Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 01-05-2012, 10:22 AM   #31
RIJIMMY
sick of bluefish
iTrader: (1)
 
RIJIMMY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 8,672
here is the article

Why Romney's front-runner status is nuts - CNN.com

making s-b.com a kinder, gentler place for all
RIJIMMY is offline  
Old 01-05-2012, 10:30 AM   #32
likwid
lobster = striper bait
iTrader: (0)
 
likwid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Popes Island Performing Arts Center
Posts: 5,871
Send a message via AIM to likwid
Santorum: anti-birth control, pro medicare part d

VIAGRA FOR EVERYONE!

Ski Quicks Hole
likwid is offline  
Old 01-05-2012, 04:45 PM   #33
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
If by some reason Santorum could pull this off, we all get to see first hand what conservative means away from the coasts. I wager that most on both sides of the aisle won't like it.

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 01-05-2012, 05:09 PM   #34
likwid
lobster = striper bait
iTrader: (0)
 
likwid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Popes Island Performing Arts Center
Posts: 5,871
Send a message via AIM to likwid
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
If by some reason Santorum could pull this off, we all get to see first hand what conservative means away from the coasts. I wager that most on both sides of the aisle won't like it.
Nobody will notice him, we'll all have raging boners!

Ski Quicks Hole
likwid is offline  
Old 01-05-2012, 08:52 PM   #35
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by likwid View Post
Nobody will notice him, we'll all have raging boners!
Must... not... respond

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 01-05-2012, 09:36 PM   #36
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY View Post
Romney isn't sexy, he's a bit smarmy and the Right doesn't like his changing positions to appear more "conservative".

That being said, he's perhaps the smartest person in the group that has an executive mindset. Yes, he's not perfect, but he's the best GOP candidate to potentially beat Obama.

What's so hard to understand?

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 01-05-2012, 11:46 PM   #37
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I said most Iowa Republicans were more moderate. Overall registration is about 50:50 and the state tends to vote Democratic.

My father is a pragmatist, I'd say more aligned with a later Goldwater brand of conservatism that's nearly absent in the modern GOP.

He completely agreed with this good piece from the Economist. I agree with it as well...
The Economist, by implying that Republicans are flirting with extremist requirements of their candidates, is, as Spence likes to say, the pot calling the kettle black. It narrows the requirements to extremely narrow and untrue parameters, and disregards the apparent diversity of views both by the candidates and the voters. It's not true that all require that abortion has to be illegal in all cases, nor even in common cases. Most understand that it should be, as it once was, a State issue, and some have called for a federal ammendment only because in those States that have voted for the ban, the constitutional will of the people has been overturned by a Court. But such an ammendment is not the responsibility of the POTUS, so is not an election issue, and there is no debate or requirement in the campaigns. There is no unanimous requirement that all illegal immigrants summarily be deported--not by all voters nor by all candidates. But there is a consensus that illegal is illegal and some method of legalization must be accomplished and the continued influx of illegal entry be stopped. Neither the voters nor the candidates believe that the 46 million that don't have health insurance "have only themselves to blame," but most believe that the Federal Gvt. has no authority to mandate that all must buy it. Again, most believe it is a State issue. There is no solid Republican conspiracy that says global warming is a conspiracy. Most believe there is warming, most don't believe it is either as serious, nor as man made as claimed, and some do believe that there is a political agenda influencing the attempt to create a worldwide government control of emmisions which would unnecessarily cripple the global and especially the U.S. economy. There is no massive belief that any form of gun control is unconstitutional. Most believe in at least some form of basic licensing qualifications and there is a diversity even in the degree of regulation. There is no irrevocable requirement against any or all forms of tax increase. There is certainly a strong desire to reform the tax code. I have not heard the extreme view that Israel can do no wrong or that the Palestinians can do no right. There is strong discussion and desire, but no absolute requirement to abolish all regulatory agencies. And there is a very valid discussion as to the Constitutionality and propriety of those agencies, and to the defacto legislative transfer of power to them so that we have a growing and already huge administrative form of central gvt. rather than a representative one, which is not only unconstitutional, but goes against the Economist's call for sound economics, individualism, and entrepeneurial pragmatism--as do, frankly, lax immigration, government mandated insurance, and unsound anti-business tax increases.

