June 30, 2014

Overnight Open Thread (6-30-2014) – July Eve Edition
— Maetenloch

The Left Has a Freakout over the Hobby Lobby Decision

Of course OUTRAGE!!! doesn't requires any facts or understanding of the case.

scotusblog

freakout2

freakout1

Even if you're a US Senator.

elizabeth-warren-hobby-lobby

And even Harry Reid got in on the insane outrage action.

freakout3

But wait - the Supreme Court decision just upheld the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act as providing an exemption from the Obamacare contraception mandate. Hmm 'Religious Freedom' - that sounds kind of scary and conservative. Just what kind of rightwing monsters were supporting this RFRA back in 93?

Why this kind:

RFRA passed in 1993 with overwhelming bipartisan support. It was sponsored by Democrat N.Y. Sen. Charles Schumer and earned the votes of leading lib dinosaurs including Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Patty Murray, and Barbara Boxer.

So twenty years ago a religious freedom exception to some laws was the orthodox liberal position - today it's the new fascism. But with the same old liberal faces bellowing and raging over it.

Heh

snarky23

Quote of the Day

They must always have a Great Evil to crusade against, because only crusading against a Great Evil can excuse their own actions.

  -- Glenn Reynolds on the Left
more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:14 PM | Comments (732)
Post contains 1263 words, total size 15 kb.

Overnight Open Thread (6-30-2014) – July Eve Edition
— Maetenloch

The Left Has a Freakout over the Hobby Lobby Decision

Of course OUTRAGE!!! doesn't requires any facts or understanding of the case.

scotusblog

freakout2

freakout1

Even if you're a US Senator.

elizabeth-warren-hobby-lobby

And even Harry Reid got in on the insane outrage action.

freakout3

But wait - the Supreme Court decision just upheld the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act as providing an exemption from the Obamacare contraception mandate. Hmm 'Religious Freedom' - that sounds kind of scary and conservative. Just what kind of rightwing monsters were supporting this RFRA back in 93?

Why this kind:

RFRA passed in 1993 with overwhelming bipartisan support. It was sponsored by Democrat N.Y. Sen. Charles Schumer and earned the votes of leading lib dinosaurs including Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Patty Murray, and Barbara Boxer.

So twenty years ago a religious freedom exception to some laws was the orthodox liberal position - today it's the new fascism. But with the same old liberal faces bellowing and raging over it.

Heh

snarky23

Quote of the Day

They must always have a Great Evil to crusade against, because only crusading against a Great Evil can excuse their own actions.

  -- Glenn Reynolds on the Left
more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:14 PM | Comments (732)
Post contains 1263 words, total size 15 kb.

Overnight Open Thread (6-30-2014) – July Eve Edition
— Maetenloch

The Left Has a Freakout over the Hobby Lobby Decision

Of course OUTRAGE!!! doesn't requires any facts or understanding of the case.

scotusblog

freakout2

freakout1

Even if you're a US Senator.

elizabeth-warren-hobby-lobby

And even Harry Reid got in on the insane outrage action.

freakout3

But wait - the Supreme Court decision just upheld the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act as providing an exemption from the Obamacare contraception mandate. Hmm 'Religious Freedom' - that sounds kind of scary and conservative. Just what kind of rightwing monsters were supporting this RFRA back in 93?

Why this kind:

RFRA passed in 1993 with overwhelming bipartisan support. It was sponsored by Democrat N.Y. Sen. Charles Schumer and earned the votes of leading lib dinosaurs including Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Patty Murray, and Barbara Boxer.

So twenty years ago a religious freedom exception to some laws was the orthodox liberal position - today it's the new fascism. But with the same old liberal faces bellowing and raging over it.

Heh

snarky23

Quote of the Day

They must always have a Great Evil to crusade against, because only crusading against a Great Evil can excuse their own actions.

  -- Glenn Reynolds on the Left
more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:14 PM | Comments (732)
Post contains 1263 words, total size 15 kb.

