's argument. I don't find it convincing. John McCain and George Romney never had a lawsuit filed challenging their eligibility for office.
While I don't know the details of the Romney situation, the McCain one is quite simple: Yes, he was born in Panama, but he was born in an American enclosure, which, similar to US military bases abroad, is considered sovereign US Territory.
whembly wrote: It will take either a Supreme Court ruling and an explicit Congressional law to clarify this.
Until then... this won't end.
CNN had an article written by Cruz's old college law professor stating that, ironically, if SCOTUS were filled with the kind of judges Cruz himself has said he wants...he would lose the case.
I think it would depend on what the first court with the case does. They could dismiss it. They could hear it and say "it's a political question" i.e. pass the buck. They could also declare "no he can't" or "yes he can." I think it more likely a court would declare it a political question.
whembly wrote: It will take either a Supreme Court ruling and an explicit Congressional law to clarify this.
Until then... this won't end.
No it won't since it's already clear. Cruz was a US citizen at birth because he had at least 1 parent who was a US citizen. The amendment that confers citizenship to anyone born in the US was passed after the civil war to confer citizenship on the recently freed slaves. We'd already been electing natural born citizens for a century prior. It's only an issue for lazy "journalists" who write inane click bait articles.
I guess the interesting question to me here beyond the campaign is whether we'd actually want to change "natural born citizen" to include people who were born abroad to one or two US parents.
Not to sound xenophobic, but that specific requirement may have put that in there for a reason, you know?
The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, quoted in National Journal, November 4, 2010
We're lucky that the American right haven't wasted everyone's time with a procession of losers, last chancers and abysmal liars/no hopers whose main tactic has been to accuse him of everything from destroying the economy, to not being an American or being the actual anti-christ.
And they weren't even good at that.
So, in essence, we're left with a president who we're told over and over again is useless beyond belief in every way -- whilst simultaneously of course having the cunning and trustiness of an Sheik's Vizier.
Who the GOP was unable to beat.
Comes a point -- especially in politics -- when you've gotta stop yelling at the opposition and have a long hard look at yourself if you're not winning.
Course mirrors involve science so that's akin to witchcraft so that won't happen.
We're not winning?
Who has both the house and senate now?
Who kicked major assed during Obama's tenure in all the State govenorships and legislatures?
Yeah, doing great with those Governorships. I mean look at Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, he is just a booming success story. His state is only hemorrhaging jobs. Look at Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner, his state hasn't had a budget since July 1st and it is causing a lot of jobs built around helping those in need(Mental Health mainly) to shut down or cut back staff. (I got laid off from my job because of the State Budget)
jasper76 wrote: I guess the interesting question to me here beyond the campaign is whether we'd actually want to change "natural born citizen" to include people who were born abroad to one or two US parents.
Not to sound xenophobic, but that specific requirement may have put that in there for a reason, you know?
they already allow that, it just involves some extra paperwork. Plenty of kids are born to service members overseas that are still considered natural citizens, ie Mccain.
the question is did Cruz's mom ever fill out the paperwork? if not than he's not. and if his mom did swear to be a canadian, than she stopped being an american so he's really just a canadian immigrant.
jasper76 wrote: I guess the interesting question to me here beyond the campaign is whether we'd actually want to change "natural born citizen" to include people who were born abroad to one or two US parents.
Not to sound xenophobic, but that specific requirement may have put that in there for a reason, you know?
they already allow that, it just involves some extra paperwork. Plenty of kids are born to service members overseas that are still considered natural citizens, ie Mccain.
the question is did Cruz's mom ever fill out the paperwork? if not than he's not. and if his mom did swear to be a canadian, than she stopped being an american so he's really just a canadian immigrant.
McCain was born on a military base which is considered US soil, pretty sure we haven't annexed Canada yet so it isn't US soil.
What? No corporate entity would ever screw people over. Clearly our real enemy is the government and their ability to pass regulations that could make my life more annoying, not big business and their ability to ignore regulations and dispassionately kill people until they do away with the regulations that shrink their profit margin.
jasper76 wrote: I guess the interesting question to me here beyond the campaign is whether we'd actually want to change "natural born citizen" to include people who were born abroad to one or two US parents.
Not to sound xenophobic, but that specific requirement may have put that in there for a reason, you know?
they already allow that, it just involves some extra paperwork. Plenty of kids are born to service members overseas that are still considered natural citizens, ie Mccain.
the question is did Cruz's mom ever fill out the paperwork? if not than he's not. and if his mom did swear to be a canadian, than she stopped being an american so he's really just a canadian immigrant.
Then why did the US Senate feel the need to pass a resolution allowing McCain to be eligible for the office?
This has not been adjudicated. A quick internet search will show that while plenty of legal scholars have opinions, the issue has never been decided by the courts (and may never be)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: While I don't know the details of the Romney situation, the McCain one is quite simple: Yes, he was born in Panama, but he was born in an American enclosure, which, similar to US military bases abroad, is considered sovereign US Territory.
US military bases are not considered US soil for citizenship purposes. If a child born on a military installation is determined to be a citizen, the parents have to go to the nearest consulate and fill out a Consular Report of Birth Abroad with documents proving that the parents are American citizens.
