I see that Harry Reid is calling for an end to prostitution in their state, claiming it discourages businesses from settling there.
It never seemed to stop business in DC. I don’t know why Mr. Reid has such an issue with people selling themselves for a price.
No link provided, as I am protecting Hammy’s Comfy Couch from being stained by Righthaven bottomscumsuckingfeeder lawsuit. I believe you can find a link on BigGovernment, however.
The kitty barf has been cleaned up and the remote retrieved from the cushions. Come on in and have a seat!
First! Yeah! Woo hooooooo…
I’m easily amused.
Yeah, and I was always a cheap date.
Don’t feel bad. I’m pretty much the low maintenance type myself.
I find that cheap dates often come with higher emotional price tags.
Good point duhmoose, cheap car/high maintenance. LOL.
#3 tedtam
hussy
94-Year-Old Mayor Calls It Quits
Olive Stephens will not seek 20th term as mayor of Shady Shores
Emphasis Mine Dayaam what a concept! It’s really simple isn’t it?
Mornin” Gang
A Lutheran who went nuts and killed his daughter and almost killed her boyfriend’s mother by running them down with a Jeep because she had grown away from her upbringing has been found guilty in an Arizona court.
Sure am glad these people are just like the rest of us.
G’Morning all:
Dang, y’all stole my thunder this morning. I had Harry and the “Lutheran” already “prepped” to comment on. Oh well, guess it says that my acerbic wit lessons are taking hold. (head swells and chest expands)
As pertains to Mr. Reid:
13.1 trillions of things to really worry about and he picks this?
RE: Wisconsin & public sector unions……………Denninger weighs in again…
Heh Look, It’s PATCO!
I’ll vote for this Bill:
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=119078&article=8203908
Emotional price tag. Bah. Emotions is fer wimmins and chirruns.
The reason Hapless Harry opposes prostitution in Nevada should be obvious – he and his cohorts in Washington can’t stand the competition.
And this is one I’ll vote against:
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=119078&article=8208934
http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/22/indiana-republican-gov-daniels-declines-to-support-gop-pushed-right-to-work-bill/
There, fixed the headline for them.
I wouldn’t mind it a bit if Phred Felps any his disgusting crew of idiots spontaneously combusted and all of their hate filled web site vanished from the net, but I wouldn’t take matters into my own hands and turn a flame thrower on them.
Nor would I hack their web sites.
Felps is an attention whore, and will probably enjoy it. I can here it now, “GOD HATES ANONYMOUS!”
What could go wrong?
I mean, all Obamacare does is establish the precedent that Congress can regulate our “mental activity” as being directly related to commerce between the states.
But hey, lets concentrate our rehtoric and activity on Gays and Drugs. no need to pay attention to anyn of this stuff.
Its more Authoritarian to bend to the will of the People where it regards Drug use and sexual activity than it is when Congress and the court decides that our “mental activity” can be regulated.
Its all about priorities, guys. Lets keep condemning those SoCons—because that’s what’s REALLY important.
9 wagonburner says:
People who run down their daughters are not like the rest of us.’
But if it was as common in the Muslim population of this country as some folks claim, we’d see stories like this at least once a week.
We don’t.
Louisiana
A senior citizen in Louisiana was overheard saying … “When the end of the world comes, I hope to be in Louisiana .”
When asked why, he replied, “I’d rather be in Louisiana because everything happens in Louisiana 20 years later than in the rest of the civilized world.”
I found a really good comment on the story of Lara Logan’s sexual assault over at BigPeace.
I say we dress them in pig leather as part of their uniform. Or maybe they can dip their bullets, knives, or weapons in bacon grease. I would say carry bacon to shove in their mouths, but it probably wouldn’t make it to the attack site.
The Muslim men who participated in this attack should be brought to justice. Blame it on the mob mentality if you wish, but I believe that a large part of this attack was provoked simply by the fact that she was a non-Muslim looking woman. Muslim men have little regard for women in general, and even less if they are not subservient Muslima.
Its a good thing that Democrats don’t seeth the way Tea Partiers do. This kind of
“violent rhetoric” would be dangerous if it was said to them.
A Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts is raising the stakes in the nation’s fight over the future of public employee unions, saying emails aren’t enough to show support and that it is time to “get a little bloody.”
I mean, you NEVER hear of violence at Union Rallies——-
Doesn’t Lady Googoo have a bacon uniform?
. . . . . . .and now for something completely different. . . . . .
Simple Simon this article is for you. To the rest of us on Hammy’s couch, this Wiki article helps explain the nuclear cycle. Scroll down to the thorium cycle. After you have read those, then try to wrap your head around the fact that there are more radioactive particles emitted via coal smoke stacks (thorium) every year than in all the nuclear accidents combined. This thorium could be used in the above cycles and could supply our electric needs for 1000 years.
HUGE WISSIN DISCLAIMER: I am not a nuclear physicist and can not independently verify the accuracy of the above articles and particularly the interesting comments therin.
I have been requested to write a “spiritual thoughts” column for our plumbing organization magazine. I am strongly leaning towards the topic of forgiveness. I recently taught a class on that at church, and I had been able to share a personal story on forgiveness, which seemed to touch my kids.
#24 bone
The US is way way way behind on developing nuclear power of any type. All the BANANA greenies out there pretty much killed the industry because of Three Mile Island. The result is we’ve built lots of coal & natural gas plants that produce way more pollution. In fact, coal production and burning throws off more radioactive fallout per year than the entire nuclear power industry has ever thrown off (definitely includes Three Mile Island & may include Chernobyl).
#19 sarge
We still see it entirely too much in this country and in Canada. I have yet to see a non-Lutheran “honor killing” story from North America and I’ve only seen a couple from elsewhere.
In other areas of the world it’s much more often than once a week.
BTW; Bonecrusher & OletimerLin
I went to Alabama over the long weekend and had a great time with my tractor and chain saw, but the best part was when I took the Browning/Winchester model 71 down to the pond and fired off a few rounds. It was printing high and to the left @ 50 Yds. I could understand it being high because it was probably sighted in for 100-150 Yds, but 2” to the left would be almost twice that at 100 Yds. I didn’t bother to adjust the sights because with my old eyes I’m going to need a scope. I had to take off my glasses to see the sights but the target was blurry.
#28 Superdave: So you were printing 2″ to the left eh? What are the chances that it was “operator error” by putting too much finger on the trigger instead just the last digit?
We’re gonna hafta start calling super dave bat-dave, because of his bat-like vision.
Well 5 shots grouping in less than 3′ Off Hand, I don’t think so, very repeatable. FWIW; it didn’t kick all that much, but I was using 200 Grain SP (all I could get) instead of the 250′s.
You know, if’n you get close enough, it won’t matter.
Well, at least they were gawking at her boobs.
*I meant, “weren’t gawking…”
#30 Pyro: I suggest SuperDaveMagoo
Mississippi
The young man from Mississippi came running into the store and said to his buddy, “Bubba, somebody just stole your pickup truck from the parking lot!”
Bubba replied, “Did you see who it was?”
The young man answered, “I couldn’t tell, but I got the license number.”
So much for civility in political discourse
. . . . . . .I wonder what the reaction would be if someone with an “R” attached to their name said something similar?
A man takes his Rottweiler to the vet. ‘My dog is cross-eyed, is there
> anything you can do for him?’ ‘Well,’ said the vet, ‘let’s have a look at
> him.’ So he picks the dog up and examines his eyes, then he checks his
> teeth. Finally, he says, ‘I’m going to have to put him down.’ ‘What?
> Because he’s cross-eyed?’ ‘No, because he’s really heavy.
A man walked into the doctors, and said, ‘I’ve hurt my arm in several
> places.’ The doctor said, ‘Well don’t go there anymore.’
No need to worry about the Wisconsin union thing anymore. Stephen Colbert is on the job.
Good morning Hamsters. Heavy mist/light drizzle and 66 at 5:30, and everything after that has been overcast and gloomy. The front yesterday morning backed up awfully fast after a couple of hours of coolish teasing, and apparently the next one is to do the same. Well, that’s the prognostication anyhow.