Overnight Open Thread (6-30-2014) – July Eve Edition
— Maetenloch

The Left Has a Freakout over the Hobby Lobby Decision

Of course OUTRAGE!!! doesn't requires any facts or understanding of the case.

scotusblog

freakout2

freakout1

Even if you're a US Senator.

elizabeth-warren-hobby-lobby

And even Harry Reid got in on the insane outrage action.

freakout3

But wait - the Supreme Court decision just upheld the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act as providing an exemption from the Obamacare contraception mandate. Hmm 'Religious Freedom' - that sounds kind of scary and conservative. Just what kind of rightwing monsters were supporting this RFRA back in 93?

Why this kind:

RFRA passed in 1993 with overwhelming bipartisan support. It was sponsored by Democrat N.Y. Sen. Charles Schumer and earned the votes of leading lib dinosaurs including Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Patty Murray, and Barbara Boxer.

So twenty years ago a religious freedom exception to some laws was the orthodox liberal position - today it's the new fascism. But with the same old liberal faces bellowing and raging over it.

Heh

snarky23

Quote of the Day

They must always have a Great Evil to crusade against, because only crusading against a Great Evil can excuse their own actions.

  -- Glenn Reynolds on the Left
more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:14 PM | Comments (732)
Post contains 1263 words, total size 15 kb.

Don't hate the party, become the party
— CAC

It's been almost a week since the runoff race was held in Mississippi. Some are calling for sabotaging the general, others are trying to gather energy and resources for the next major "battle", while still others are staggering about, naked and high on shrooms, wondering what happened. Here are a few thoughts.

Lets say a political party proclaims it is firmly against X, Y, and Z. Sometimes they may be a bit squishy, but since their opposition is firmly in favor of X, Y, Z, supporters of said party continue to vote for them. There are highs and lows in this, resentments and triumphs, but, for a little while, all seems well.

Now, as time goes on, and as political parties are prone to do, the demographics and interests of said party begin to change, there will still be pressure on base supporters to vote for their party's candidates, even if they start to get waffly on X, Y, or Z. Perhaps the powers that be run their party into electoral quicksand, passing the power baton to their opposition in the process.

The party may grow so bad and listless that an "insurgency" forms within, one which runs it's own candidates, candidates who are quite firm in their opposition of X, Y, and Z. It's rusty, new, untested. Some "leaders" turn out to be charlatans, some "experts" hacks, and some with promise wind up as duds.

But as a whole, the primaries become closer. The screams become louder. The situation grows so precarious for some incumbents in said party that they must resort to begging members in the opposing party to support them and openly rescinding their opposition to X, Y, and Z in the process.

The question, post-battle, becomes what to do about these guys, and how to handle a setback. Does the insurgency give up and walk away? Or do they double-down with the next race? Do they study and learn what worked and what didn't, and learn to use the tools within the party against those whom they feel are betraying it? David Brat certainly provided a way forward for challengers: his data team ran circles around the House Majority Leader at a fraction of his opponent's budget.

Insurgencies are a good thing for political parties. In fact, they're a necessity for their long-term survival. Demographics change. Challenges change. Interests change. Interest groups change. And the intricate coalitions of voters change as well. We haven't seen a major shift in party allegiance in decades, but it very well could be underway.

A meaningful change in the direction of a political party depends on the willpower of those determined to push it. If losses leave them spinning and spitting in a rage, it will make for great headlines and fundraising-by-tweets, but it will do a very poor job of dictating the terms of change. Matches and gasoline make for a great visual, but a terrible long-term solution for successfully altering a party.

The way forward for conservatives angry enough to overthrow the establishment figures they feel have wronged them, their party, and their country is difficult to carry out, but quite simple to explain: push on. Lose a race? Go to the next one. And the next one. And the next. And the next. A relentless pursuit, a long march through the party's infrastructure and elections, until "the powers that be" become the powers that were. Until the new boss is most definitely not the same as the old boss. It will require quite a lot of will, and the ending is impossible to see as the political drama plays out. You never know whose head you'll get to mount on a stick, that's the uncertainty.

Here's what is certain: you won't mount any if you walk away.


(Oh, and apologies to Jello Biafra for bastardizing his quote, but the spirit is the same.)

Posted by: CAC at 03:41 PM | Comments (442)
Post contains 660 words, total size 4 kb.