The Panama Canal Zone was a special case because it was considered an unorganized territory (somewhere that is held by the US but not a state or Washington, DC).
So should we allow people born to US citizens outside of the US to hold the office of POTUS? The requirement that the POTUS be naturally born was clearly instituted to limit or avoid foreign influence in the high office.
I honestly don't really think that having a US citizen as a parent alleviates this concern. At first pass, it seems like it shouldn't matter, until you start thinking about it...
Wow, that's some baldfaced corruption there. I don't know how Florida's ethics laws are, but someone should take them to court. At the very least it might lose them an election.
jasper76 wrote: So should we allow people born to US citizens outside of the US to hold the office of POTUS? The requirement that the POTUS be naturally born was clearly instituted to limit or avoid foreign influence in the high office.
I honestly don't really think that having a US citizen as a parent alleviates this concern. At first pass, it seems like it shouldn't matter, until you start thinking about it...
Being born on US soil doesn't limit or avoid foreign influence in the modern world. The internet has made sure of that.
Wow, that's some baldfaced corruption there. I don't know how Florida's ethics laws are, but someone should take them to court. At the very least it might lose them an election.
Probably a good thing that the governorship is not up for election this year, this might be one of those fringe issues that brings more democrats which would vote during the presidential race as well.
jasper76 wrote: I guess the interesting question to me here beyond the campaign is whether we'd actually want to change "natural born citizen" to include people who were born abroad to one or two US parents.
Not to sound xenophobic, but that specific requirement may have put that in there for a reason, you know?
they already allow that, it just involves some extra paperwork. Plenty of kids are born to service members overseas that are still considered natural citizens, ie Mccain.
the question is did Cruz's mom ever fill out the paperwork? if not than he's not. and if his mom did swear to be a canadian, than she stopped being an american so he's really just a canadian immigrant.
McCain was born on a military base which is considered US soil, pretty sure we haven't annexed Canada yet so it isn't US soil.
americans travel to all parts of the globe, this isn't a new issue and the procedures are in place even if an american parent has a child in Iran. It doesn't matter if it's a US base or not. The senate checked into the legality of Obama and Mccain and declared both of them could hold the office.
A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.
According to U.S. law, a CRBA is proof of U.S. citizenship and may be used to obtain a U.S. passport and register for school, among other purposes.
The child’s parents may choose to apply for a U.S. passport for the child at the same time that they apply for a CRBA. Parents may also choose to apply only for a U.S. passport for the child. Like a CRBA, a full validity, unexpired U.S. passport is proof of U.S. citizenship.
Parents of a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen or citizens should apply for a CRBA and/or a U.S. passport for the child as soon as possible. Failure to promptly document a child who meets the statutory requirements for acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth may cause problems for the parents and the child when attempting to establish the child’s U.S. citizenship and eligibility for the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship, including entry into the United States. By law, U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States.
Where is Ted's FS-240? I'm sure anyone wanting to hold the office with a valid 240 would be considered eligible.
jasper76 wrote: So should we allow people born to US citizens outside of the US to hold the office of POTUS? The requirement that the POTUS be naturally born was clearly instituted to limit or avoid foreign influence in the high office.
I honestly don't really think that having a US citizen as a parent alleviates this concern. At first pass, it seems like it shouldn't matter, until you start thinking about it...
Being born on US soil doesn't limit or avoid foreign influence in the modern world. The internet has made sure of that.
Well, that's an assertion. I don't believe it's a correct one. Maybe I should say what I mean by "foreign influence" as i9ts probably a loose term of me to use. What I mean by that is the possibility of placing the interests of a foreign nation above the interests of the United States.
jasper76 wrote: So should we allow people born to US citizens outside of the US to hold the office of POTUS? The requirement that the POTUS be naturally born was clearly instituted to limit or avoid foreign influence in the high office.
I honestly don't really think that having a US citizen as a parent alleviates this concern. At first pass, it seems like it shouldn't matter, until you start thinking about it...
Being born on US soil doesn't limit or avoid foreign influence in the modern world. The internet has made sure of that.
Well, that's an assertion. I don't believe it's a correct one. Maybe I should say what I mean by "foreign influence" as i9ts probably a loose term of me to use. What I mean by that is the possibility of placing the interests of a foreign nation above the interests of the United States.
Split loyalties may be the term you are looking for.
jasper76 wrote: I guess the interesting question to me here beyond the campaign is whether we'd actually want to change "natural born citizen" to include people who were born abroad to one or two US parents.
Not to sound xenophobic, but that specific requirement may have put that in there for a reason, you know?
they already allow that, it just involves some extra paperwork. Plenty of kids are born to service members overseas that are still considered natural citizens, ie Mccain.
the question is did Cruz's mom ever fill out the paperwork? if not than he's not. and if his mom did swear to be a canadian, than she stopped being an american so he's really just a canadian immigrant.
McCain was born on a military base which is considered US soil, pretty sure we haven't annexed Canada yet so it isn't US soil.
americans travel to all parts of the globe, this isn't a new issue and the procedures are in place even if an american parent has a child in Iran. It doesn't matter if it's a US base or not. The senate checked into the legality of Obama and Mccain and declared both of them could hold the office.