According to BadgerBlogger.com the Republican Senators in Wisconsin just created an inducement for the 14 Dems to return to the Capitol through a change in the Senate rules regarding pay. A Senator who is missing from the chamber for more than 2 consecutive days (without a legitimate personal excuse I presume) will be docked pay for as long after that as the absence continues. Furthermore, the absent Senator may not have his/her pay go to the bank by direct deposit. Instead he/she must get the paper check from the Senate Majority Leader in the Senate Chamber.
Legislators in Wisconsin are paid a whole lot more than Texans, and the Lege meets every year for a lot longer than in Texas, so for them it is essentially a fulltime job. Docked pay could hurt a lot.
. . . . . and for our resident pot-head:
Phone answering machine message – ‘…If you want to buy marijuana,
> press the hash key…’
Delaware Supreme Court overturns cinema ruling.
Manager of Dover theater vindicated
Does the government have the right to decide who lives and dies. In Canada, socialized medicine, it does.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/22/canadian-family-fights-babys-beathing-tube-place/
#44 Texakanukian: What, do you mean “DEATH PANELS or something? That could never happen here could it?
/sarc off, spits and pukes
#41 Adee: What would really get their attention would be to cancel their state issued credit cards and make them run up their own bills. The 2 combined would likely induce some more reasonable behavior instead of the cowardly “chicken D” BS we have seen thus far. The Texas chicken D’s did the same thing and they wound up getting their heads handed to them in the following election.
Novel new answer to someone knocking on your porta-potty door while you’re taking care of business: “I’m having a property dispute.“
#42 Bones,
You shouldn’t say bad things about Darren when he’s not here to defend himself.
24 Bonehead,
Are you trying to kick sand in my face? I don’t think I have posted for at least a week or more and I can’t say that I ever remember taking a position on Coal Power, Thorium, or Nukes.
I am just a lowly Engineer working in the rotating equipment business, but I am a good Amateur Astronomer.
Simple
“Constantly evolving” or slip-sliding away?
44 Tex
Even Fox News is reporting that is more to that story than meets the eye.
BOTH the family and the Hospital want to remove the tube.
The family wants the tube removed and have the surgeon do a trach on the infant so he can be transported home to die.
The Hospital Doctors claim that doing the trach on the infant will needlessly extend the agony of dying.
This is a No Win / No Win Situation.
Simple
#49 NO need to get defensive at all. I knew you worked on rotating equipment and thought you would find the articles interesting. There is no claim of advocacy, pro or con, involved.
#46 Bonecrusher, I have relayed that taking away the state credit cards from our own runaway Dems was what brought them back to Austin. I’ve been commenting as Lone Star on BadgerBlogger since Friday. The readers there find it a super idea, so I expect it will receive wider circulation. The Senate changing its rules to hold the Dems checks hostage as well as reduced is a really clever move, umm one that should be filed in the memory banks in Texas….
#50 Hamous, OMG!
Society is doomed! Doomed, I tell you, doomed!
All heterosexual unions will suddenly cease to exist, people will be having sex with ducks in kindergarten classes, and every church sanctuary across the “fruited” plain will be converted to an Abercrombie & Fitch factory outlet store!
Doomed!
52 Bonecrusher,
We like BAT (Best Available Technology requirementsby the EPA). We are in the business of selling equipment and our Low NOx and Low CO Combustion technologies are some of the best in the world.
There was a time when we only sold Low NOx equipment within the United States and Europe…even then it was only in areas that were highly polluted. Twenty years later and Low NOx equipment is commonplace in the third world.
Simple
#51 Simple, very well put.
Bob, how do you feel about the Justice Department abdicating their role in defending the laws of the land? I think that has a much more serious implication to our government.
#57 The actions of the Justice Department are not without precedent, regardless of which half of the duopoly was in control at the time.
As a result of this decision, a challenge to DOMA will reach the supreme court more quickly, and with less money spent. I think it’s long past time to stop wasting time and money on this social conservative religious right wing wedge issue, no matter how scared they are of it.
