Quote :

"Everyone knows that Lincoln never considered the southern states to have actually been separated from the union."

Lincoln had a plan for reintegrating the Southern states back into the Union (ten-percent plan). No one at the time considered them full-on states. And Lincoln was the softest on the South, and was shot before his opinion on the matter meant much.

The radical Republicans had a much different view on whether the states had actually left the Union. It was actually very similar to the Confederates' view on the matter.


And let's get back to the subject at hand-- what exactly was the Southern states' Constitutional beef? Is the federal government not allowed to pass tariffs? They were just butt-hurt that they weren't getting their way, and that the US was going to ban slavery at some point.

When I referred to the areas in which I do think the federal government has overstepped its bounds, they are incidences that happened way after 1865.

You you aiming for a pyrrhic victory, and didn't even get that.

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 11:06 PM. Reason : ]

11/12/2009 10:54:54 PM

Is burro trying to say that the constitution isn’t perfect?

11/12/2009 11:22:39 PM

Quote :

" Article I isn't vague by accident, and the necessary and proper clause wasn't added because the authors wanted to save paper. There are loose and strict interpretations of the Constitution. There have been since the moment it was written. At that time the people you're deriding were called Federalists. Washington was one, for all practical purposes. They were not any more "wrong" than liberals are today. "

No, I get that, and don't disagree with any of what you just said. I think that most anyone would agree that the Constitution's flexibility is a great strength, and some of the less-than-concrete language such as the Necessary & Proper clause are no exception. I'm with you.

There are people who are more strict in their interpretation than I am...and obviously there are plenty of people who take a more liberal read on it. I'm fine with that, too.

How any reasonable person could possibly claim that we haven't grossly overstepped what the Constitution permits is beyond me, though. I'll allow for--and even embrace--some leeway in the interpretation of some of the language, but we just completely trample it with tortured logic--we decide what we're going to do, regardless of what the law permits, and then we figure out some ridiculous way to justify it based on completely absurd "interpretations" of the Constitution.

Well, that's kind of a best-case. Some people are totally fine with just flat-out ignoring it.

Quote :

" One thing you all keep getting hung up over is that you believe a loose interpretation of the Constitution makes the document worthless. "

Again, not per se, but it's a matter of scale. At the point we're at now, yeah...it's loose to the point of neutering the Constitution into borderline irrelevance.

I mean, seriously, when was the last time a potential federal undertaking got shitcanned on the grounds of it not being constitutionally permissible? Anyone? Bueller?

As far as I can see, the only good the Constitution does these days is protecting a few civil rights. The authority of the Constitution is invoked and to a varying, yet generally reasonable extent, honored when it comes to, say, the 1st through 8th Amendments. I mean, there are transgressions there, too, but not as flagrant. We at least reap SOME benefit from the Constitution in these matters.

11/12/2009 11:53:48 PM

Quote :

"As far as I can see, the only good the Constitution does these days is protecting a few civil rights."

I think that is something I feel a lot of ground-level progressives miss when they push for something like healthcare. The ability to completely blow of what is, in theory, the supreme law of the land sets the government up to completely blow the rights protected by it.

You do it at your peril. If you feel it is so important it needs to be constitutionally amended.


Either way, I think the necessary and proper clause is far less liberal in its interpretation than most make it out to be. Necessary is a fairly restrictive word, it isn't necessary that I get a flat screen, it is necessary that I eat. It isn't necessary that the government provide health care to every US denizen, it is necessary that they prosecute violations of contract and individual liberties.

11/13/2009 5:07:34 AM

Quote :

"How any reasonable person could possibly claim that we haven't grossly overstepped what the Constitution permits is beyond me, though."

Gone beyond its original intent? Totally.

That's not to say it's unconstitutional in the strictest sense, though. The states, all three branches of government, and the people are all complacent in it.

Quote :

"I mean, seriously, when was the last time a potential federal undertaking got shitcanned on the grounds of it not being constitutionally permissible? Anyone? Bueller?"

I agree that this is a problem. I had to wikipedia the answer to your rhetorical question, and the answer is only twice in the past 50 years or so, and only in circumstances in which states were compelled to enforce federal laws against their will. I do recall FDR's NRA getting canned by the Supreme Court, though.