Don't hate the party, become the party
— CAC

It's been almost a week since the runoff race was held in Mississippi. Some are calling for sabotaging the general, others are trying to gather energy and resources for the next major "battle", while still others are staggering about, naked and high on shrooms, wondering what happened. Here are a few thoughts.

Lets say a political party proclaims it is firmly against X, Y, and Z. Sometimes they may be a bit squishy, but since their opposition is firmly in favor of X, Y, Z, supporters of said party continue to vote for them. There are highs and lows in this, resentments and triumphs, but, for a little while, all seems well.

Now, as time goes on, and as political parties are prone to do, the demographics and interests of said party begin to change, there will still be pressure on base supporters to vote for their party's candidates, even if they start to get waffly on X, Y, or Z. Perhaps the powers that be run their party into electoral quicksand, passing the power baton to their opposition in the process.

The party may grow so bad and listless that an "insurgency" forms within, one which runs it's own candidates, candidates who are quite firm in their opposition of X, Y, and Z. It's rusty, new, untested. Some "leaders" turn out to be charlatans, some "experts" hacks, and some with promise wind up as duds.

But as a whole, the primaries become closer. The screams become louder. The situation grows so precarious for some incumbents in said party that they must resort to begging members in the opposing party to support them and openly rescinding their opposition to X, Y, and Z in the process.

The question, post-battle, becomes what to do about these guys, and how to handle a setback. Does the insurgency give up and walk away? Or do they double-down with the next race? Do they study and learn what worked and what didn't, and learn to use the tools within the party against those whom they feel are betraying it? David Brat certainly provided a way forward for challengers: his data team ran circles around the House Majority Leader at a fraction of his opponent's budget.

Insurgencies are a good thing for political parties. In fact, they're a necessity for their long-term survival. Demographics change. Challenges change. Interests change. Interest groups change. And the intricate coalitions of voters change as well. We haven't seen a major shift in party allegiance in decades, but it very well could be underway.

A meaningful change in the direction of a political party depends on the willpower of those determined to push it. If losses leave them spinning and spitting in a rage, it will make for great headlines and fundraising-by-tweets, but it will do a very poor job of dictating the terms of change. Matches and gasoline make for a great visual, but a terrible long-term solution for successfully altering a party.

The way forward for conservatives angry enough to overthrow the establishment figures they feel have wronged them, their party, and their country is difficult to carry out, but quite simple to explain: push on. Lose a race? Go to the next one. And the next one. And the next. And the next. A relentless pursuit, a long march through the party's infrastructure and elections, until "the powers that be" become the powers that were. Until the new boss is most definitely not the same as the old boss. It will require quite a lot of will, and the ending is impossible to see as the political drama plays out. You never know whose head you'll get to mount on a stick, that's the uncertainty.

Here's what is certain: you won't mount any if you walk away.


(Oh, and apologies to Jello Biafra for bastardizing his quote, but the spirit is the same.)

Posted by: CAC at 03:41 PM | Comments (442)
Post contains 660 words, total size 4 kb.

Don't hate the party, become the party
— CAC

It's been almost a week since the runoff race was held in Mississippi. Some are calling for sabotaging the general, others are trying to gather energy and resources for the next major "battle", while still others are staggering about, naked and high on shrooms, wondering what happened. Here are a few thoughts.

Lets say a political party proclaims it is firmly against X, Y, and Z. Sometimes they may be a bit squishy, but since their opposition is firmly in favor of X, Y, Z, supporters of said party continue to vote for them. There are highs and lows in this, resentments and triumphs, but, for a little while, all seems well.

Now, as time goes on, and as political parties are prone to do, the demographics and interests of said party begin to change, there will still be pressure on base supporters to vote for their party's candidates, even if they start to get waffly on X, Y, or Z. Perhaps the powers that be run their party into electoral quicksand, passing the power baton to their opposition in the process.

The party may grow so bad and listless that an "insurgency" forms within, one which runs it's own candidates, candidates who are quite firm in their opposition of X, Y, and Z. It's rusty, new, untested. Some "leaders" turn out to be charlatans, some "experts" hacks, and some with promise wind up as duds.