A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.
According to U.S. law, a CRBA is proof of U.S. citizenship and may be used to obtain a U.S. passport and register for school, among other purposes.
The child’s parents may choose to apply for a U.S. passport for the child at the same time that they apply for a CRBA. Parents may also choose to apply only for a U.S. passport for the child. Like a CRBA, a full validity, unexpired U.S. passport is proof of U.S. citizenship.
Parents of a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen or citizens should apply for a CRBA and/or a U.S. passport for the child as soon as possible. Failure to promptly document a child who meets the statutory requirements for acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth may cause problems for the parents and the child when attempting to establish the child’s U.S. citizenship and eligibility for the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship, including entry into the United States. By law, U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States.
Where is Ted's FS-240? I'm sure anyone wanting to hold the office with a valid 240 would be considered eligible.
And nowhere in here is the term "natural born citizen" used or even implied. As for the Senate, Obama does not even apply here as he was born in HawaiiI. McCain applies, but as has been said there is a distcinction to be made because he was born on US property, while Cruz was not, Also, I don't think a non-binding Senate resolution specific to John McCain tells us anything about Cruz's eligbility (a minor point worth noting is Cruz is despised even among his own party in the US Senate)
jasper76 wrote: So should we allow people born to US citizens outside of the US to hold the office of POTUS? The requirement that the POTUS be naturally born was clearly instituted to limit or avoid foreign influence in the high office.
I honestly don't really think that having a US citizen as a parent alleviates this concern. At first pass, it seems like it shouldn't matter, until you start thinking about it...
Being born on US soil doesn't limit or avoid foreign influence in the modern world. The internet has made sure of that.
Well, that's an assertion. I don't believe it's a correct one. Maybe I should say what I mean by "foreign influence" as i9ts probably a loose term of me to use. What I mean by that is the possibility of placing the interests of a foreign nation above the interests of the United States.
Split loyalties may be the term you are looking for.
Trump did file a lawsuit against Bill Maher for Maher's assertion that his father was an orangutan. I know we have zoos, but most orangutans are not born in the United States, and that's just a plain fact. So maybe they'd have a leg to stand on.
jasper76 wrote: I guess the interesting question to me here beyond the campaign is whether we'd actually want to change "natural born citizen" to include people who were born abroad to one or two US parents.
Not to sound xenophobic, but that specific requirement may have put that in there for a reason, you know?
they already allow that, it just involves some extra paperwork. Plenty of kids are born to service members overseas that are still considered natural citizens, ie Mccain.
the question is did Cruz's mom ever fill out the paperwork? if not than he's not. and if his mom did swear to be a canadian, than she stopped being an american so he's really just a canadian immigrant.
McCain was born on a military base which is considered US soil, pretty sure we haven't annexed Canada yet so it isn't US soil.
americans travel to all parts of the globe, this isn't a new issue and the procedures are in place even if an american parent has a child in Iran. It doesn't matter if it's a US base or not. The senate checked into the legality of Obama and Mccain and declared both of them could hold the office.
A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.
According to U.S. law, a CRBA is proof of U.S. citizenship and may be used to obtain a U.S. passport and register for school, among other purposes.
The child’s parents may choose to apply for a U.S. passport for the child at the same time that they apply for a CRBA. Parents may also choose to apply only for a U.S. passport for the child. Like a CRBA, a full validity, unexpired U.S. passport is proof of U.S. citizenship.
Parents of a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen or citizens should apply for a CRBA and/or a U.S. passport for the child as soon as possible. Failure to promptly document a child who meets the statutory requirements for acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth may cause problems for the parents and the child when attempting to establish the child’s U.S. citizenship and eligibility for the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship, including entry into the United States. By law, U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States.
Where is Ted's FS-240? I'm sure anyone wanting to hold the office with a valid 240 would be considered eligible.
And nowhere in here is the term "natural born citizen" used or even implied. As for the Senate, Obama does not even apply here as he was born in HawaiiI. McCain applies, but as has been said there is a distcinction to be made because he was born on US property, while Cruz was not, Also, I don't think a non-binding Senate resolution specific to John McCain tells us anything about Cruz's eligbility (a minor point worth noting is Cruz is despised even among his own party in the US Senate)
jasper76 wrote: So should we allow people born to US citizens outside of the US to hold the office of POTUS? The requirement that the POTUS be naturally born was clearly instituted to limit or avoid foreign influence in the high office.
I honestly don't really think that having a US citizen as a parent alleviates this concern. At first pass, it seems like it shouldn't matter, until you start thinking about it...
Being born on US soil doesn't limit or avoid foreign influence in the modern world. The internet has made sure of that.
Well, that's an assertion. I don't believe it's a correct one. Maybe I should say what I mean by "foreign influence" as i9ts probably a loose term of me to use. What I mean by that is the possibility of placing the interests of a foreign nation above the interests of the United States.
Split loyalties may be the term you are looking for.
Thank you, perfect.
The "natural born citizen" requirement in Article 1 of the US constitution does not refer to people with birthright citizenship, that would literally be impossible. Birthright citizenship, granting citizenship to anyone born in the US, did not exist until the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1866. There is no way that the founders believed that being born in the US granted a person US citizenship in 1789. The location of Cruz's place of birth is irrelevant, all that matters is the citizenship of his parents.
