• on a comment on Shorter Sebelius: We surrender over 4 years ago

    Nobody ever said that we didn't want 3 co-equal branches of government.

    You are being completely disingenuous when you try to spin us wanting Obama to put some political pressure on Congress for certain policies as a "dictatorship." The executive does not need to just bend constantly to the legislative branch to keep us from being a dictatorship.

    And I think you realize how stupid you sound by now, but you are just too stubborn to admit it.

  • on a comment on Shorter Sebelius: We surrender over 4 years ago

    Ok, I guess I have to spell it out for you explicitly.

    The president strongly arguing for something and threatening a veto if he doesn't get it is NOT a "dictatorship" if Congress can just say no.

    You already stipulated that Congress can tell the president to "go fuck himself". Therefore, it is NOT a dictatorship no matter how forcefully the president argues for the policy he wants, and threatening the legal use of his veto power is the antithesis of a dictatorship.

  • on a comment on Shorter Sebelius: We surrender over 4 years ago

    So you said both of these two things in the same post:

    1) the President telling Congress what he will or will not sign into law is an "imperial" presidency

    2) Congress can tell the president to "go fuck himself", like with Clinton.

    Do you not see the contradiction in your own post?

  • comment on a post Shorter Sebelius: We surrender over 4 years ago

    I won't be knocking on doors in 2010 or 2012 for Democrats like I did in 2008.

    It's no longer worth my time or the effort.

  • People going back to school? There are plenty of reasons people could quit looking for jobs besides the "discouraged workers" in the U6

  • comment on a post One More Note on Obama's Approval Rating over 5 years ago

    check out how Rasmussen has been a recent "consultant" for the GOP and for G.W.Bush:

    http://projects.publicintegrity.org/cons ultants/list.aspx?act=conDetail&id=1 22002

  • Basically, the Bill of Rights only applies to the Federal Government, not the states.

    However, the 14th Amendment supplies a mechanism whereby "fundamental rights", such as many in the Bill of Rights, can be applied to restrict state power.

    The Supreme Court long ago rejected the idea that all of the Bill of Rights is "incorporated" to the states through the 14th Amendment. Instead the Court has declared rights, one by one, to be "fundamental" and therefore incorporated to the states under the 14th. Some justices argued for jsut doing it all at once, but they lost.

    As of the current time, most of the Bill of Rights has been applied to the states by the Court. However, a few have not, including the 2nd Amendment. There are a few others (states don't have to give you the right to a grand jury int he 5th Amendment, for instance.

    So, until the Supreme Court rules that the 2nd is incorporated to the states through the 14th, only the Federal Government is restricted form infringing on the right to bear arms.

  • comment on a post Complicity over 5 years ago

    I've been as big of a cheerleader for Obama as anybody, but he really messed up with Giethner and Summers (they were also my least favorite appointees from the start)

    now those two guys are going on tv and flat-out lying to us in order to help reward fat cats on wall street.

    they need to go. Obama is better than this, and our country is better than this

  • on a comment on "Unconscionable" over 5 years ago

    I cited a supreme court case that says that Congress can pass legislation that interferes with Congress.

    btw, it's the States that can't, and even then it's only intermediate scrutiny

  • on a comment on "Unconscionable" over 5 years ago

    no, the law is NOT on their side.

    I quoted a supreme court case that is still good law.

    the Court hasn't been striking down federal action because of interference with private contracts since the lochner era (early 1900's)

  • on a comment on "Unconscionable" over 5 years ago

    an example? well, pretty much any time Congress or the Federal Government does anything. bans unpasturized cheeses? interfererence with contracts people had to import pasturized cheese.

    really, just about anything you can think of

  • on a comment on "Unconscionable" over 5 years ago

    wrong. the Court decided a long time ago that Congress can pass legislation that interferes with private contracts.

    in fact, pretty much anything congress passes has at least the potential of interfering with private contracts.

    now, it would excuse the AIG employees of their further obligations, and they would be entitled for "fair" compensation for services already rendered. but Congress certainly can interfere with contracts.

  • on a comment on "Unconscionable" over 5 years ago

    remember, the administration did something similar re: private contracts by limiting executive pay for banks that take bailout money.

    i find it very interesting that the media didn't have any law profs on the air yesterday, but instead just repeated AIG and politician talking points.

  • comment on a post "Unconscionable" over 5 years ago

    You are wrong.

    Congress certainly can interfere with private contracts, because of a little thing called the Commerce Clause.

    It's only the states that cannot.


    "(f) Private contracts must be understood as having been made subject to the possible exercise of the rightful authority of the Government, and their impairment, resulting from such exercise, is not a taking of private property for public use without compensation, or a deprivation of it without due process of law. Pp. 294 U. S. 304-305."

  • on a comment on Jim Cramer Contra Mundum over 5 years ago

    Re: food stamps:

    somebody has to grow/produce, process, ship, stock, sell, manage, advertise, etc whenever food is sold

    but that's not even really the point.

    people on food stamps spend virtually all of their money on goods and services in the US (as opposed to saving/traveling).

    any money those people don't spend on food because they have food stamps gets spent on other things, and of course, this effect happens fast.


Advertise Blogads