Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 231 To 240 Of 657 Comments
ANGRY IDEOLOGUES vs. THE STATISTS
@Buckeye:
"it would be presumptious to categorize somoene as “extermist” simply because they perceive the dangers from Obamaism to be more pronounced than you do."
The difference between opposition to Obama and fanaticism is degree.
"I oppose his policies." "His proposal is dangerous." "This is the wrong path for America and here is why . . ." That is opposition.
"Obama is a SocialistCommunistFacist dedicated to the utter destruction of America, liberty, grandma, and puppies." is fanaticism. There is no thought to the opposition -- its automatic regardless of what the issue is. Obama wants to plant tomato plants in the lawn? Anarchy! Revolution! I want my Country back!
If there is absolutely nothing that Obama does or could do that would be acceptable (except for conceeding he is in fact the reincarnated AntiChrist), then any legitimate opposition is smothered in blind partisan hatred . . . and that does drive votes away. I may disagree with Obama's plan or with the Democrats, but if the alternative is percieved as "The Only Solution", then I as a voter don't feel like I have any real choice in the matter.
As an independent, I see conservative voices question Obama and the Democrats, only to be savaged by Teh Tru Conservatives because they don't personally attack him as a person intensely enough. Whether that is in fact the main body of the Republican Party is irrevelant at this point . . . it APPEARS to be the main body of the party. I'm sure someone will blame that image on the vast MSM conspiracy, which just kind of underlines the point.
I want ideas and thought from the party I vote for. Blind faith I already get from my God.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 31.08.2009 @ 15:15
A PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON TORTURE WOULD SATISFY NO ONE
" Preventing another attack seemed to be the primary concern at that time. "
Let's assume that is absolutely true (and I don't dispute that). It has no bearing on whether those that ordered torture thought it was legal or illegal.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 31.08.2009 @ 00:13
" . . . and that they honestly believed they had finessed the treaties and statutes by their stretched, and ultimately legally incorrect justifications for torture."
Is this based on any of the available evidence, and if so what?
As the timeline seems to stand, they decided to do it, did it, and then "sought" justification for it (I'm being generous here). That would belie the idea that they thought they were acting in a legally correct manner. Rather it suggests that they were well well aware they were in violation of the law and tried to get cover.
As I said, if there's something that indicates this isn't correct please direct me to it.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 30.08.2009 @ 17:24
NO DOUBTING TED KENNEDY'S IMPACT ON HISTORY
"Nobody is only a hero or only a coward."
Amen.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.08.2009 @ 22:23
@Jimi:
Byrd proposed naming it after Kennedy this morning . . . and if you're opposed to the bill that should scare the crap out of you. It could easily guilt/motivate the Dems to stop being factional and coalese into a filibuster-proof wave. Your joke may just get the bill passed now.
Bwahahahaha.
p.s.: laughing at a person dying is really, really sad.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.08.2009 @ 17:48
IS 'THE END OF AMERICA AS WE KNOW IT' REALLY SO BAD?
@Naga:
Although I am cast in the role of a liberal here, I agree in limited government wholeheartedly. I have no faith in the "good intentions" of the vast majority of the population, and I think more highly of them by leaps and bounds than I do of politicians.
Most people I know, of all beliefs, believe in limited government in some form or another. The magic word is "limited". What does that mean? It sounds like a silly question, but the meaning of that word is different to everybody. If "limited government" means what is exclusively in the document, then as I said above the Army has to be abolished. A standing Army is not only not authorized, it is clearly prohibited, since the militias were explicitly tasked with filling that role in terms of National Defense. I don't think that there is anybody here that wants to abolish the Army, so we all agree that even a limited government goes beyond the language of the Constitution. Whether to go beyond the text isn't the issue . . . how far to go beyond is.
You mentioned that the Bill of Rights doesn't include any provision for education. True. But Congress doesn't get it's authority from the Bill of Rights . . . they get their authority from Article I of the main body. The Bill of Rights limits the Constitutional powers of the government -- it doesn't create them. The Framers ratified the Constitution, and then after that Amended the document with the Bill of Rights to put restraints on what they had made.
So turn the argument around: The Framers specifically limited what the Federal government could do. They made sure to specifically state what they did NOT want the Feds to start doing. They did not prohibit the Federal government from being involved in the issue of education.