Cruz's place of birth is relevant, since his status as a "natural born citizen" can be contested. Also relevant is the fact that until 2 years ago, he was a citizen of Canada. That might set well with you because its a friendly ally like Canada, but I'm not sure it's the wisest of precedents to set.
Prestor Jon wrote: The "natural born citizen" requirement in Article 1 of the US constitution does not refer to people with birthright citizenship, that would literally be impossible. Birthright citizenship, granting citizenship to anyone born in the US, did not exist until the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1866. There is no way that the founders believed that being born in the US granted a person US citizenship in 1789. The location of Cruz's place of birth is irrelevant, all that matters is the citizenship of his parents.
Natural born citizenship was was based on unambiguous common law and the idea of birthright citizenship was indeed a thing in 1789. It's also why the Clause 5 makes mention of people who are "Citizen[s] of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution," because they recognized that no person could be a natural born citizen from a country that had not yet been established.
Is Ted Cruz eligible? Yes, kinda, it's actually not 100% clear. But make no mistake, within the framework of constitutional law, his place of birth is most definitely relevant.
Also, It's Article II that has the "natural born citizen" clause for qualifications of the office of the Presidency, not Article I (that article establishes the legislative branch).
BrotherGecko wrote: If it gets me one step closer to the Terminator as my President....I'm willing to suck it up....
I was just going to comment this... What's sad is that, when compared with most other Republican candidates running today, I could actually stand to vote for him and he doesn't seem like THAT bad of a choice.
BrotherGecko wrote: If it gets me one step closer to the Terminator as my President....I'm willing to suck it up....
I was just going to comment this... What's sad is that, when compared with most other Republican candidates running today, I could actually stand to vote for him and he doesn't seem like THAT bad of a choice.
Name any other candidate since Andrew Jackson that routinely got in fistfights with aliens. None besides the only man to free Valverde multiple times. Add the Italian Stallion as VP and JCVD as Sec of State, nobody would ever feth with America.
I'll even let Seagall be Fitness Czar, as he does it so well.
I'm actually pretty serious about the first comment. I would vote the gak out of that ticket.
BrotherGecko wrote: If it gets me one step closer to the Terminator as my President....I'm willing to suck it up....
I was just going to comment this... What's sad is that, when compared with most other Republican candidates running today, I could actually stand to vote for him and he doesn't seem like THAT bad of a choice.
Name any other candidate since Andrew Jackson that routinely got in fistfights with aliens. None besides the only man to free Valverde multiple times. Add the Italian Stallion as VP and JCVD as Sec of State, nobody would ever feth with America.
I'll even let Seagall be Fitness Czar, as he does it so well.
I'm actually pretty serious about the first comment. I would vote the gak out of that ticket.
Eldarain wrote: When are the presidential candidates set for the election?
You're probably not going to believe this, but the election isn't until November 4th of this year. All this nonsense is just to pick which candidate is going to be the pick for which party.
There isn't an established cutoff date for when each party picks their candidates, but there are a series of state-specific events that generally serve to start to winnow the field. The Iowa Caucus is first, and that's Feb 1st. A few losers will drop out at that point (fundraising will dry up). The next one is the New Hampshire primary, which is the... second tuesday in March? I want to say. Some more will be culled here - and so on, and so forth. Those are the big 2 though.
March 1st is the "Super Tuesday" where about half of all delegates choose their candidate. It's also called the "SEC Primary" because many of the college football teams in the SEC are in this batch.
This is not, Cruz getting a loan on behalf of his campaign.
This is a loan that he collateralized his personal investments for a loan and *then* loaned it again to his campaign.
The difference is that had he lost, he'd still be in debt and have to pay it off himself rather than his campaign asking for donation to pay off that debt. (although, I guess you 'could' ask for donations to pay that off *shrugs*)
They've asked the FEC for clarification and will amend their filing if necessary.
This is opposition research stuff and someone sat on it until the day before the last GOP debate before IA primary.
If you're outraged about this... just look at the Clinton Foundation, who's been amending their disclosure papers numerous times.
The Republicans own the Bible, in case you weren't up to speed.
Virginia Rep. Dave Brat, the GOP lawmaker who famously upset former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a 2014 Republican primary, informed the world of his party's proprietary rights Monday while speaking with radio host Sandy Rios on her show, American Family Radio.
Brat was particularly incensed at President Barack Obama referring to the Bible in his partisan comments and criticism of the Republicans.
"He's using the Christian tradition and trying to bring about compassion by bonking Republicans over the head with the Bible," Brat said. "It's almost a comedy routine on what compassion and love is. He's mocking his enemies in order to compel a larger federal state using the tradition of love.
"Our side, the conservative side, needs to re-educate its people that we own the entire tradition. If you lose the moral argument, you lose the policy argument every time, so we need to reclaim the moral argument, where we're so strong."
Specifically, in November, Obama said, "Apparently, they are scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America," when criticizing the GOP for their unwelcoming stance toward Syrian refugees.