The above views are characterized as cranky, extreme and backward-looking. That is certainly debateable, but they can be colored so if the views are distorted toward the extreme as the Economist has done. And the Economist has some further cranky and extreme depictions such as "uncompromising views on god." So what God does the Economist understand to call for a compromised belief? The Republican electorate is religiously diverse. As are the candidates. Some voters may not vote for a Mormon. Most will. John Kennedy overcame the anti-Catholic prejudice. Such is the price of individualism. And this business that the Republican party is being "dragged further to the right" instead of remaining predominantly right of center. To the right of what? To the right of the Founders? To the right of Abe Lincoln or, to the right of Teddy Roosevelt, all of whom it mentions as models? Or Reagan, who had a very different Democratic party to deal with. A Democrat party that was farther to the right of the present day Democrats than the Republican party is to the right of the Founders, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, or Reagan. The Republican party, in case the Economist has not noticed, has been dragged far to the left of what it once was. Any shift to the right is a necessary corrective if we wish to preserve the republican, representative, constitutional form of government which, I assume, the economist would wish to be preserved. "Right of center" has shifted to the left as well, since the "center" moved with the leftward shifted parties. If elections depend on the vote of the "center," we need a national, educational, discussion on what the center should be--citizens of a government founded on established principles of individual liberty, or collective dependants of centrally orchestrated social experiments.

Last edited by detbuch; 01-06-2012 at 12:50 AM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-07-2012, 09:59 AM   #38
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
The Economist, by implying that Republicans are flirting with extremist requirements of their candidates, is, as Spence likes to say, the pot calling the kettle black. It narrows the requirements to extremely narrow and untrue parameters, and disregards the apparent diversity of views both by the candidates and the voters. It's not true that all require that abortion has to be illegal in all cases, nor even in common cases. Most understand that it should be, as it once was, a State issue, and some have called for a federal ammendment only because in those States that have voted for the ban, the constitutional will of the people has been overturned by a Court. But such an ammendment is not the responsibility of the POTUS, so is not an election issue, and there is no debate or requirement in the campaigns. There is no unanimous requirement that all illegal immigrants summarily be deported--not by all voters nor by all candidates. But there is a consensus that illegal is illegal and some method of legalization must be accomplished and the continued influx of illegal entry be stopped. Neither the voters nor the candidates believe that the 46 million that don't have health insurance "have only themselves to blame," but most believe that the Federal Gvt. has no authority to mandate that all must buy it. Again, most believe it is a State issue. There is no solid Republican conspiracy that says global warming is a conspiracy. Most believe there is warming, most don't believe it is either as serious, nor as man made as claimed, and some do believe that there is a political agenda influencing the attempt to create a worldwide government control of emmisions which would unnecessarily cripple the global and especially the U.S. economy. There is no massive belief that any form of gun control is unconstitutional. Most believe in at least some form of basic licensing qualifications and there is a diversity even in the degree of regulation. There is no irrevocable requirement against any or all forms of tax increase. There is certainly a strong desire to reform the tax code. I have not heard the extreme view that Israel can do no wrong or that the Palestinians can do no right. There is strong discussion and desire, but no absolute requirement to abolish all regulatory agencies. And there is a very valid discussion as to the Constitutionality and propriety of those agencies, and to the defacto legislative transfer of power to them so that we have a growing and already huge administrative form of central gvt. rather than a representative one, which is not only unconstitutional, but goes against the Economist's call for sound economics, individualism, and entrepeneurial pragmatism--as do, frankly, lax immigration, government mandated insurance, and unsound anti-business tax increases.

The above views are characterized as cranky, extreme and backward-looking. That is certainly debateable, but they can be colored so if the views are distorted toward the extreme as the Economist has done. And the Economist has some further cranky and extreme depictions such as "uncompromising views on god." So what God does the Economist understand to call for a compromised belief? The Republican electorate is religiously diverse. As are the candidates. Some voters may not vote for a Mormon. Most will. John Kennedy overcame the anti-Catholic prejudice. Such is the price of individualism. And this business that the Republican party is being "dragged further to the right" instead of remaining predominantly right of center. To the right of what? To the right of the Founders? To the right of Abe Lincoln or, to the right of Teddy Roosevelt, all of whom it mentions as models? Or Reagan, who had a very different Democratic party to deal with. A Democrat party that was farther to the right of the present day Democrats than the Republican party is to the right of the Founders, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, or Reagan. The Republican party, in case the Economist has not noticed, has been dragged far to the left of what it once was. Any shift to the right is a necessary corrective if we wish to preserve the republican, representative, constitutional form of government which, I assume, the economist would wish to be preserved. "Right of center" has shifted to the left as well, since the "center" moved with the leftward shifted parties. If elections depend on the vote of the "center," we need a national, educational, discussion on what the center should be--citizens of a government founded on established principles of individual liberty, or collective dependants of centrally orchestrated social experiments.
While I'd agree that there is some rationality within identified Republicans themselves, the point of the article is that inside the beltway things are so extreme the GOP has lost the rational moderate appeal found in a Reagan, Goldwater or Bill Buckley.