But as a whole, the primaries become closer. The screams become louder. The situation grows so precarious for some incumbents in said party that they must resort to begging members in the opposing party to support them and openly rescinding their opposition to X, Y, and Z in the process.

The question, post-battle, becomes what to do about these guys, and how to handle a setback. Does the insurgency give up and walk away? Or do they double-down with the next race? Do they study and learn what worked and what didn't, and learn to use the tools within the party against those whom they feel are betraying it? David Brat certainly provided a way forward for challengers: his data team ran circles around the House Majority Leader at a fraction of his opponent's budget.

Insurgencies are a good thing for political parties. In fact, they're a necessity for their long-term survival. Demographics change. Challenges change. Interests change. Interest groups change. And the intricate coalitions of voters change as well. We haven't seen a major shift in party allegiance in decades, but it very well could be underway.

A meaningful change in the direction of a political party depends on the willpower of those determined to push it. If losses leave them spinning and spitting in a rage, it will make for great headlines and fundraising-by-tweets, but it will do a very poor job of dictating the terms of change. Matches and gasoline make for a great visual, but a terrible long-term solution for successfully altering a party.

The way forward for conservatives angry enough to overthrow the establishment figures they feel have wronged them, their party, and their country is difficult to carry out, but quite simple to explain: push on. Lose a race? Go to the next one. And the next one. And the next. And the next. A relentless pursuit, a long march through the party's infrastructure and elections, until "the powers that be" become the powers that were. Until the new boss is most definitely not the same as the old boss. It will require quite a lot of will, and the ending is impossible to see as the political drama plays out. You never know whose head you'll get to mount on a stick, that's the uncertainty.

Here's what is certain: you won't mount any if you walk away.


(Oh, and apologies to Jello Biafra for bastardizing his quote, but the spirit is the same.)

Posted by: CAC at 03:41 PM | Comments (884)
Post contains 660 words, total size 4 kb.

If the IUD and Plan B Aren't Abortifacents, Then Terry MacAuliffe Must Resign His Post as Governor of Virginia
— Ace

This is typical crap from the Left. Here's Sally Kohn:

And both companies say they don't object to all contraception, simply drugs or intrauterine devices that prevent pregnancy after fertilization, contraceptive methods that folks on the right mis-label and malign as "abortifacients." That characterization is factually, scientifically untrue.

Terry MacAuliffe's campaign for Virginia Governor ran almost exclusively that Ken Cuccinelli's personhood-at-conception bill would outlaw just these exact sorts of birth control, precisely because they might result in a fertilized egg being blocked from implanting in the uterus.

He and his allies ran these ads almost every minute of every day in the 2013 election.

This ad ran thousands of times during the election:
more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:54 PM | Comments (288)
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

If the IUD and Plan B Aren't Abortifacents, Then Terry MacAuliffe Must Resign His Post as Governor of Virginia
— Ace

This is typical crap from the Left. Here's Sally Kohn:

And both companies say they don't object to all contraception, simply drugs or intrauterine devices that prevent pregnancy after fertilization, contraceptive methods that folks on the right mis-label and malign as "abortifacients." That characterization is factually, scientifically untrue.

Terry MacAuliffe's campaign for Virginia Governor ran almost exclusively that Ken Cuccinelli's personhood-at-conception bill would outlaw just these exact sorts of birth control, precisely because they might result in a fertilized egg being blocked from implanting in the uterus.

He and his allies ran these ads almost every minute of every day in the 2013 election.

This ad ran thousands of times during the election:
more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:54 PM | Comments (144)
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

If the IUD and Plan B Aren't Abortifacents, Then Terry MacAuliffe Must Resign His Post as Governor of Virginia
— Ace

This is typical crap from the Left. Here's Sally Kohn:

And both companies say they don't object to all contraception, simply drugs or intrauterine devices that prevent pregnancy after fertilization, contraceptive methods that folks on the right mis-label and malign as "abortifacients." That characterization is factually, scientifically untrue.

Terry MacAuliffe's campaign for Virginia Governor ran almost exclusively that Ken Cuccinelli's personhood-at-conception bill would outlaw just these exact sorts of birth control, precisely because they might result in a fertilized egg being blocked from implanting in the uterus.