His comments have been interpreted by some as a reference to James 1:27 in the Bible, which reads: "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
The parallel was a subtle jab at a party that has become increasingly evangelical, touting fundamentalist Christianity as the basis for much of their ideology, from women's reproductive rights to Social Security.
The implication behind Rep. Brat's words (what a wonderful name, btw) that Obama is still not a Christian, and shouldn't be using "the Christian tradition" are ridiculous and infuriating.
Prestor Jon wrote: The "natural born citizen" requirement in Article 1 of the US constitution does not refer to people with birthright citizenship, that would literally be impossible. Birthright citizenship, granting citizenship to anyone born in the US, did not exist until the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1866. There is no way that the founders believed that being born in the US granted a person US citizenship in 1789. The location of Cruz's place of birth is irrelevant, all that matters is the citizenship of his parents.
Natural born citizenship was was based on unambiguous common law and the idea of birthright citizenship was indeed a thing in 1789. It's also why the Clause 5 makes mention of people who are "Citizen[s] of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution," because they recognized that no person could be a natural born citizen from a country that had not yet been established.
Is Ted Cruz eligible? Yes, kinda, it's actually not 100% clear. But make no mistake, within the framework of constitutional law, his place of birth is most definitely relevant.
Also, It's Article II that has the "natural born citizen" clause for qualifications of the office of the Presidency, not Article I (that article establishes the legislative branch).
My bad on the Article typo, it's Article II Section 1, I got those transposed.
The concept of birthright citizenship was known in 1789 but there was no federal law that actually granted birthright citizenship until 1866, that's why it's in the 14th amendment. People born in the US may have been socially accepted as being American but there was no law that established such a thing until the 14th amendment. If it was already true then it wouldn't need to be in the amendment.
Prestor Jon wrote: The concept of birthright citizenship was known in 1789 but there was no federal law that actually granted birthright citizenship until 1866, that's why it's in the 14th amendment. People born in the US may have been socially accepted as being American but there was no law that established such a thing until the 14th amendment. If it was already true then it wouldn't need to be in the amendment.
The Citizenship Clause is in the Fourteenth Amendment to reverse the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that said peoples of African decent are not citizens even though they were born in the Untied States because they were specifically excluded in the Constitution. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment does not use the term "natural-born citizen" in any of its text; it remains undefined by the Constitution which is why this is still an issue.
That's why scholars look to common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution because it's where the concept of birthright citizenship stems. The Framers clearly intended the office of the President to have more stringent citizenship standards, because when defining eligibility for Congress, no natural-born citizen clause is present. Regardless, the matter has not been settled and there are valid opinions on both sides of the debate (and to be clear, I'm firmly on the side that Ted Cruz should qualify as being a 'natural-born citizen' and therefore eligible for the office of the Presidency).
When I first heard the phrase "natural-born citizen", I thought it mean anyone born via caesarean section were ineligible. I was like, "How would they know?"
Breotan wrote: When I first heard the phrase "natural-born citizen", I thought it mean anyone born via caesarean section were ineligible. I was like, "How would they know?"
"Our side, the conservative side, needs to re-educate its people that we own the entire tradition. If you lose the moral argument, you lose the policy argument every time, so we need to reclaim the moral argument, where we're so strong."
This is pretty damn delicious to me right here... I mean, last I checked, it was Republicans and republican candidates who seem to be often in the news for affairs (adultery), affairs with people of the same sex (homosexuality, bad!) and other similar things.
Of course, I think they've pretty fairly lost the moral argument a long time ago, and really, I don't think it's because they are so often caught with their pants down, it's more that other educated people are pointing out things in the "good book" that are seriously wrong/flawed, and pointing to the idiocy of many policies that are pushed for or defended.
Both sides have folks getting busted for affairs. Hell, a D presidential candidate got busted not too long ago (Edwards). And you guys own Anthony 'wanna see my' Wiener.
CptJake wrote: Both sides have folks getting busted for affairs. Hell, a D presidential candidate got busted not too long ago (Edwards). And you guys own Anthony 'wanna see my' Wiener.
While true, my overall point is that you find a lot more of the "family values" type republicans in the news for that kind of gak, and the D side doesn't really seem to do "wholesome family values" as major talking points, though it certainly may come up in talking.
While not a politician, I'm sure many people can recall the vehemently anti-gay pastor from Alabama, who was caught having an affair with a guy.
I'm not sure it's actually more common, but it's probably more reported, because the irony of stuff like that is fun to report on. Schadenfreude, and what have you.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm not sure it's actually more common, but it's probably more reported, because the irony of stuff like that is fun to report on. Schadenfreude, and what have you.
Well, it's also more relevant when you have someone running on "traditional family values" who gets caught with their pants down than someone just running on policies and leaving their private life in private.
Basically a don't hold yourself up as representing some ideal unless you're actually living up to it, kinda thing.
CptJake wrote: Both sides have folks getting busted for affairs. Hell, a D presidential candidate got busted not too long ago (Edwards). And you guys own Anthony 'wanna see my' Wiener.
The D's dont run on family values, nor are the D's fighting against treating the LGBT's as equals while having same sex affairs. You never saw clinton trying to ban oral, or running on a platform to ban it. so the R's end up being massive hypocrites because they run against and try to pass laws against what they are doing.
