WWTBAM Bored

A home for the weary.
It is currently Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:27 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3050
Location: Lacey, Washington
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Not that this is a matter having to do with the Constitution. I believe this is a matter of amending the US Code, not the Constitution. That is the purpose of the Congress, is it not?


Let me see if I have your thinking straight Flock. It's the purpose of Congress to make laws that legislate morality in ways that suit you (or your handlers Hannity and Limbaugh), but if you don't like the decisions the Federal government makes, then it should be left to the states.

Your views of federalism and state's rights seem to be very flexible.


I don't believe the states have the flexibility to do this based on the previous definition of morality established by SCOTUS. I am no legal scholar, but I believe this is an attempt by Congress to define the boundaries of abortion.

Please stop being a baby.

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:50 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15864
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Not that this is a matter having to do with the Constitution. I believe this is a matter of amending the US Code, not the Constitution. That is the purpose of the Congress, is it not?


Let me see if I have your thinking straight Flock. It's the purpose of Congress to make laws that legislate morality in ways that suit you (or your handlers Hannity and Limbaugh), but if you don't like the decisions the Federal government makes, then it should be left to the states.

Your views of federalism and state's rights seem to be very flexible.


I don't believe the states have the flexibility to do this based on the previous definition of morality established by SCOTUS. I am no legal scholar, but I believe this is an attempt by Congress to define the boundaries of abortion.

Please stop being a baby.
No. It's quite plainly an attempt by Congress (well, the House -- the bill is unlikely to pass the Senate) to defy a decision of the Supreme Court.

It wouldn't be the first time. Shortly after the Supreme Court struck down Texas's flag-burning law, Congress passed a federal law attempting to make it illegal. The Court had little difficulty striking that one down as well. Then Tien An Mien Square happened, and enthusiasm for coerced displays of patriotism died an abrupt death. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3050
Location: Lacey, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:

Let me see if I have your thinking straight Flock. It's the purpose of Congress to make laws that legislate morality in ways that suit you (or your handlers Hannity and Limbaugh), but if you don't like the decisions the Federal government makes, then it should be left to the states.

Your views of federalism and state's rights seem to be very flexible.


I don't believe the states have the flexibility to do this based on the previous definition of morality established by SCOTUS. I am no legal scholar, but I believe this is an attempt by Congress to define the boundaries of abortion.

Please stop being a baby.
No. It's quite plainly an attempt by Congress (well, the House -- the bill is unlikely to pass the Senate) to defy a decision of the Supreme Court.
--Bob

Where in the Constitution does it proclaim the Supreme Court God on earth, bob? As I understand it, the Congress is a Co-Equal branch of government with the Supreme Court and the Executive. They don't DEFY anyone, bob. I, and millions of other rational people, do not subscribe to your view of how things are supposed to work. Let it play out without imposing your political correctness on the process. In your favor are thousands of elected and non-elected people in Washington who are as clueless as you. You should trust them. I can only hope that some of the more rational people, if there are any in Washington, will prevail, or we get a Convention of the States passed to impose some common sense in Washington before it's too late. Unfortunately, it may already be too late.

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:57 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15864
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Where in the Constitution does it proclaim the Supreme Court God on earth, bob? As I understand it, the Congress is a Co-Equal branch of government with the Supreme Court and the Executive. They don't DEFY anyone, bob. I, and millions of other rational people, do not subscribe to your view of how things are supposed to work.
That's the exact ground on which the South defied integration decrees.

Article III, Section 1, invests the Supreme Court (and the inferior courts) with the judicial power of the United States. In particular, that language (as decided during the Jefferson Administration in Marbury v. Madison) invests the Supreme Court with the power to say what the law is. That is the key innovation that makes us a government of laws, not men. That's why the Nixon Administration ultimately came down -- in many other countries, Nixon would have been able to fight things out to the bitter end. In our country, the Supreme Court's declaration of what the law is was powerful enough to bring down a President, and it wasn't even close. Check out some of the goings on in South America or Africa to see how things could have been.