He and his allies ran these ads almost every minute of every day in the 2013 election.

This ad ran thousands of times during the election:
more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:54 PM | Comments (144)
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

An Observation About Hobby Lobby & the Left
— Ace

David French writes:

[The left's hysterical reaction is] instructive because it demonstrates the extent to which the Left is emotionally and ideologically committed to the power of the regulatory state. For some time, the Left has been selling the public and the courts on the notion that somehow the act of forming a corporation and opening for business operates as an effective waiver of your most basic liberties, including free speech, free exercise of religion, and virtually the entire panoply of property rights. In effect, your business is not “your” business at all, but instead all aspects of its operations exist at the whim of the state, and if the state wants to draft you into its child-killing abortion crusade —-- or wants to muzzle you during political campaigns -- then you best salute and fall in line.

It occurs to me that the Left is attempting to create a system wherein there are two different classes of citizenship, one fully possessed of its right to speak and act politically, the other whose rights in this regard are sharply curtailed.

That's obvious, that's not the interesting part.

Here's the interesting part, I think: The Left, were it to have its way, would forbid anyone who is not primarily in the business of politics (or working for the government or university) from exercising their full political rights.

If you work in any other industry, your rights are substantially reduced.

Think how much this proposed rule would benefit the Left, were it fully accepted. (It is 85% accepted at the moment.)

The only people who would be permitted to speak on political issues, or at in accordance with their social/cultural/religious/political principles, would be the Political Class Itself, which is of course largely "progressive."

Shopkeeper? Nope, you're not a professional of the political class. Shut up. You have no right to run your business as your conscience dictates.

Baker? You're not a professional in the political class. Shut up and bake the cake.

And so on. By choosing an economically-productive trade which is not politics, you have ceded most of your rights in the political sphere, per this line of thinking.

The people who retain their full rights are the artists, the academics, the media class, the union officials, the teachers and other civil servants, and all the various functionaries of the permanent DC lobbying/think tank class.

This seems to me to be very congruent with the Left's conception of a cadre of people who will Do all the thinking for the rest of the country -- the revolutionary vanguard -- and the rest of the people who will actually generate the economic surpluses that the vanguard will then divvy up.

The Left continues to conceive of their idea of a Utopia in which some -- they themselves -- are the the thinkers, the plotters, the dreamers and the schemers -- and everyone else is merely a doer, a revenue-generating economic unit which is expected to follow the orders issued to them by the Thinking Class.

Posted by: Ace at 12:24 PM | Comments (1094)
Post contains 514 words, total size 3 kb.

An Observation About Hobby Lobby & the Left
— Ace

David French writes:

[The left's hysterical reaction is] instructive because it demonstrates the extent to which the Left is emotionally and ideologically committed to the power of the regulatory state. For some time, the Left has been selling the public and the courts on the notion that somehow the act of forming a corporation and opening for business operates as an effective waiver of your most basic liberties, including free speech, free exercise of religion, and virtually the entire panoply of property rights. In effect, your business is not “your” business at all, but instead all aspects of its operations exist at the whim of the state, and if the state wants to draft you into its child-killing abortion crusade —-- or wants to muzzle you during political campaigns -- then you best salute and fall in line.

It occurs to me that the Left is attempting to create a system wherein there are two different classes of citizenship, one fully possessed of its right to speak and act politically, the other whose rights in this regard are sharply curtailed.

That's obvious, that's not the interesting part.

Here's the interesting part, I think: The Left, were it to have its way, would forbid anyone who is not primarily in the business of politics (or working for the government or university) from exercising their full political rights.

If you work in any other industry, your rights are substantially reduced.

Think how much this proposed rule would benefit the Left, were it fully accepted. (It is 85% accepted at the moment.)

The only people who would be permitted to speak on political issues, or at in accordance with their social/cultural/religious/political principles, would be the Political Class Itself, which is of course largely "progressive."

Shopkeeper? Nope, you're not a professional of the political class. Shut up. You have no right to run your business as your conscience dictates.

Baker? You're not a professional in the political class. Shut up and bake the cake.

And so on. By choosing an economically-productive trade which is not politics, you have ceded most of your rights in the political sphere, per this line of thinking.