CptJake wrote: Both sides have folks getting busted for affairs. Hell, a D presidential candidate got busted not too long ago (Edwards). And you guys own Anthony 'wanna see my' Wiener.
The D's dont run on family values, nor are the D's fighting against treating the LGBT's as equals while having same sex affairs. You never saw clinton trying to ban oral, or running on a platform to ban it. so the R's end up being massive hypocrites because they run against and try to pass laws against what they are doing.
No, but I did see Pres Clinton lie about it. Clearly he was not proud enough of his lack of 'family values' that he owned up to them. Wether or not he ran on them, he clearly wasn't happy getting caught.
I get that the Rs who run on family values and then get busted doing crap like this are hypocrites, trust me I get it. But it also tends to end their careers.
And I still dispute the comment I replied to "it was Republicans and republican candidates who seem to be often in the news for affairs". The news folks may make a bigger issue when an R does it, but guys like Edwards and Weiner sure caught their time in the lime light.
This is not, Cruz getting a loan on behalf of his campaign.
This is a loan that he collateralized his personal investments for a loan and *then* loaned it again to his campaign.
The difference is that had he lost, he'd still be in debt and have to pay it off himself rather than his campaign asking for donation to pay off that debt. (although, I guess you 'could' ask for donations to pay that off *shrugs*)
They've asked the FEC for clarification and will amend their filing if necessary.
This is opposition research stuff and someone sat on it until the day before the last GOP debate before IA primary.
If you're outraged about this... just look at the Clinton Foundation, who's been amending their disclosure papers numerous times.
Of course Rubio/Trump will bring this up tonight.
Honestly, I also feel this is a non-issue. Yes, he missed reporting the loans on a FEC filing. But they were still reported elsewhere, so it's not like it was a secret or anything even approaching intentional.
But, here is what does bug me, as it really does just go to show the extent of money in politics. First, "forgetting" to report half a million dollars (how much money are we talking about to begin with if it's easy enough to forget half a million)? Second, he's already paid off the half million dollars? Yep, just one more proof that politicians know nothing anymore about how the average American lives day to day.
CptJake wrote: Both sides have folks getting busted for affairs. Hell, a D presidential candidate got busted not too long ago (Edwards). And you guys own Anthony 'wanna see my' Wiener.
The D's dont run on family values, nor are the D's fighting against treating the LGBT's as equals while having same sex affairs. You never saw clinton trying to ban oral, or running on a platform to ban it. so the R's end up being massive hypocrites because they run against and try to pass laws against what they are doing.
No, but I did see Pres Clinton lie about it. Clearly he was not proud enough of his lack of 'family values' that he owned up to them. Wether or not he ran on them, he clearly wasn't happy getting caught.
I get that the Rs who run on family values and then get busted doing crap like this are hypocrites, trust me I get it. But it also tends to end their careers.
And I still dispute the comment I replied to "it was Republicans and republican candidates who seem to be often in the news for affairs". The news folks may make a bigger issue when an R does it, but guys like Edwards and Weiner sure caught their time in the lime light.
do you have any numbers for those caught in affairs? is the news just reporting on the R's more, or are the R's just getting caught more? the number of R's getting busted in same sex affairs is become so routine, it's becoming a cliche.
No one is happy getting caught cheating, and they all deny it until it is shown to be demonstrably true, then they'll admit it and ask for forgiveness.
I’ve made a lot of noise for a long time about the intellectual collapse of the Republican party. For a while I thought Trump was strong evidence of that, but the more I think about that, well there’s no shortage of demagogues and hateful twits doing really well during times of turmoil and economic distress.
Really, the best evidence of woeful state of Republican politics lies with the mainstream of the party, and especially with guys like Paul Ryan, who are seen as serious, ‘wonkish’, policy kinds of people. They hold this reputation within their party, despite everything they say being utterly vacuous.
There was a great example the other day, when Ryan was commenting on the economic recovery, he was quick to say that it had nothing to do with anything Obama did. That’s fine, really, politicians can’t be expected to give credit to their opposition, and in this case it’s even fairly true. Presidents have little impact on economies outside of long term, structural things that won’t really show up five year results. But Ryan didn’t stop there, instead he credited the recovery to the policies of the Federal Reserve. The policies, that is, of Quantitative Easing, keeping interests at zero or near zero. Policies that Paul Ryan denounced, believing they were sure to lead to high inflation and a debasing of the dollar.
But now they’re policies he credits with the economic improvement. This isn’t to say Paul Ryan has changed his mind, admitted he’s learnt something and improved his understanding of economics. No, he’s just thrown that new statement out there, with no effort to explain why it’s in complete contrast to what claimed before. When it was convenient to make stupid noises about Fed policy leading to the inflation of doom he said that, and now that the need of the day is to find something other than Obama to give credit to for the economy, he gives it to those same policies he used to claim to hate. And all the while he makes no effort to explain how or why he’s swapped 180’ on his view of monetary policy.
Whether he doesn’t remember that he was supposed to hate QE and 0% rates, or whether he remembers and just doesn’t care because honesty is for other people, I don’t know. I do know that Ryan is meant to be the smart end of the Republican party, and that should be more damning than Trump’s continued support.
