RAC: 150, one stuck task, haven't reported a work unit in 2 months--jeez, they'll let anybody post in here, won't they?

Guy that is because you are very special.

---

Gary and No Name are the same.

Both make a couple of valid points (a million monkeys, typing a million years...)

But the Foundation of their Unthinking (Give us 'The Power') Philosophy.

Is what we must stop!

Do you really think Gary wants power? Yes, he makes over-the-top comments at times. Sometimes he is sarcastic. I've been that way as well.

On the other hand, I think we can pretty sure Guy wants power or to have a lot more say in who gets power. (Guy, are you a super-delegate in disguise?)

We also know how, when in power, Guy has abused power. Do we know of something similar for Gary? I don't think so.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Gary and No Name are the same.

Both make a couple of valid points (a million monkeys, typing a million years...)

But the Foundation of their Unthinking (Give us 'The Power') Philosophy.

Is what we must stop!

Do you really think Gary wants power? Yes, he makes over-the-top comments at times. Sometimes he is sarcastic. I've been that way as well.

On the other hand, I think we can pretty sure Guy wants power or to have a lot more say in who gets power. (Guy, are you a super-delegate in disguise?)

We also know how, when in power, Guy has abused power. Do we know of something similar for Gary? I don't think so.

Put another way, without further direct comments from you or Gary, when I read him saying "Repugnicants" it equals "Unthinking, extreme right" in the voice I assign you and, similarly "Demoncrats" = "Unthinking, extreme left".

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Gary and No Name are the same.

Both make a couple of valid points (a million monkeys, typing a million years...)

How time flies, it's been over a week since I've said this, "more 'calling fellow posters inferior' nonsense from CLYDE."

Plus c'est la même chose.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Nobody know what "Repugnicants ... equals Unthinking, extreme right" means. It doesn't make any sense to call our constitution "unthinking and extreme right" by any stretch of anyone's imagination.

Ah there is the problem. The republicans are not for the constitution. They are for raw power grabs just like the democrats. They are statists too!

The issue is you dislike some power grabs but like other power grabs. Which means you are a statist. However someone like me doesn't think the government (any level) should have power. Libertarian.

Under your system of statism you would have a President who just shows up and collects a check as he only takes care of Post office roads. However you would have 50 Governors each with the power of a dictator.

You see you want economic freedom but at the same time you want total government control over personal matters. The democrat wants personal matters freedom but total government control over economic matters. The key here is both Republicans and Democrats, and you, want total government control over something!

You see the correct scale to use isn't the left right one you and clyde scream, but one orthogonal to it. However both of you being single dimensional beings can not even imagine a two dimensional concept.

To the extent the commerce clause prevents state governments from being dictatorial, this is a good thing. Chew on it for a while.

---

Nobody know what "Repugnicants ... equals Unthinking, extreme right" means. It doesn't make any sense to call our constitution "unthinking and extreme right" by any stretch of anyone's imagination.

Ah there is the problem. The republicans are not for the constitution. They are for raw power grabs just like the democrats. They are statists too!

The issue is you dislike some power grabs but like other power grabs. Which means you are a statist. However someone like me doesn't think the government (any level) should have power. Libertarian.

Under your system of statism you would have a President who just shows up and collects a check as he only takes care of Post office roads. However you would have 50 Governors each with the power of a dictator.

You see you want economic freedom but at the same time you want total government control over personal matters. The democrat wants personal matters freedom but total government control over economic matters. The key here is both Republicans and Democrats, and you, want total government control over something!

You see the correct scale to use isn't the left right one you and clyde scream, but one orthogonal to it. However both of you being single dimensional beings can not even imagine a two dimensional concept.

To the extent the commerce clause prevents state governments from being dictatorial, this is a good thing. Chew on it for a while.

Well Gary,

That would be 'no more than 49' Governors with the power of a dictator... The exception? Texas.

The Texas Constitution is quite restrictive. If the Texas Constitution does not EXPLICITLY grant a power to the (State) Government, the Government does NOT have it.

Most of the amendments are due to the document's highly restrictive nature: the State of Texas has only those powers explicitly granted to it by the Constitution. However, despite its length, it is not nearly as long as the Alabama Constitution (which has been amended over 800 times despite having been adopted 25 years after Texas' current constitution) nor the California Constitution (which, due to provisions allowing amendments via initiative, is subject to frequent revision).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Texas

There are enough Texans down here with guns that a Texas Governor that tried that dictator crap would need to have serious concerns about his personal safety.

The rest of your post is pretty much spot on, but I might have a few reservations about your praise of the 'commerce clause' if you are meaning the, shall we say, more recent interpretations of it by the SCOTUS...

The rest of your post is pretty much spot on, but I might have a few reservations about your praise of the 'commerce clause' if you are meaning the, shall we say, more recent interpretations of it by the SCOTUS...