The people who retain their full rights are the artists, the academics, the media class, the union officials, the teachers and other civil servants, and all the various functionaries of the permanent DC lobbying/think tank class.

This seems to me to be very congruent with the Left's conception of a cadre of people who will Do all the thinking for the rest of the country -- the revolutionary vanguard -- and the rest of the people who will actually generate the economic surpluses that the vanguard will then divvy up.

The Left continues to conceive of their idea of a Utopia in which some -- they themselves -- are the the thinkers, the plotters, the dreamers and the schemers -- and everyone else is merely a doer, a revenue-generating economic unit which is expected to follow the orders issued to them by the Thinking Class.

Posted by: Ace at 12:24 PM | Comments (547)
Post contains 514 words, total size 3 kb.

An Observation About Hobby Lobby & the Left
— Ace

David French writes:

[The left's hysterical reaction is] instructive because it demonstrates the extent to which the Left is emotionally and ideologically committed to the power of the regulatory state. For some time, the Left has been selling the public and the courts on the notion that somehow the act of forming a corporation and opening for business operates as an effective waiver of your most basic liberties, including free speech, free exercise of religion, and virtually the entire panoply of property rights. In effect, your business is not “your” business at all, but instead all aspects of its operations exist at the whim of the state, and if the state wants to draft you into its child-killing abortion crusade —-- or wants to muzzle you during political campaigns -- then you best salute and fall in line.

It occurs to me that the Left is attempting to create a system wherein there are two different classes of citizenship, one fully possessed of its right to speak and act politically, the other whose rights in this regard are sharply curtailed.

That's obvious, that's not the interesting part.

Here's the interesting part, I think: The Left, were it to have its way, would forbid anyone who is not primarily in the business of politics (or working for the government or university) from exercising their full political rights.

If you work in any other industry, your rights are substantially reduced.

Think how much this proposed rule would benefit the Left, were it fully accepted. (It is 85% accepted at the moment.)

The only people who would be permitted to speak on political issues, or at in accordance with their social/cultural/religious/political principles, would be the Political Class Itself, which is of course largely "progressive."

Shopkeeper? Nope, you're not a professional of the political class. Shut up. You have no right to run your business as your conscience dictates.

Baker? You're not a professional in the political class. Shut up and bake the cake.

And so on. By choosing an economically-productive trade which is not politics, you have ceded most of your rights in the political sphere, per this line of thinking.

The people who retain their full rights are the artists, the academics, the media class, the union officials, the teachers and other civil servants, and all the various functionaries of the permanent DC lobbying/think tank class.

This seems to me to be very congruent with the Left's conception of a cadre of people who will Do all the thinking for the rest of the country -- the revolutionary vanguard -- and the rest of the people who will actually generate the economic surpluses that the vanguard will then divvy up.

The Left continues to conceive of their idea of a Utopia in which some -- they themselves -- are the the thinkers, the plotters, the dreamers and the schemers -- and everyone else is merely a doer, a revenue-generating economic unit which is expected to follow the orders issued to them by the Thinking Class.

Posted by: Ace at 12:24 PM | Comments (547)
Post contains 514 words, total size 3 kb.

Obama: Congress' Refusal To Pass the Law I Like Grants Me The Power To Do Like Whatever
— Ace

The Constitutional Law Scholar in the White House (TM).

I rarely assume tyrannical power, but when I do, I prefer socialist tyrannical power.

Think about how stupid this is: Obama is claiming that Congress' choice not to pass a law constitutes an abandonment of constitutional power (rather than the exercise of it), and then that power flows precisely to the President.

Just how the Framers' designed it, huh?

You have refused to grant me the power of Imperium. Therefore, you have irresponsibly abandoned your exercise of that power, and the power to declare myself emperor flows into my own hands.

Grant me power, or I will seize it. The choice is yours.

Senator Ron Johnson and actual law professor Jonathan Turley address the crisis that Obama has created.


A growing crisis in our constitutional system threatens to fundamentally alter the balance of powers -- and accountability -- within our government. This crisis did not begin with Obama, but it has reached a constitutional tipping point during his presidency. Indeed, it is enough to bring the two of us -- a liberal academic and a conservative U.S. senator -- together in shared concern over the future of our 225-year-old constitutional system of self­governance.