It's like every issue has become a litmus test.

I know you don't like it when non-Americans comment on America, but this time I think they offer a nice perspective.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 01-07-2012, 02:04 PM   #39
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Also regarding the recent recess appointments.

The situation appears to be that Republicans were blocking the appointment on ideological grounds, where they opposed the laws the appointment was intended to oversee. Without the appointment that area of government would cease to function.

If anything it looks like Republicans were intentionally impeding the President's Constitutional authority to execute existing US law.

Perhaps the real question here is if a pro forma recess is really a recess? I don't think the Constitution is really clear here. It doesn't seem to pass the smell test regardless of who's doing it.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 01-07-2012, 02:30 PM   #40
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
While I'd agree that there is some rationality within identified Republicans themselves, the point of the article is that inside the beltway things are so extreme the GOP has lost the rational moderate appeal found in a Reagan, Goldwater or Bill Buckley.

Extremism defined by a moderate is a contradiction, and moderation in defence of moderate views is a self-congratulatory vice. That's how I read the article, regardless of what point you or the author thought he was making. As you pointed out elsewhere, so-called "right wingers" in other "successful" countries (such as Australia--and, I presume, England) are to the left of American Democrat "left wingers." So, then, certainly their view of what is "extreme" in Amercian politics would be way left of what actual American "conservatives" would consider extreme. Reagan, Goldwater, or Buckley, would not consider the views that the Economist considered cranky or backward looking as extreme. They would not require a "litmus test" affidavit to be signed by candidates, but most Republicans don't require it either. That some do on abortion in order to get their vote, that's their prerogative. Most of the Republican electorate doesn't subscribe to that. If a candidate will support the pro-life view, he can so sign, or he can sign even if he doesn't--politicians are consumate liers. A hypocritically or sincerely signed affidavit is no different than a campaign promise. Campaign promises are not some new radical-right tactic that all of a sudden deviate from your "rational" moderate appeal. Campaign promises have always done that. No politician campaigns on maintaining a "rational" moderate status quo. Obama won on promises of Hope (not a rational methodolgy) and Change--fundamental transformation (not a moderate proposal).

It's like every issue has become a litmus test.

That's the picture the Economist, with exageration, tries to paint. They take the demands of some pro-lifers, not all Republicans, and magically spread the paint on the entire canvass of "every issue." It's just not true. By the way--Reagan, and Buckley were very pro-life. Especially Buckley, who was one of the strongest anti-abortion advocates on a natural law basis. Pro-life, anti-abortion is not an "extreme" view.

I know you don't like it when non-Americans comment on America, but this time I think they offer a nice perspective.

-spence
"Nice" perspective? I'd say its a British perspective imposed on American politics.

BTW--what happened to all the posts from Jan. 6. They seem to have been deleted?
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-07-2012, 03:06 PM   #41
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Also regarding the recent recess appointments.

The situation appears to be that Republicans were blocking the appointment on ideological grounds, where they opposed the laws the appointment was intended to oversee. Without the appointment that area of government would cease to function.

However you, or whatever opinion you read think the situation "appears" to be--and that opinion and those laws and that agency are formed partially if not wholly on"ideological" grounds--the appointment is supposed to be debated in the Senate for its advice and consent. So long as Congress is not in recess, a recess appointment cannot be made. These appointments were not made in time for the debate, a move that Obama made to circumvent that Constitutionally mandated debate. He wanted to wait for a recess to block that debate. Who is blocking who is a matter of politically slanted opinion.

If anything it looks like Republicans were intentionally impeding the President's Constitutional authority to execute existing US law.