Paul Ryan is now Speaker of the House, a thankless job that he now has to herd cats across the river to get gak done:
That's right, he's now speaker of the house. And before that he was a VP candidate. The guy has moved up very rapidly through the ranks of the Republican party, carrying this 'serious wonk' brand as he goes. But the dude is basically playing madlibs, just spouting whatever political sounding words suit the moment, with no interest in whether they contradict what said last time, or make any damn sense at all.
It was only a couple of years ago he was talking about intergenerational theft, currency debasement and financial collapse. Now he's claiming it was a driver behind the economic recovery. And he doesn't even seem to have noticed how much his lines have changed.
I'm beginning to suspect Paul Ryan actually may just be some small children standing feet on shoulders in a trenchcoat, saying whatever political things sound sufficiently politicky for the adults to not notice and send them back to school.
In a slightly more serious tone, yes, the speaker's job is horrible, especially right now. But I have no idea why having a horrible job means we should be okay with the person in the job speaking absolute total gibberish. Especially when the person speaking that gibberish isn't some extreme nutter, but is meant to be one of the mainstream, respectable leaders of the party.
I mean, here's another quote from Ryan when asked about monetary policy;
"I always go back to, you know, Francisco d’Anconia’s speech, at Bill Taggart’s wedding, on money when I think about monetary policy. Then I go to the 64-page John Galt speech, you know, on the radio at the end, and go back to a lot of other things that she did, to try and make sure that I can check my premises."
He cites fething Atlas Shrugged. Who needs technical knowledge when you've got ideology?
whembly wrote: Aye... as someone who supported Ryan only a few years ago... he's taken it to elevenity seven and I don't really recognize him anymore.
If you're going to prop up Ryan as an indication to the decline of Republicans, where were you on Pelosi and Reid?
The stupidity burns between those two... But hey... one could argue that's 'par for the course' with politicians.
Yeah, Pelosi and Reid are par for the course for politicians, they’re fairly run of the mill mediocrity. They’re a millions miles away from the kinds of leaders a country should have, but they’re pretty typical for the kind of leaders almost all countries, including yours, tend to have.
But someone who wants to opine on technical economic matters, and just quotes Atlas Shrugged, well that is not within the normal levels of political mediocrity. That isn’t someone who just messes up on a technical issue like Reid or Pelosi will fairly regularly, but someone who actually rejects the entire field of study, and instead replaces it with ideology.
“Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.”
hmmm ..
“And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast.”
“Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.”
hmmm ..
“And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast.”
explains the syrup maybe eh ?
I live like 15 miles from where the rally took place and Locally, not a lot of people were too terribly pleased with The Rally happening and there's been a lot of local hullabaloo over these girls.
Kids should be playing, doing schoolwork, stealing their parents iDevice and running up a huge bill on the games, Not singing the praises of The Glorious Leader( Whomever they are)
We have to find a balance. I remember in Elementary School, we "Voted" alongside the Presidential Election, but it pretty much boiled down to the Teachers telling us "Vote for who your parents like or who you think looks like he'd be the best Grandpa".
If we want kids to get excited for voting, we need to actually TEACH them about the world around them and let them decide whether or not they care. You can't force people to get excited.
If we want kids to get excited for voting, we need to actually TEACH them about the world around them and let them decide whether or not they care. You can't force people to get excited.
It's tough though, because we had a mock election in my US Government class in high school, complete with in class "policy debate" based on what was published in local newspapers.... Honestly, I think high school is really the earliest age you can effectively teach "what is actually going on" and allow them to make those decisions on their own beyond "vote who you think your parents are, or who you think looks the best"
If we want kids to get excited for voting, we need to actually TEACH them about the world around them and let them decide whether or not they care. You can't force people to get excited.
It's tough though, because we had a mock election in my US Government class in high school, complete with in class "policy debate" based on what was published in local newspapers.... Honestly, I think high school is really the earliest age you can effectively teach "what is actually going on" and allow them to make those decisions on their own beyond "vote who you think your parents are, or who you think looks the best"
Younger classes could have their own mini elections with their own peers running on manifestos of changes they'd like to see in their classrooms/school (more colouring pencils, tastier glue, longer breaktimes etc.). You don't necessarily need to get them interested in national politics at younger ages, they'll do that anyway when they want to, but you can try to teach them to think about what parts of peoples campaign policies are actually possible and to approach it critically.
This serves to not only get them accustomed to taking part in the democratic process but also to get them accustomed to the fact that, at the end of the day, their votes are meaningless and those in power will just do things as they've always been done
Iur_tae_mont wrote: We have to find a balance. I remember in Elementary School, we "Voted" alongside the Presidential Election, but it pretty much boiled down to the Teachers telling us "Vote for who your parents like or who you think looks like he'd be the best Grandpa".
If we want kids to get excited for voting, we need to actually TEACH them about the world around them and let them decide whether or not they care. You can't force people to get excited.
You might be surprised to hear that is far more often the case than we might like. Some time ago, I had seen the results of a study where people were randomly shown the campaign pictures of the two candidates from various local/state level elections (from other states, so the respondents would be very unlikely to actually recognize the pictures) and were simply asked who looked better (they weren't told that the pictures were of politicians, and they were told it was a survey regarding standards of appearances or something). Most of the time, the picture in each pair that the most people said looked better was the person who won the election.