...

First, we need to discuss the erosion of legislative authority within the evolving model of the federal government. There has been a dramatic shift of authority toward presidential powers and the emergence of what is essentially a fourth branch of government -- a vast network of federal agencies with expanded legislative and judicial power. While the federal bureaucracy is a hallmark of the modern administrative state, it presents a fundamental change to a system of three coequal branches designed to check and balance each other. The growing authority invested in federal agencies comes from a diminished Congress, which seems to have a dramatically reduced ability to actively monitor, let alone influence, agency actions.


...

The framers believed that members of each branch of government would transcend individual political ambitions to vigorously defend the power of their institutions. Presidents have persistently expanded their authority with considerable success. Congress has been largely passive or, worse, complicit in the draining of legislative authority. Judges have adopted doctrines of avoidance that have removed the courts from important conflicts between the branches. Now is the time for members of Congress and the judiciary to affirm their oaths to “support and defend the Constitution” and to work to re-establish our delicate constitutional balance.

Indeed, the Supreme Court has the Last Clear Chance of averting an actual coup.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:10 AM | Comments (1040)
Post contains 458 words, total size 3 kb.

Obama: Congress' Refusal To Pass the Law I Like Grants Me The Power To Do Like Whatever
— Ace

The Constitutional Law Scholar in the White House (TM).

I rarely assume tyrannical power, but when I do, I prefer socialist tyrannical power.

Think about how stupid this is: Obama is claiming that Congress' choice not to pass a law constitutes an abandonment of constitutional power (rather than the exercise of it), and then that power flows precisely to the President.

Just how the Framers' designed it, huh?

You have refused to grant me the power of Imperium. Therefore, you have irresponsibly abandoned your exercise of that power, and the power to declare myself emperor flows into my own hands.

Grant me power, or I will seize it. The choice is yours.

Senator Ron Johnson and actual law professor Jonathan Turley address the crisis that Obama has created.


A growing crisis in our constitutional system threatens to fundamentally alter the balance of powers -- and accountability -- within our government. This crisis did not begin with Obama, but it has reached a constitutional tipping point during his presidency. Indeed, it is enough to bring the two of us -- a liberal academic and a conservative U.S. senator -- together in shared concern over the future of our 225-year-old constitutional system of self­governance.


...

First, we need to discuss the erosion of legislative authority within the evolving model of the federal government. There has been a dramatic shift of authority toward presidential powers and the emergence of what is essentially a fourth branch of government -- a vast network of federal agencies with expanded legislative and judicial power. While the federal bureaucracy is a hallmark of the modern administrative state, it presents a fundamental change to a system of three coequal branches designed to check and balance each other. The growing authority invested in federal agencies comes from a diminished Congress, which seems to have a dramatically reduced ability to actively monitor, let alone influence, agency actions.


...

The framers believed that members of each branch of government would transcend individual political ambitions to vigorously defend the power of their institutions. Presidents have persistently expanded their authority with considerable success. Congress has been largely passive or, worse, complicit in the draining of legislative authority. Judges have adopted doctrines of avoidance that have removed the courts from important conflicts between the branches. Now is the time for members of Congress and the judiciary to affirm their oaths to “support and defend the Constitution” and to work to re-establish our delicate constitutional balance.

Indeed, the Supreme Court has the Last Clear Chance of averting an actual coup.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:10 AM | Comments (520)
Post contains 458 words, total size 3 kb.

Obama: Congress' Refusal To Pass the Law I Like Grants Me The Power To Do Like Whatever
— Ace

The Constitutional Law Scholar in the White House (TM).

I rarely assume tyrannical power, but when I do, I prefer socialist tyrannical power.

Think about how stupid this is: Obama is claiming that Congress' choice not to pass a law constitutes an abandonment of constitutional power (rather than the exercise of it), and then that power flows precisely to the President.

Just how the Framers' designed it, huh?

You have refused to grant me the power of Imperium. Therefore, you have irresponsibly abandoned your exercise of that power, and the power to declare myself emperor flows into my own hands.