Apparently this is the current interpretation:

Quote :

"The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers....."

--States v. Darby, 1941

I'm ok with this interpretation, but it certainly does enable the ratchet effect of expanding government power. I'm curious to see if this interpretation would stand if states were to begin trying to protect their reserved powers.

[Edited on November 13, 2009 at 8:27 AM. Reason : ]

11/13/2009 8:25:31 AM

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_11/020955.php

Quote :

"But does that actually "settle" the matter? The new RNC policy, apparently, is to have insurance through Cigna, opting out of abortion coverage. But let's not lose sight of the original fungibility problem -- the RNC is taking Republican money and giving it to an insurance company through premiums. That company will then use its pool of money to pay for abortion services, not for RNC employees, but for other customers. In other words, the Republican National Committee will still indirectly subsidize abortions, every time it writes a check to Cigna. And if the RNC disagrees with this reasoning, and believes the issue is "settled," then the party has rejected the reasoning of the Stupak amendment at a fundamental level."

11/13/2009 8:55:02 AM

All of this angst over a $400 procedure.

11/13/2009 10:14:33 AM

Quote :

"Lincoln had a plan for reintegrating the Southern states back into the Union (ten-percent plan). No one at the time considered them full-on states."

I like your revisionist history, man. It's pretty awesome.
but, really, I see that you gave up trying to defend the "ratification" of the amendments that was forced on the southern states.

Quote :

"That's not to say it's unconstitutional in the strictest sense, though. The states, all three branches of government, and the people are all complacent in it."

The states and the people were complicit with segregation and Jim Crow. Does that make those things Constitutional at the time?

^ is that the cost of a human life to you, now?

[Edited on November 13, 2009 at 3:00 PM. Reason : ]

11/13/2009 3:00:07 PM

Don't be retarded. I'm not debating the ethics of abortion with you despite your ham-handed attempt to start one because it is pointless.

I'm just wondering why anyone cares about abortion coverage. Fine, let the Republicans have the Stupak amendment. Who gives a shit? Abortions are cheap. $400 is not a large enough risk to be worried about insuring against it.

[Edited on November 13, 2009 at 4:15 PM. Reason : V God you people are obtuse.]

11/13/2009 4:04:37 PM

You're wondering why people don't want their money being used to fund abortions?

11/13/2009 4:12:41 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/11/13/us/politics/AP-US-Palin-Book-Fact-Check.html
FACT CHECK: Palin's Book Goes Rogue on Some Facts

11/13/2009 7:50:17 PM

I wonder how much fact-checking was done on Obama's books... probably none

11/13/2009 8:01:29 PM

Quote :

"The states, all three branches of government, and the people are all complacent in it. "

There's no doubt about that, and the fact that there's plenty of blame to go around doesn't make it OK for any entity (such as Congress) to make such transgressions.

Quote :

"Who gives a shit? Abortions are cheap. $400 is not a large enough risk to be worried about insuring against it."

This has GOT to be stupid trolling. I find it hard to believe that anyone could be this dense.

11/13/2009 8:45:48 PM

^ Don't call me dense just because you can't understand what I'm saying. What exactly is wrong with what I said?

Yes I know, every life is precious, blah blah blah. That's not my fucking point..

[Edited on November 13, 2009 at 8:58 PM. Reason : .]

11/13/2009 8:50:21 PM

the point is that $400 isn't the concern that people have...

11/13/2009 9:02:09 PM

Yes I know. You bleeding heart conservatives want to save all the zygotes to satisfy your sky daddy. Hooray. And you don't want your money going towards the vagina vacuum. I get it.

My point is that cranking that sucker up is pretty cheap. So why are Democrats even making it an issue? Throw the amendment in the bill. No one is going broke getting abortions.

This bill can go a lot of good for a lot of people. Let's not let this detail hold everything up.

[Edited on November 13, 2009 at 9:18 PM. Reason : .]