And that's how the Court damaged itself so badly in Bush v. Gore -- the reasoning was so weak, on many fronts, that the inference was inescapable that the Court was imposing its preferred political result rather than acting as a neutral arbiter. (For those who may be wondering, I think the Court was correct to find an Equal Protection violation, but that it simply should have sent the case back to the Florida courts to continue the recount process rather than misinterpreting Florida law to bring it to a halt. The practical result would have been the same -- the Florida courts would never have reached a conclusion by the statutory deadline, and the incoming Congress would have accepted Bush's Florida electors on pretty much a party line vote -- but the Court wouldn't have damaged itself in the process.) --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3050
Location: Lacey, Washington
Quote:
That's the exact ground on which the South defied integration decrees.


Of course, when all else fails, let's bring in the race card.

Just to answer my own rhetorical question, the Supreme Court is NOT God on earth, bob. They are extremely fallible. And as we see every 4 years, they are also extremely political. The Congress has a right, and really a duty, to challenge decisions that they believe are wrong. That's what they are doing, bob, in the what I believe is the most lawful, reasonable way they can. And, of course, it is being met with the usual hysteria on the left, as you demonstrate. As I said before, I don't think this particular bill will pass Congress. I didn't check, but I would guess it passed the House on a party-line vote without a single democrat vote. That also demonstrates how broken Washington is.

If we get a Convention of the States, I would hope we get amendments to impose term limits on both Congress and on the terms of SC Justices, along with an amendment enabling Congress and the States to overturn particularly incorrect decisions by a partisan SC.

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:11 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15864
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Quote:
That's the exact ground on which the South defied integration decrees.


Of course, when all else fails, let's bring in the race card.

Just to answer my own rhetorical question, the Supreme Court is NOT God on earth, bob. They are extremely fallible. And as we see every 4 years, they are also extremely political. The Congress has a right, and really a duty, to challenge decisions that they believe are wrong. That's what they are doing, bob, in the what I believe is the most lawful, reasonable way they can. And, of course, it is being met with the usual hysteria on the left, as you demonstrate. As I said before, I don't think this particular bill will pass Congress. I didn't check, but I would guess it passed the House on a party-line vote without a single democrat vote. That also demonstrates how broken Washington is.

If we get a Convention of the States, I would hope we get amendments to impose term limits on both Congress and on the terms of SC Justices, along with an amendment enabling Congress and the States to overturn particularly incorrect decisions by a partisan SC.
They already can do so. It's happened three times in our history. It's done by passing a constitutional amendment. That was the genesis of the Eleventh, Thirteenth, and Sixteenth Amendments.

A convention of the States is a really, really bad idea. The Constitution is messy, but it actually works pretty well. There's no telling what mischief could be wreaked by an unconstrained convention. We got lucky in 1787, when an unconstrained convention, which was convened to tinker with the Articles of Confederation, ran amok resulting in our current Constitution. I'm fine with that because the Articles demonstrably weren't working. Our current system is working, and I'm not willing to gamble on its survival. As Democrats begin to retake state legislatures, I'll be advocating for them to revoke their request for such a convention.

Notwithstanding the buffoon in the White House and the minority rule currently holding sway in the country, our present system has been working fine. Your real issue isn't that the system isn't working. It's that you're not getting your way. But you're not getting your way because your views are in a decided minority, not because the deck is stacked against you. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13925
Bob78164 wrote:
I would hope we get amendments to impose term limits on both Congress and on the terms of SC Justices,


I fail to see your fascination with term limits. The voters in any state already have the power to limit the term of every single Congressman every two years and every Senator every six years. Well run businesses don't arbitrarily run off their best people after a handful of years.

Donald Trump is already demonstrating what happens when you put someone with no experience in government in office. Do you want to compound that problem by turning Congress into hundreds of inexperienced people just ripe for the taking by every lobby and special interest group around?