There's also that old story about the Nixon JFK debate (i think it was them) and that people who heard the event on radio thought Nixon won, but people who saw it on TV thought JFK won.
LordofHats wrote: There's also that old story about the Nixon JFK debate (i think it was them) and that people who heard the event on radio thought Nixon won, but people who saw it on TV thought JFK won.
That's just because the people listening to it on radio were listening to the specially mixed and cut "Tricky Dick" tape of the debate
You might be surprised to hear that is far more often the case than we might like. Some time ago, I had seen the results of a study where people were randomly shown the campaign pictures of the two candidates from various local/state level elections (from other states, so the respondents would be very unlikely to actually recognize the pictures) and were simply asked who looked better (they weren't told that the pictures were of politicians, and they were told it was a survey regarding standards of appearances or something). Most of the time, the picture in each pair that the most people said looked better was the person who won the election.
There's also a significant body of research indicating that attractive people have a statistically significant advantage when it comes to the hiring process, regardless of sex.
So... dat debate last night. The whole thing can be distilled by the rumbles between Trump / Cruz / Rubio here:
TRUMP: The fact is, there is a big overhang. There’s a big question mark on your head. And you can’t do that to the party. You really can’t. You can’t do that to the party. You have to have certainty. Even if it was a one percent chance, and it’s far greater than one percent…. I mean, you have great constitutional lawyers that say you can’t run. If there was a — and you know I’m not bringing a suit. I promise. But the Democrats are going to bring a lawsuit, and you have to have certainty. You can’t have a question. I can agree with you or not, but you can’t have a question over your head.
CAVUTO: Senator, do you want to respond?
CRUZ: Well, listen, I’ve spent my entire life defending the Constitution before the US Supreme Court. And I’ll tell you, I’m not going to be taking legal advice from Donald Trump. The chances of any litigation proceeding and succeeding on this are zero. And Mr. Trump is very focused on Larry Tribe. Let me tell you who Larry Tribe is. He’s a left-wing judicial activist, Harvard Law professor who was Al Gore’s lawyer in Bush versus Gore. He’s a major Hillary Clinton supporter. And there’s a reason why Hillary’s supporters are echoing Donald’s attacks on me, because Hillary wants to face Donald Trump in the general election.
And I’ll tell you what, Donald, you — you very kindly just a moment ago offered me the VP slot. (Laughter.) I’ll tell you what. If this all works out, I’m happy to consider naming you as VP. So if you happen to be right, you could get the top job at the end of the day.
TRUMP: No — no…I think if it doesn’t… I like that. I like it. I’d consider it. But I think I’ll go back to building buildings if it doesn’t work out.
CRUZ: Actually, I’d love to get you to build a wall.
TRUMP: I have a feeling it’s going to work out, actually.
RUBIO: I was invoked in that question, so let me just say — in that answer — let me say, the real question here, I hate to interrupt this episode of Court TV. (Laughter.)
But the real — but I think we have to get back to what this election has to be about, OK? Listen, we — this is the greatest country in the history of mankind. But in 2008, we elected a president that didn’t want to fix America. He wants to change America. We elected a president that doesn’t believe in the Constitution. He undermines it. We elected a president that is weakening America on the global stage. We elected a president that doesn’t believe in the free enterprise system.
This election has to be about reversing all of that damage. That’s why I’m running for office because when I become president of the United States, on my first day in office we are going to repeal every single one of his unconstitutional executive orders. When I’m president of the United States we are getting rid of Obamacare and we are rebuilding our military. And when I’m president, we’re not just going to have a president that gives a State of the Union and says America is the greatest country in the world. When I’m president, we’re going to have a president that acts like it.
Trump held out on his own by taking no gak from anyone...
Rubio seemed caffeinated, but was spot on and cemented himself as a viable candidate...
Cruz did the best imo, as he's the only one who took on Trump and walked away unscathed (I don't buy that "NY Values" snit that big of a dealio).
The others were unmemorable, with the exception of Christie saying he'd can't wait to kick Obama out of office, or somesuch...
Honesty everything I've heard and seen of Rubio just makes me gag. The guy is a complete panderer whose only policy proposals have been a well covered "Thanks Obama" routine.
So yeah... if that's the bar we're setting for viable
LordofHats wrote: Honesty everything I've heard and seen of Rubio just makes me gag. The guy is a complete panderer whose only policy proposals have been a well covered "Thanks Obama" routine.
So yeah... if that's the bar we're setting for viable
whembly wrote: The others were unmemorable, with the exception of Christie saying he'd can't wait to kick Obama out of office, or somesuch...
Which is at least a little funny, in that a term-limited president who almost certainly would win a third term otherwise, leaving office could be characterized as "being kicked out of office".
whembly wrote: The others were unmemorable, with the exception of Christie saying he'd can't wait to kick Obama out of office, or somesuch...
Which is at least a little funny, in that a term-limited president who almost certainly would win a third term otherwise, leaving office could be characterized as "being kicked out of office".
As a recovering NY'er, did that "New York Value" spiel by Cruz bother you?
Hilarious stuff.