11/13/2009 9:18:22 PM

it's entirely possible to be against abortion for reasons other than religion. but I'm sure pigeonholing opponents make you feel a lot better

11/13/2009 10:40:37 PM

While the threat of jihadists using jails as recruiting centers should not be underestimated, the GOP is playing this one up a bit:

Quote :

"Illinois will become “ground zero for Jihadist terrorist plots, recruitment and radicalization” if President Barack Obama follows through on a plan being considered to bring Guantanamo detainees to a prison in the state’s northwestern corner, Republican House members wrote Sunday. Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D) and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) announced earlier Sunday that the Obama administration is mulling the purchase of the hardly-used Thomson Correctional Center to house alleged terrorists from the detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Illinois Republican Reps. Mark Kirk – who is running for the Senate seat vacated by Obama – Peter Roskam, Judy Biggert and Don Mazullo responded in a letter to the president, pleading with him to keep detainees in the “$50 million Guantanamo Bay facility, and not on American soil.” "

http://bit.ly/1SvpYL

11/15/2009 7:36:18 PM

While I don't agree AT ALL with the fear-driven alarmist hoots that Illinois would become training grounds for terrorists, I do disagree with putting them there for other reasons. I mean, having very influential al Qaeda operatives in a large prison in the states is just bad. Really bad.

11/15/2009 9:05:35 PM

care to elaborate...at all?

btw, the prison they're hoping to purchase to use is currently EMPTY.

edit: there are 200 minimum security prisoners housed there now. it has remained basically empty and unused since it was built 8 years ago because of budget issues.

[Edited on November 15, 2009 at 9:10 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2009 9:09:18 PM

There are empty prisons in the US? That's cause for optimism. But really, I dunno. Just seems like it could make for easier communication with domestic terrorists, etc.. yeah, that's alarmist as hell, but it seems to me that Gitmo, or something similar, is a far better option.

11/15/2009 9:13:37 PM

Quote :

"There are empty prisons in the US? That's cause for optimism"

Ha. Yeah, apparently so, but not for want of prisoners to put there. States are just out of money.

11/15/2009 9:16:55 PM

I suppose it's not an awful idea if the security in that place is 300x more "secure" than the average US prison.

11/15/2009 9:19:46 PM

maybe i'm naive, but i think it's safe to assume that these people would be secluded from any type of general prison population or even contact with the outside world. basically they'd be kept in solitary. seems like a no-brainer to me, but what do i know.

11/15/2009 9:24:04 PM

fallout from abstinence-only education:
Sex infections still rising, especially in teens
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33963387/ns/health-sexual_health/

11/16/2009 11:01:47 AM

I'm appalled that people still support absistence only sex education. How naive can you be?

11/16/2009 11:27:12 AM

Quote :

"PPP's newest national survey finds that a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately."

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/acorn.html

11/19/2009 7:13:26 PM

yeah, is right. but, hey, I wonder what the stats are for Democrats who think dubya stole the 2000 election

11/19/2009 7:28:01 PM

^ probably a lot lower, since there is an unusually high level of stupidity among Republicans these days compared to democrats back then.

11/19/2009 7:35:12 PM

riiiiiiiight... that's why we still to this day hear numbnuts making that claim. That's why I saw so many "Redefeat Bush" bumper-stickers back in the day

11/19/2009 7:38:09 PM

Stuff like this is why I love the Economist:

Quote :

"Why We Report on Disasters: I AGREE with my colleague that the press should—must—cover Sarah Palin. But I couldn't disagree more strongly about the reasons why. We are obligated to cover Sarah Palin because, month after month, she makes riveting news. So did OJ Simpson, for a while; so did "Balloon Boy"'s family, and the relatives of Elian Gonzales. The weeks that followed Mrs Palin's nomination to the vice-presidency last year were a non-stop cavalcade of jaw-dropping revelations, and the carnival has continued episodically ever since. Of course we cover her. But I see no particular evidence for the claim that Mrs Palin is "no fool". The fact that, having gained the national press's attention, she has managed to keep it is not in itself any indication of intelligence or strategic gifts. The 19-year-old hockey jock who fathered Mrs Palin's grandson, for example, has also sustained the national press's interest for over a year. It would be statistically extraordinary for two gifted national media manipulators, one of them barely out of high school, to have come out of Wasilla, Alaska, and for them to happen to be related so intimately. And yet some in the press are now crediting Levi Johnston with remarkable media savvy, and wondering whether Mrs Palin or Mr Johnston is playing the deeper game. (Perhaps Mr Johnston should consider a run for office?)"

http://ow.ly/162RuS

11/19/2009 8:02:50 PM

dp

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 8:03 PM. Reason : dadv]

11/19/2009 8:03:15 PM

Quote :

" That's why I saw so many "Redefeat Bush" bumper-stickers back in the day"

Those stickers play on the fact that Bush lost the popular vote.