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
Our Silver Screen Central blog is now live. Check it out (and join the discussion): http://www.silverscreenvideos.com/central


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3050
Location: Lacey, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
There's no telling what mischief could be wreaked by an unconstrained convention.Bob


You, and Hillary Clinton, know nothing about an Article V Convention of the States to propose amendments. Clinton is currently spreading bald-faced lies about it, but that's what she does. To call a convention, you need 2/3 of the states. They will propose and pass amendments that they can agree upon, and then those proposed amendments have to be passed by 3/4 of the states. Anyone who tells you that the Constitution can be re-written is LYING to you, and you should be asking yourself why they are lying to you.
The founders wisely put this Article in the Constitution to do just what is desperately needed now. It's just as valid as Congress proposing amendments, and it's sufficiently difficult to make sure no scenario like the swamp is telling you can ever happen. You are falling for propaganda, but that is not surprising. Washington is broken, and it's definitely not going to fix itself. It's up to us.

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Last edited by flockofseagulls104 on Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3050
Location: Lacey, Washington
Quote:
The voters in any state already have the power to limit the term of every single Congressman every two years and every Senator every six years.


And every single congressperson who feels it is a career for them has one main priority that consumes most of their time and focus: raising money, buying support and doing anything they can to be re-elected. If we take most of the re-election campaigning away, maybe we would get representatives who will actually put the country's well-being first. And we would get fewer career politicians that think they rule rather than represent. And we would probably get better, more capable people to represent us.

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:57 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15864
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Quote:
The voters in any state already have the power to limit the term of every single Congressman every two years and every Senator every six years.


And every single congressperson who feels it is a career for them has one main priority that consumes most of their time and focus: raising money, buying support and doing anything they can to be re-elected. If we take most of the re-election campaigning away, maybe we would get representatives who will actually put the country's well-being first. And we would get fewer career politicians that think they rule rather than represent. And we would probably get better, more capable people to represent us.
We tried that in California. We ended up with legislators who know significantly less than lobbyists, who have no term limits. Fortunately, we have Jerry Brown around whose deep well of experience has proved invaluable to the state. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13925
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
If we take most of the re-election campaigning away, maybe we would get representatives who will actually put the country's well-being first.


And equally or even more likely maybe, you'll get representatives who know they only have a limited amount of time to feather their own nests and pander even more blatantly to the best offers from corporate interests.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
Our Silver Screen Central blog is now live. Check it out (and join the discussion): http://www.silverscreenvideos.com/central


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:09 am
Posts: 6374
One thing I've long retained from standing in the hall outside a Roman History course (I wasn't formally in there as an auditor) is that Governors of Roman provinces (colonies) were appointed for I think 2 years. Very short time at any rate. After that they we're officially retired & wouldn't get another such assignment.

Those assigning them knew they would use the 2 years to gouge the province of all they possibly could. Then they retired & a new gouger came in.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3050
Location: Lacey, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Quote:
The voters in any state already have the power to limit the term of every single Congressman every two years and every Senator every six years.


And every single congressperson who feels it is a career for them has one main priority that consumes most of their time and focus: raising money, buying support and doing anything they can to be re-elected. If we take most of the re-election campaigning away, maybe we would get representatives who will actually put the country's well-being first. And we would get fewer career politicians that think they rule rather than represent. And we would probably get better, more capable people to represent us.
We tried that in California. We ended up with legislators who know significantly less than lobbyists, who have no term limits. Fortunately, we have Jerry Brown around whose deep well of experience has proved invaluable to the state. --Bob

You can do whatever you want in the state, but your Congress people have a negative effect on the rest of us. We get people like Maxine Waters, Pelosi, Boxer and many others who never go away. The current system allows people like Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell to be defacto dictators of the system.
I see your point about term limits, but which way is worse? At least a Convention of the States will consider alternatives and see if they can agree on a solution. The current people in Washington certainly won't.

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3050
Location: Lacey, Washington
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
If we take most of the re-election campaigning away, maybe we would get representatives who will actually put the country's well-being first.


And equally or even more likely maybe, you'll get representatives who know they only have a limited amount of time to feather their own nests and pander even more blatantly to the best offers from corporate interests.