Rather than presuming that they didn't want the Feds involved in education . . . isn't it a reasonable interpretation that by not expressly prohibiting them from exercising authority in that arena they implicity endorsed it? They said "you have the power to act for the 'general welfare', but that does NOT mean A, B, C, D, or E". If Education is an issue that is properly considered 'general welfare', and it isn't A, B, C, D, or E, then despite the fact that it isn't expressly authorized it is still a valid area for the Fed.
You mentioned the example of the cartoons being published as an issue that could be argued to relate to 'general welfare', and it makes a perfect example. The NY Times is a private company -- they're not the government. They aren't bound by the same Constitutional restrictions. They can choose to publish them, or not publish them, at their discretion.
Now if the Federal government decided it was a matter of the general welfare, they could try and order the Standard not to print them. That's where the 1st Amendment comes in: "you (the Feds) have the power to deal with the general welfare . . . but we want to make clear that does NOT include speech. You can't ban speech as part of promoting the general welfare -- that's NOT part of your mandate". The Amendment limits the definition of general welfare, but it doesn't define it. It defines what ISN'T part of the general welfare.So we are back to the question, what do the words 'general welfare' encompass? You said:
"Your use of this term to justify agencies like the Department of Education points to the wide gulf that exists between conservatives and liberals on the most fundamental issues of the day."
My point in all of this has been that it's not MY argument. I'm not defending it or saying it is correct. Congress has determined that is is part of the general welfare of the nation. The Supreme Court has so far agreed with them. As a practical matter, those are the only opinions that count. THEY define those words, not you or I. As Chief Justice Roberts said, they're the umpires. They call the balls and strikes. They called this one a strike. Are they wrong? Maybe . . . but it's still a strike.
KenMcloud said there was no authority for these aspects of the Federal government, and that's not accurate. I think what he means is that he doesn't agree with the authority claimed. That's fair. But its also irrevelant. We the people do not define 'general welfare'. It's not our call to make. The umpire has made the call, and even if we're sitting in the stands screaming "the Ump is blind!!" . . . they still made the call, and according to the rules of the game it's their call to make.As you said, you don't get a job to impact the GDP. That's not the motivation for the individual . . . but it does impact the GDP to some miniscule degree, whether intended or not. You don't fill in the pond in your backyard to impact the general welfare . . . but the umpire says it does. We can't veto the umpire's decision. All we can do is vote in new umpires that aren't idiots.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.08.2009 @ 23:47
@ken.mcloud:
Right up front, being a very brief generalization the following is not completely accurate. As I said before, this is complex and complicated and can't effectively be summed up in brief bullet points. I'll do the best I can.
The usual origin for the Federal government's authority under issues like this is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . "
. . . and clause 18:
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers. . ."
The specific language is "general welfare". The Federal government has the authority to, as it says in the preamble, "promote the general welfare". Something that is for the good of us Nationally, not just for one State. Congress has the authority to raise funds to pay for the general welfare and then spend it to effect that purpose.
The Department of Education promotes the general welfare of the Nation by providing necessary educational direction. How ignorant we all are affects us as a country, so its a National (not a State) issue. Same for healthcare, food safety, environmental issues (that impact more than one State), etc.
Again, as a general rule, if something ONLY effects a single State, then the Federal government usually does not have the authority to control the issue. If it effects more than one State (and "effects more than one State" is usually interpreted very, very broadly), then the matter is "general welfare", and the Federal government (Congress) has the authority per Article 1 to control the issue.
Now, if you can make an argument that education, healthcare, telecommunications, food and workplace safety, environmental concerns and the like are exclusively limitied in impact to only one State, then you can make a case. That's what you usually see in EPA cases. The EPA comes into a State and starts controlling how a pond in someone's backyard is being used or effected, and the owners sue claiming that it doesn't involve interstate issues. A pack of migratory birds stops there once a year as they fly between States . . . and the matter just became an interstate issue.
Another current example is Medical Marijuana here in California. The DEA raids shops that sell it, and the defendants argue that since the drug was grown and used in California, the DEA has no authority to get involved. That fight is still being worked out as far as I know.Think about it like this: the States are like people in a town (America). Each person is equal to each other. If a person wants to do something in the privacy of their own home, it's not the town's buisness. The instant it goes outside into public, then the town becomes involved.