Grant me power, or I will seize it. The choice is yours.

Senator Ron Johnson and actual law professor Jonathan Turley address the crisis that Obama has created.


A growing crisis in our constitutional system threatens to fundamentally alter the balance of powers -- and accountability -- within our government. This crisis did not begin with Obama, but it has reached a constitutional tipping point during his presidency. Indeed, it is enough to bring the two of us -- a liberal academic and a conservative U.S. senator -- together in shared concern over the future of our 225-year-old constitutional system of self­governance.


...

First, we need to discuss the erosion of legislative authority within the evolving model of the federal government. There has been a dramatic shift of authority toward presidential powers and the emergence of what is essentially a fourth branch of government -- a vast network of federal agencies with expanded legislative and judicial power. While the federal bureaucracy is a hallmark of the modern administrative state, it presents a fundamental change to a system of three coequal branches designed to check and balance each other. The growing authority invested in federal agencies comes from a diminished Congress, which seems to have a dramatically reduced ability to actively monitor, let alone influence, agency actions.


...

The framers believed that members of each branch of government would transcend individual political ambitions to vigorously defend the power of their institutions. Presidents have persistently expanded their authority with considerable success. Congress has been largely passive or, worse, complicit in the draining of legislative authority. Judges have adopted doctrines of avoidance that have removed the courts from important conflicts between the branches. Now is the time for members of Congress and the judiciary to affirm their oaths to “support and defend the Constitution” and to work to re-establish our delicate constitutional balance.

Indeed, the Supreme Court has the Last Clear Chance of averting an actual coup.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:10 AM | Comments (520)
Post contains 458 words, total size 3 kb.

White House Spokesman: "The Constitutional Lawyer in the White House" Disagrees with the Supreme Court
— Ace

TFG:



Although Josh Earnest repeated this formulation, it must be noted that it was actually a reporter who phrased the question by asking what the "constitutional lawyer who sits in the Oval Office" thinks about the Hobby Lobby decision.

They're still in love, I guess.

Meanwhile, the White House is workin' hard for the American people. Just last week it tried to introduce the meme that the president was "The Bear" and so people should tweet things like "OMG, the bear is loose!" when the President is out of the White House.

Today, the White House focuses on even more important matters:


Wow another #Hashtag twitter game. I never saw that coming.



more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:49 AM | Comments (526)
Post contains 199 words, total size 2 kb.

White House Spokesman: "The Constitutional Lawyer in the White House" Disagrees with the Supreme Court
— Ace

TFG:



Although Josh Earnest repeated this formulation, it must be noted that it was actually a reporter who phrased the question by asking what the "constitutional lawyer who sits in the Oval Office" thinks about the Hobby Lobby decision.

They're still in love, I guess.

Meanwhile, the White House is workin' hard for the American people. Just last week it tried to introduce the meme that the president was "The Bear" and so people should tweet things like "OMG, the bear is loose!" when the President is out of the White House.

Today, the White House focuses on even more important matters:


Wow another #Hashtag twitter game. I never saw that coming.



more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:49 AM | Comments (526)
Post contains 199 words, total size 2 kb.

White House Spokesman: "The Constitutional Lawyer in the White House" Disagrees with the Supreme Court
— Ace

TFG:



Although Josh Earnest repeated this formulation, it must be noted that it was actually a reporter who phrased the question by asking what the "constitutional lawyer who sits in the Oval Office" thinks about the Hobby Lobby decision.

They're still in love, I guess.

Meanwhile, the White House is workin' hard for the American people. Just last week it tried to introduce the meme that the president was "The Bear" and so people should tweet things like "OMG, the bear is loose!" when the President is out of the White House.

Today, the White House focuses on even more important matters:


Wow another #Hashtag twitter game. I never saw that coming.



more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:49 AM | Comments (1052)
Post contains 199 words, total size 2 kb.

Boehner: Immigration Reform Is Off The Table This Year; Obama Threatens Constitutional Crisis
— Ace


Posted by: Ace at 09:08 AM | Comments (283)
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 1 >>
142kb generated in CPU 0.72, elapsed 3.5081 seconds.
45 queries taking 3.3571 seconds, 281 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.