Well, that is one clause they aren'y revising and reinterpreting. A short reminder of history, when the founders wrote the clause, remember it isn't an amendment, transportation consisted of horse drawn wagon or sailing ship. Railroads did not exist, trucks did not exist, paved highways did not exist, airplanes did not exist, telephones did not exist, computers and the internet did not exist. The concept of sitting at an internet connected computer and ordering an item to be delivered next day from half way around the world could not be fathomed. They wrote it for their time. The idea that an item would be assembled from parts made in 100 different places was ludicrous, essentially everything was made within a few miles of where it was used. Only luxury goods crossed state borders. As was pointed out in another thread, manufacturing jobs are going away as did a lot of manufacturing. The world is so different than the world of the founders it isn't surprising that their words aren't what people expect today. But the constitution isn't living, it is this immutable perfect unchanging idea in the founders head.

Now Mark has posted about how the fire engines his employer makes are all made in the USA. Well, assembled yes. If I were to point to any rubber item on that fire engine, I would be pointing to an item that traces its origin to some rubber plantation outside the USA. I don't know if those fire engines have to meet pollution controls, but if they do, I point to the computer, it will have rare earth elements in it from China.

As I said above the framers could not envision an item assembled from parts made in 100 different places. They did not write the commerce clause with this in mind. They wrote it for their time. And as is frequently pointed out the constitution is not living so we can't apply how the world has changed in the years to what the founders wrote, we must read it exactly as they wrote it.

They did not provide for items being made from many different places and say it only applies if over 5% by, er total, value, volume, weight?, wasn't from the state of origin. No they have no reference to a thing being made of different parts, so if it isn't all made in one state, then it isn't all made in one state, ergo the Federal Government regulates.

The people who don't like that want judicial activism and a living constitution. Cake and eat it too. PITA.

---

Nobody know what "Repugnicants ... equals Unthinking, extreme right" means. It doesn't make any sense to call our constitution "unthinking and extreme right" by any stretch of anyone's imagination.

Nice job putting words in my mouth.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

(not gonna wait for your argument *against* free, open and fair trade...)

Oh, but I hear a giant sucking sound ...... don't you?
Ah, yes the GATT. The president who signed that was the result of a brokered republican convention. Of course it had to be agreed to by the senate to take effect. Lots and lots a guilt to spread around.

---

There are enough Texans down here with guns that a Texas Governor that tried that dictator crap would need to have serious concerns about his personal safety.

The tyranny of the majority? You're clearly not a woman seeking a legal abortion.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

There are enough Texans down here with guns that a Texas Governor that tried that dictator crap would need to have serious concerns about his personal safety.

The tyranny of the majority? You're clearly not a woman seeking a legal abortion.

Indeed.

I am disappointed that Obama did not nominate another woman. A little more rationality when it comes to making decisions that effect half US population would be a good idea.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Why didn't he?

Mitch McConnell, a misogynist?

---

Could, after a reasonable period, lets say 90 days, President Obama appoint Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, because the Senate has relinquished its right to "consent and advise" by not debating the appointment.

Start with the appointments clause of the Constitution. It provides that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.”

And then go to, a waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. As the Supreme Court has said, “ ‘No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right,’ or a right of any other sort, ‘may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.’ ”

Or am I missing simething?

Or am I missing simething?

Yes. Elsewhere it is provided that the President can make appointments when the Senate is in adjournment. The Senate isn't that dumb.

---

Or am I missing simething?

Yes. Elsewhere it is provided that the President can make appointments when the Senate is in adjournment. The Senate isn't that dumb.

Are you sure?

Or am I missing simething?

Yes. Elsewhere it is provided that the President can make appointments when the Senate is in adjournment. The Senate isn't that dumb.

Are you sure?

Yes.

---

Or am I missing simething?

Yes. Elsewhere it is provided that the President can make appointments when the Senate is in adjournment. The Senate isn't that dumb.

Recently, the Senate never goes into adjournment.

Obama made appointments, when most members were out of Washington. When the Senate stated they were still In Session.

SCOTUS ruled correctly, that only the Senate could say when they were in adjournment. And the Unconstitutional Appointments were vacated.

In the USA. A President has no power, or authority, over another Branch of Government. Nor can tell it how to do its business.

so this means nothing then.

“shall nominate, Which he has done
and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,Who have not given advice How long in Law, should this take before. Considering in Law ‘may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.’ ”
One doesn't need much pushing to say the Senate has had more than enough time to consider and advise, and therefore because it hasn't the next stage can continue.
shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court,
and all other Officers of the United States.”

I would say the Senate has had more than enough time to at least say when they intend to debate the case. As they haven't my thinking would say "Go ahead Mr. President and make the appointment, let the Senate make the appeal if they think it is wrong."

WK, understand, however many other positions have had nominees and nothing happened. No president tried to force the issue, except if the Senate adjourned.

As to the quote, courts are required to take up cases. The Senate is not required to take up nominations. The Senate has the power to set their own calendar, where as courts are generally required to arraign a defendant within 72 hours. There is a speedy trial clause, there is no speedy nomination clause.

With the empty federal district court positions this has become a problem and will be in the future.

Frankly I think the Senate should do its business or not get paid.

---