Want to run around your house bare-ass naked? Enjoy. Are the windoes open and I (your neighbor) can see it? Then someone representing the town is going to come knocking to tell you either knock it off or at least close the damn blinds.
We (as States) are equal in authority. I have no authority to make you stop, and you have no authroity to make me stop looking in your windows. So unless we both agree (Constitution) to give authority to a 3rd party (Fed Govt) to settle disputes between us, then eventually there's going to be a fight.@Gayle Miller:
"I’m an odd sort of duck. I prefer to read the actual words of the Constitution and abide by those specifically and literally."
Art.1, Section 8, clauses 12 and 13:
"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy"
Congress has the power to "maintain" a navy. It specifically states "maintain" when it talks about the Navy. It has the power to "support" an Army . . . not "maintain". By using two different words it is clear that they intended the Army and the Navy to be treated differently, as further evidences by them putting specific time limits on how long to authorize funding for an Army and no time limits on funding the Navy.
The literal interpretation of those specific clauses is that the United States only has Constitutional authority to maintain a standing Navy. We are NOT permitted constitutionally to have a standing Army. We can raise a temporary one, but then we need to abolish it when we're done. These are the clear, literal, specific words of the Framers -- they didn't want this country to have a standing Army (see also Art.1, sec.8 cl. 15 and 16 to further make that absolutely clear). No tricky subversive interpretation involved.(I'm not going to even begin to point out how unconstitutional an Air Force must be)
Since you "prefer to read the actual words of the Constitution and abide by those specifically and literally", are you in favor of abolishing the Army (when the current conflicts are over) as unconstitutional? If not, how are you abiding by the specific and literal words of the text?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.08.2009 @ 17:17
That first link to the Steward Machine summary does not contain a link to the full text of the decisioin -- I misread the link on the left.
Here is a link to the full text:
http://newdeal.feri.org/court/301US548.htm@ken.mcloud:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.08.2009 @ 12:48
as I said before, the justification was "general welfare". The national government can tax, taxing labor is traditionally acceptable, and the problem of unemployment was considered a legitimate national issue. That sounds dangerously vague, but only because it can't really be summed up in a couple of sentences. The text is thick and often boring, but the explanation is all there, with references to all the case precedents that they used to justify it.
@ken.mcloud:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1936/1936_837/
(brief summary of the Steward Machine case, with a link to the full text of the decision on the left of the page)http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0301_0619_ZS.html
(summary of Helvering, with a link to the full text of the opinion at the top of the page)"Or did they take the route that Sotomayor did in the Ricci case and not even offer an explanation for their ruling?"
The unanimous Appelate Court in Ricci agreed with the rationale of the trial court:
"We affirm, for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the court below. [citation]. In this case, the Civil Service Board found itself in the unfortunate position of having no good alternatives. We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs’ expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated. But it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim. To the contrary, because the Board, in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted
with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED."
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ca4649bf-2360-4eb9-a227-79fccae85535/4/doc/06-4996-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ca4649bf-2360-4eb9-a227-79fccae85535/4/hilite/Since the trial court already explained their rationale,and the Appellate Court agreed with them, there was no need to re-write everything the trial court already said. Here's the trial court's (pretty damn through) explanation:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/federalcourt-ricci06-03903.pdfThe Appeals Court (again, the unanimous Appeals Court) basically said "yeah, their explanation is right". What did you want them to say?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.08.2009 @ 08:27
@Nagarajan Sivakumar(#15):
(Apologies for adressing your comments out of order -- #16 appeared before #15 for some reason)
"People can disagree all they want over what things mean - that still does not answer the question - what the hell is the law?"
You're asking two questions here.
1st: what is the actual text of rules that control our lives? Mostly Statutes (Federal, State, and Local) although there are still some Common Law rules (pre-statute judicial rulings) and interpretations of rules (case precedent).
2nd: What do the words contained in the body of laws actually mean? The judiciary dictates that. They can't change the words of the law, but they do dictate what those words mean. The Legislative body writes them, the Exectutive acts on them, and the Judiciary decides what they mean. That's the basis of the "checks and balances" in the system: Each branch is absolutely dominant in one aspect of the law, but completely powerless in the other two.