Well, if the electorate selects a corrupt representative, at least they'll only end up with a nest instead of a palace.

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:29 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15864
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
You can do whatever you want in the state, but your Congress people have a negative effect on the rest of us. We get people like Maxine Waters, Pelosi, Boxer and many others who never go away.
It's not our lack of term limits you don't like. It's our voters. As far as I'm concerned, it's the minority of voters who elected a Republican federal government that is damaging our country in ways with immediate effect on the lives of real people. We'd be much better off with the government that would be elected by the majority of voters.

When Senator Feinstein retires (which won't be this year), she'll almost certainly be replaced by someone significantly more liberal. Pretty decent chance she'll face a credible challenge this year from her left.

And by the way, Senator Boxer is no longer in the Senate (she retired as the junior Senator from California), so perhaps she wasn't the best example for you to include. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3050
Location: Lacey, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
You can do whatever you want in the state, but your Congress people have a negative effect on the rest of us. We get people like Maxine Waters, Pelosi, Boxer and many others who never go away.
It's not our lack of term limits you don't like. It's our voters. As far as I'm concerned, it's the minority of voters who elected a Republican federal government that is damaging our country in ways with immediate effect on the lives of real people. We'd be much better off with the government that would be elected by the majority of voters.

When Senator Feinstein retires (which won't be this year), she'll almost certainly be replaced by someone significantly more liberal. Pretty decent chance she'll face a credible challenge this year from her left.

And by the way, Senator Boxer is no longer in the Senate (she retired as the junior Senator from California), so perhaps she wasn't the best example for you to include. --Bob

Sorry, I meant Feinstein.
And yes, I think your voters are, as a group, of questionable wisdom. Notice I tried to be politically correct. I would support California seceding.

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 20743
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
You can do whatever you want in the state, but your Congress people have a negative effect on the rest of us. We get people like Maxine Waters, Pelosi, Boxer and many others who never go away.
It's not our lack of term limits you don't like. It's our voters. As far as I'm concerned, it's the minority of voters who elected a Republican federal government that is damaging our country in ways with immediate effect on the lives of real people. We'd be much better off with the government that would be elected by the majority of voters.

When Senator Feinstein retires (which won't be this year), she'll almost certainly be replaced by someone significantly more liberal. Pretty decent chance she'll face a credible challenge this year from her left.

And by the way, Senator Boxer is no longer in the Senate (she retired as the junior Senator from California), so perhaps she wasn't the best example for you to include. --Bob

Sorry, I meant Feinstein.
And yes, I think your voters are, as a group, of questionable wisdom. Notice I tried to be politically correct. I would support California seceding.

How about California, Oregon, and Washington?

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Posts: 3516
Location: Merion, Pa.
Bob Juch wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
I would support California seceding.

How about California, Oregon, and Washington?
Here's a counter-offer: California; Oregon, Washington and Nevada west of 119ºW; and Nevada south of 37ºN. That will put the most liberal parts of those states in the new country and leave the U.S.A. more to Flock's liking.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3050
Location: Lacey, Washington
jarnon wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
I would support California seceding.

How about California, Oregon, and Washington?
Here's a counter-offer: California; Oregon, Washington and Nevada west of 119ºW; and Nevada south of 37ºN. That will put the most liberal parts of those states in the new country and leave the U.S.A. more to Flock's liking.


I know :( I'm in the midst of the insanity. It's difficult. I live a mile from The Evergreen State College, a bastion of the bigotocracy. If it happens, I will probably be sent to jail pretty quickly for not declaring what pronouns I use.

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13925
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
I live a mile from The Evergreen State College, a bastion of the bigotocracy.


Actually, there's another bastion of the bigotocracy about a mile closer to you.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
Our Silver Screen Central blog is now live. Check it out (and join the discussion): http://www.silverscreenvideos.com/central


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3050
Location: Lacey, Washington
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
I live a mile from The Evergreen State College, a bastion of the bigotocracy.


Actually, there's another bastion of the bigotocracy about a mile closer to you.


You really need to prefix your handle with a capital 'A'.

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.