No, he does not have constitutional authority to make a recess appointment if Congress is not in recess. And yes, Repubs were intentionally impeding him from avoiding the Constitutional advice and consent of the Senate. He, or you, or the Dems, may not like the process (which they have used to their advantage), But one of the Constitutional purposes of the Senate is to slow down legislation, to debate and deliberate, to oppose what it should oppose. And much "existing" US" law, especially that law that has been created by these administrative regulatory agencies does not have support in the Constitution. They have been unconstitutionally given powers that were granted to Congress, and Congress was not given the authority to delegate powers of legislation to unelected agencies. The power of legislation Constitutionally rests on those representatives that the people elect. These agencies have been given that power to legislate (and therefor tax) without representation--a grievance at the very heart and soul of the American Revolution.

Perhaps the real question here is if a pro forma recess is really a recess? I don't think the Constitution is really clear here. It doesn't seem to pass the smell test regardless of who's doing it.

-spence
The recess power has been "interpreted" for over 100 years by attornees general and those they designate in the DOJ office of legal counsel that an official, legal senate recess is of at least 10-25 days duration. In a 2010 SCOTUS hearing on an NLRB issue, Obama's deputy solicitor general Neal Katyn said "The--the recess appointment power can work--IN A RECESS. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days." And yes, Harry Reid blocked Bush's recess appointmens in his last two years with pro forma recess. It only takes one Senator to block the move to recess for any reason. It appears that this move to overide Congress is another small chink in the Constitutional separation of powers--another transfer of power to the almighty executive.

BTW, have you noticed that the original discussion on this from yesterday has disappeard? Or is it just on my computer? Do the rest of you have yesterdays posts?

Last edited by detbuch; 01-07-2012 at 04:36 PM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-07-2012, 03:14 PM   #42
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
BTW, have you noticed that the original discussion on this from yesterday has disappeard? Or is it just on my computer? Do the rest of you have yesterdays posts?
JohnR whacked the server and had to go to a previous backup. I'm afraid all our poetry has been forever lost.

I remembered this open topic so I brought the issue back up.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 01-07-2012, 03:22 PM   #43
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
JohnR whacked the server and had to go to a previous backup. I'm afraid all our poetry has been forever lost.

-spence
It has to be floating out there somewhere in the great ether. Some future generation of us, or other species, will find it and wonder from what great civilization came this profound literature. Maybe great studies will be done on it. It may solve future crises. Not.
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-07-2012, 04:07 PM   #44
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
It has to be floating out there somewhere in the great ether. Some future generation of us, or other species, will find it and wonder from what great civilization came this profound literature. Maybe great studies will be done on it. It may solve future crises. Not.
Good point. I'm sure Google already has golden disk backups in a secure lunar base. Next to the Constitution, Rush Permanent Waves, and the Bible.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 01-07-2012, 04:23 PM   #45
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
However you, or whatever opinion you read think the situation "appears" to be--and that opinion and those laws and that agency are formed partially if not wholly on"ideological" grounds--the appointment is supposed to be debated in the Senate for its advice and consent. So long as Congress is not in recess, a recess appointment cannot be made.
And the Obama Admin is simply challenging the idea that Congress is really not in recess. It was wrong when the Dems did it to Bush and it's wrong when the GOP does it to Obama.

Quote:
These appointments were not made in time for the debate, a move that Obama made to circumvent that Constitutionally mandated debate. He wanted to wait for a recess to block that debate. Who is blocking who is a matter of politically slanted opinion.
My understanding is that the GOP has refused to hear nominees for about six months. They're trying to hold the legislation hostage unless Obama makes significant concessions in the Government ability to protect consumers.

Quote:
No, he does not have constitutional authority to make a recess appointment if Congress is not in recess. And yes, Repubs were intentionally impeding him from avoiding the Constitutional advice and consent of the Senate. He, or you, or the Dems, may not like the process (which they have used to their advantage), But one of the Constitutional purposes of the Senate is to slow down legislation, to debate and considerate, to oppose what it should oppose.
Congress isn't trying to "slow down" new legislation. The objective of the GOP is to use procedural trickery to change existing law they don't like.

There's a big difference.

Quote:
And much "existing" US" law, especially that law that has been created by these administrative regulatory agencies does not have support in the Constitution. They have been unconstitutionally given powers that were granted to Congress, and Congress was not given the authority to delegate powers of legislation to unelected agencies. The power of legislation Constitutionally rests on those representatives that the people elect. These agencies have been given that power to legislate (and therefor tax) without representation--a grievance at the very heart and soul of the American Revolution.
But aren't these agencies a product of Congressional legislation? And if not Constitutional, shouldn't the proper course of action be to challenge the legislation before the Judiciary?