Opponents of Judicial decisions often refer to "judicial activism", making the (true) observation that when a court renders a decision, that is essentially a law, and therefore the court is "writing law". But there is a simple remedy to this: the legislative branch can simply write a new law overriding the previous rules (thereby removing any justification for the decision)."'Different interpretative approaches' turns out to be more often than not, an euphemism for the way liberals have tried to fundamentally change this country knowing fully well that they would not be able to so using Constitutional Amendments."
With honest respect for your opinions, you are absolutely wrong. From your statement I infer a few facts: liberals are dishonest in their interpretations, and conservatives not. That makes sense to me, since I gather from your comments on this site that you agree with the conservatives.
Certainly there are dishonest and manipulative liberals. But considering the prior (conservative) administration was trying to justify using troops to make arrests just to test how far they could violate the 4th Amendment(http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE56O09620090725?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews), the idea that such behavior is a "liberal" trait is naive.
I know you said "more often than not", but lets not beat around the bush. Liberals do it, conservatives don't. That's wrong. People do it. And people don't do it. They come in all flavors."does any one think that the liberals would even allow for something that comes close to the 10th Amendment?"
On this site I'm considered liberal, and I certainly would. There's a reason it was created (a firewall against a powergrab by the central government) that is still relevant today. Y'know . . . similar in spirit (if not in legal procedure) to the powergrab by the central government I just described above. The one by conservatives, those bastions of individual and State's rights.
Obviously it wasn't something that "the conservatives" tried to do . . . it was something done by specific people that are conservatives. This may shock you, but liberals don't all fanatically obey and follow a central command. I truly hope that you only believe that because you have no respect for liberals, because the other rationale would be that blind slavish obedience is the standard for conservatives and you just assumed everybody worked that way . . . and that would be stunningly disappointing."Does any one think that liberals would stand for an individual right to bear arms?"
A great example. I take it then that you support an "individual's right to bear arms". So you are in favor of:
*) letting murderers (individuals) have guns?
*) letting me (a liberal who isn't to be trusted) stockpile stinger missles and a few tons of plastic explosives (arms)?I assume you're taking the "right to bear arms" from the 2nd amendment" -- a great example of interpretative manipulation. The Amendment does include those words, but only after a preferatory clause:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Note that of the 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights, this is the only one that has preferatory (modifying) language. "The right to bear arms" was the only one that the framers felt needed a written explanation of the motivation behind it.
So what does the preface actually mean? Let's look to the likely source of the language . . . the Virginia Bill of Rights from 1776:"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
The people should keep arms and the States should keep Militias (essentially National Guard divisions) because the United States should not maintain a standing Military.
So, as a conservative who supports the people's right to bear arms, you must support dangerous people driving tanks loaded with shells thru town . . . and you think the country should abolish the armed forces. That's what it says.
I assume you don't support either of those things because you're clearly not an idiot (and if you do, then again with respect I am wrong and you ARE an idiot). So you are constructively interpreting the language as much as any liberal.
"Or for a right to free speech (without any provisions to hate speech?)"
This liberal Administration has not stopped people showing up to town hall meetings with this Liberal president carrying assault rifles and waving signs labeling him Hitler. His town halls have been open, and he has on more than one occasion specifically sought out dissenters in the crowd to speak to directly.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/14/obamas-health-care-quest-heads-west/
When the free speech conservatives were in power, only supporters were allowed into town halls with the conservative president and people wearing pro-democrat clothing were not just barred from entering but arrested.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205112,00.htmlWould liberals want a provision barring hate speech? I'm sure that a liberal somewhere thinks that's a good idea. Most liberals wouldn't. Limitations of free speech should be dealt with in the judiciary. The constitution should not be amended to make every rule "Constitutional". Modifying the right to free speech to ban hate speech at a Constitutional level would be as just as shallow and stupid as something like modifying the rights in the 1st Amendment to prohibit burning a flag.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160443,00.html. . . What were we talking about again? Oh yes, it was that liberals want to subvert the Constitution and conservatives are the true defenders of the text.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.08.2009 @ 06:55