There is nothing factual to play off of in saying something like “redefeat Obama.”

11/19/2009 8:07:28 PM

if you'll buy that, then I've got some bridges I would like to sell you

11/19/2009 11:32:57 PM

haha wut?

what am I buying?

Did Bush not lose the popular vote? Did Obama not win the popular vote?

11/19/2009 11:39:08 PM

it was quite more than a play on what you claimed, and you know it

11/19/2009 11:47:03 PM

there would be no “redefeat bush” if bush wasn’t defeated in the popular vote.

People would have come up with something more than likely, but it wouldn’t have been along those lines.

There’s not even remotely close to anything in reality that would suggest Obama “stole” the election, and it’s pure delusion to believe that he did in any way. It’s really lame and unimaginative that there is anyone suggesting he did, but there’s not much more to expect from the party of people who support Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin.

11/19/2009 11:53:21 PM

riiiiiiiight. there was a lot of foaming at the mouth, dude. take off the glasses, put down the kool-aid, and admit it. both sides have their crazies

11/19/2009 11:58:22 PM

both sides definitely have their crazies, it’s just that the republicans get behind theirs and parade them on national TV.

11/19/2009 11:59:17 PM

i dunno. there was definitely some parading around of Cindy Sheehan. And Michael Moore. Or, hell, Nancy Pelosi, lol.

11/20/2009 12:02:38 AM

^or obama, or clinton, or JKF .....

11/20/2009 12:16:32 AM

Quote :

"J K F"

but, seriously, you aren't trying to say that Cindy Sheehan isn't a bit crazy...

[Edited on November 20, 2009 at 12:19 AM. Reason : ]

11/20/2009 12:18:28 AM

cindy sheehan didn’t start out crazy, she became crazy and was promptly dismissed.

11/20/2009 12:19:59 AM

not sure about cindy's crazy days, i only remember the first parts, and probably cause no one paid any attention to her after a while

11/20/2009 12:25:16 AM

This two-wrongs bullshit gets old. "Oh yeah? Well your side does it too!"

Why is the response here always to defend conservatives by pointing out the same behavior on the other side? The overall point of the criticism here isn't to make out the actions of GOP to be any worse than that of liberals.

Bullshit should not be happening on either side. This is the thread for pointing it out with conservatives. Likewise with the Fox News thread and wherever this kind of bickering starts. If you want to defend their actions, make an argument, and stop using lazy, partisan two-wrongs bullshit.

11/20/2009 12:25:26 AM

I'm not defending conservatives here. Im just saying that both sides have their crazies, so don't act like it's just the conservatives

11/20/2009 12:26:22 AM

you first mistake is trying to portray normal people as crazies
second there are crazies on both sides, but for conservatives the crazier you are the higher you go

11/20/2009 12:27:54 AM

yes, you would think that, since you disagree with the conservatives

11/20/2009 12:30:02 AM

Quote :

"so don't act like it's just the conservatives"

Nobody is acting like anything. This is the fucking thread for conservative criticism, so naturally that is generally all you see people criticize here. That does not mean everyone thinks that the only thing deserving of criticism are convservatives.

And yes, you are implicitly defending them by making efforts to say they are both equivalent.

[Edited on November 20, 2009 at 12:42 AM. Reason : .]

11/20/2009 12:39:39 AM

^^wrong, conservatives used to have leaders with common sense but they are no longer fanatical enough for the new movement

just list out your most visible leaders and the argument will be over

[Edited on November 20, 2009 at 12:41 AM. Reason : .]

11/20/2009 12:41:21 AM