Quote:
The recess power has been "interpreted" for over 100 years by attornees general and those they designate in the DOJ office of legal counsel that an official, legal senate recess is of at least 10-25 days duration. In a 2010 SCOTUS hearing on an NLRB issue, Obama's deputy solicitor general Neal Katyn said "The--the recess appointment power can work--IN A RECESS. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days." And yes, Harry Reid blocked Bush's recess appointmens in his last two years with pro forma recess. It only takes one Senator to block the move to recess for any reason. It appears that this move to overide Congress is another small chink in the Constitutional separation of powers--another transfer of power to the almighty executive.
Everything I've read on the history of the issue points to the recess appointment power to be available when the Senate can not be readily assembled to consent. I'm not sure though, in modern times, what the difference is if the Senate simply doesn't want to consent.

Both sides have used this and perhaps it's time to get some clarification.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 01-07-2012, 05:17 PM   #46
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
And the Obama Admin is simply challenging the idea that Congress is really not in recess. It was wrong when the Dems did it to Bush and it's wrong when the GOP does it to Obama.

What is there to challenge. It is up to Congress to decide if it is in recess. Giving the power to the president to decide when Congress is in recess is overstepping separation of powers. The SCOTUS has no say, Constitutionally, about when Congress is in recess. It is solely a Congressional responsibility and prerogative. The dispute should be decided in Congress, not by the POTUS or the SCOTUS.

My understanding is that the GOP has refused to hear nominees for about six months. They're trying to hold the legislation hostage unless Obama makes significant concessions in the Government ability to protect consumers.

Again, that you may not like it, it is a legitimate part of the legislative process. And the burden of protecting consumers should not be a concern of the Federal Gvt. I understand that current view of the Commerce Clause means that the government can do whatever it wants. That it has gotten that far is such an obvious travesty of judicial "interpretation" and government overreach that it shouldn't even have to be discussed. And if there were some some way that the Federal Gvt. were supposed to protect consumers, the proper way would be through law passed by Congress with debate and vote by Congress, not by a creation of some permanent watchdog agency which can dictate law by fiat. It would be perfectly OK to appoint research agencies to advise the Congress, but not so much to give those agencies regulatory power.

Congress isn't trying to "slow down" new legislation. The objective of the GOP is to use procedural trickery to change existing law they don't like.

There's a big difference.

Congress is using existing law and procedure.

But aren't these agencies a product of Congressional legislation? And if not Constitutional, shouldn't the proper course of action be to challenge the legislation before the Judiciary?

Agencies are a product of Congressional legislation, but laws that these agencies propagate are not. Laws passed by Congress are supposed to be debated and voted on by Congress which will be held responsible by the people. Laws are not supposed to be imposed on the people by unelected officials who are not accountable to the people. Of course, Congress would not challenge the creation of such agencies since it can direct them to do things for which Congress will not be held responsible. It's a way both parties can "do things" without being blamed. Not only is current jurisprudence of the opinion that Congress can do whatever it wishes due to "interpretations" of various clauses such as Commerce or Welfare, the judges, for the most part, understand that since it is the prerogative of Congress to legislate, it can legislate as it wishes. The judges merely decide on whether cases are in breach of those laws. We have as a result of judicial "interpretation" a growing central gvt. that regulates through administrative agencies. It is a more convenient way to amass regulations while avoiding responsibility. Beyond the hundres that already exist, you can expect to see more of such agencies expanding the administrative State, as opposed to the representative government, and this was predicted by many, including De Tocqueville, to result in a form of a so-called "soft despotism" which is not opposed by the people since it is ostensibly for their benefit.

Everything I've read on the history of the issue points to the recess appointment power to be available when the Senate can not be readily assembled to consent. I'm not sure though, in modern times, what the difference is if the Senate simply doesn't want to consent.

It is absolutely the right of the Senate not to consent. Why must it?

Both sides have used this and perhaps it's time to get some clarification.

-spence
It won't be clarification. It will be imposition

Last edited by detbuch; 01-07-2012 at 08:21 PM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-13-2012, 03:09 PM   #47
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
I think the Justice Department findings provide more detail than I can, although they appear to be saying basically the same thing.

Justice Department Memo Backs Legality of Obama?s Recess Appointments - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 01-13-2012, 07:14 PM   #48
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I think the Justice Department findings provide more detail than I can, although they appear to be saying basically the same thing.

Justice Department Memo Backs Legality of Obama?s Recess Appointments - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

-spence
It would have been nice of you to give a brief summary of salient points. I tried to read . . . then scan . . . then got bored with fine, legal "depends on the meaning of is" type gobbledy gook. Making the Constitution much more difficult than an actual straightforward document, is the method commonly used to subvert it. One phrase caught my eye--something to the effect that pro-forma recess was a way to break the Presidents's power to make recess appointments. No, it doesn't break that power. Nor was that power granted as a means to break the Senate's power to advise and consent. The "power" was not meant to skirt the Senate when Presidents see that they can't get a confirmation. The President was not meant to be a dictator who gets his every wish. There should be agreement between the branches of government, not war. And each branch should respect the others' Constitutional powers. The world would not end if Cordray is not appointed, or if the president had to wait for the Senate to be in session. Nor is it even some kind of emergency that this regulatory agency had to be commissioned STAT--OR AT ALL. And even if it were needed and justified, the opposition to it was how it was structured to give its director sole discretion--too much power in one person that even the other such agencies did not give. The reason for stalling was to change the agencies structure to that which it was originally supposed to have. This is just another Federal Gvt. controlling hand inserted into our lives, and a more dictatorial one than usual. And the executive has, in stepping on Congressional prerogative, become just a little more like the King we rebelled against.
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-14-2012, 06:26 AM   #49
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
It would have been nice of you to give a brief summary of salient points. I tried to read . . . then scan . . . then got bored with fine, legal "depends on the meaning of is" type gobbledy gook. Making the Constitution much more difficult than an actual straightforward document, is the method commonly used to subvert it.
this appears to be what is
coming out of the Justic Department on a regular basis...

Rep. James Sensenbrenner asked Holder: “Tell me what's the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?”

Holder's response is a bit Clintonian. “Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that would be considered perjury or a lie," Holder said. "The information that was provided by the February 4th letter was gleaned by the people who drafted the letter after they interacted with people who they thought were in the best position to have the information.”



citing the Obama Justice Department memo backing the Obama actions is, well.....credability is a bit lacking ..... but maybe credabliliy has to do with your "state of mind" and "whether or not you have the requisite intent to come up with something that would be "......UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Last edited by scottw; 01-14-2012 at 06:31 AM..
scottw is offline  
Old 01-14-2012, 05:55 PM   #50
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I know you don't like it when non-Americans comment on America, but this time I think they offer a nice perspective.

-spence
I don't ALWAYS dislike it when non-Americans comment on America. Here is what I think is a nice perspective by a Brit. Please watch the whole video INCLUDING q and a at the end. It's about 47 minutes, but not boring. The guy is eloquent, incisive, and has a great command of the Queen's English.


Last edited by detbuch; 01-14-2012 at 06:01 PM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-15-2012, 06:37 AM   #51
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
I don't ALWAYS dislike it when non-Americans comment on America. Here is what I think is a nice perspective by a Brit. Please watch the whole video INCLUDING q and a at the end. It's about 47 minutes, but not boring. The guy is eloquent, incisive, and has a great command of the Queen's English.

if we could simply play this instead of the next State of the Union..it would be far more beneficial to America
scottw is offline  
Old 01-15-2012, 12:12 PM   #52
Joe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 3,650
The Economist, Goldwater, Ayn Rand - They put forth a common sense brand of conservatism that has been lost along the way.

Joe is offline  
Old 01-15-2012, 02:32 PM   #53
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
I don't ALWAYS dislike it when non-Americans comment on America. Here is what I think is a nice perspective by a Brit. Please watch the whole video INCLUDING q and a at the end. It's about 47 minutes, but not boring. The guy is eloquent, incisive, and has a great command of the Queen's English.

It's interesting how few in US politics seem to develop the oratory skills of the Britts.

I did watch the entire video (or at least listen while I operated the meat grinder) and it was very good. I'll probably pick up his book.

Although I'd have to note that there is a flip side as we've discussed quite a bit. This was somewhat of a circle jerk, but at least a right proper one.

Perhaps the most important line was for elected officials to remember the institution is larger than they are. That's an element of conservatism that transcends politics and is getting lost in numerous ways...

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 01-16-2012, 06:15 AM   #54
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post

Although I'd have to note that there is a flip side as we've discussed quite a bit. -spence
yes there is...the argument/agenda of the "half-smarts" as he clearly pointed out...who will simply continue to "grind meat".....ignoring history, reality.... and in our case....the Constitution

too bad about Huntsman...tough to win a Republican primary when most of your support is from liberals who say they are satisfied with Obama
scottw is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com