As usual, ymmv.
Dang, I learn something new everyday. I had never heard of these things.
http://lewis-clark.org/content/content-channel.asp?ChannelID=300
#58 bob
Then repeal it. If it’s the law, it should be enforced by those who have sworn to uphold it, regardless of how the avant garde intellectuelles nouveau of today might see things.
#60 WB, should every law currently on the books be equally enforced at every level of government. Are they?
Is repeal the only acceptable way to get a law off the books? Are their other constitutional methods of doing so?
You should read about the iron boat and the dried soup.
#61 bob
Officials at every level of government swear to uphold those laws within their jurisdiction to do so. That said, there are obviously laws that should be enforced before others, e.g., murder & kidnapping should take precedence over jaywalking. In no case should the executive openly ignore laws that whoever might be in charge at the time wants to. This only breeds contempt for the entire system of jurisprudence.
Yes. (assuming the laws are constitutional) and No. (this is how those that are unconstitutional are dealt with)
I love how our Dear Leader has (1) openly criticized the Supreme Court, (2) defied the Supreme Court, and (3) taken on the power of the Supreme Court. He has also attempted to circumvent the powers of Congress by using czars and regulation in lieu of legislation.
Someone needs to assert the checks and balances in our system, else they will cease to exist, and we will have something closer to a tyranny than a representative democracy.
#59 texanadian Air guns go back as far as the 17 century, I think. They were very powerful and some could be fired more than once before pumping up the cylinder, (an arduous task). I don’t have time to read the article but if memory serves the Injuns thought the rifle was magic.
#65 Lewis would demonstrate the gun and tell them it contained big medicine, scared the heck out of Wagonburner’s ancestors. The Austrian army used them until the 1800′s. The post has a lot of information. There is a video on utube but I can’t access it from my current location.
#63 Every administration has done picking and choosing on what federal laws they focus on. e.g., The Bush admin’s federal prosecutor going after Tommy Chong’s bongs, and perusing the first federal prosecution of written “porn” in decades. In both cases (and others) the prosecutor, with the backing of the Justice department, made what I think are bad decisions, spent a lot of money, and prioritized those “crimes” above other laws.
So, WB, if you think the Justice Dept. should prioritize defending of DOMA, it’s up to you to make a case for the benefits of doing so. Frankly, I don’t see any benefit, at all.
On a lighter note.
Nope. It’s up to you to explain why the executive branch picking and choosing which laws to enforce is constitutional (or is not simply a colossally stupid idea).
US Constitution Article II, Section 3:
I don’t see where it says anything about him deciding which laws should be enforced, which should be ignored, or those that huffy libertinarians say are not the business of the State and should be just erased.
North Carolina
A man in North Carolina had a flat tire, pulled off on the side of the road, and proceeded to put a bouquet of flowers in front of the car and one behind it. Then he got back in the car to wait.
A passerby studied the scene as he drove by and was so curious he turned around and went back. He asked the fellow what the problem was.
The man replied, “I have a flat tire.”
The passerby asked, “But what’s with the flowers?”
The man responded, “When you break down they tell you to put flares in the front and flares in the back. I never did understand it neither.”
#70 WB
In this case, it’s not about which laws are “enforced.” So far, I’ve heard of no federal agency that has violated the DOMA law. The real question is which legal and constitutional challenges to a federal law deserve to have priority and money spent on that in the process.
The ball is in your corner. Why should DOMA be a priority of the Justice department? Justify, and do so with specific arguments, your apparent position in favor spending everyone’s money defending what appears to be a less than beneficial law that was passed for purely reasons in the first place.
#72 bob
I’m not talking about DOMA per se. I’m talking about your willingness to let one person (whoever happens to be president, governor, mayor, whatever) decide which laws to enforce and which not to. You seem to think it’s a really peachy idea. What if the president decided that enforcing anti-discrimination laws was a real waste of time, effort, and expense?
We again see that you’re perfectly willing to agree with one-man legislating as long as you agree with the result, yet you howl like a stuck pig when it goes the other way. You need to work on being more consistent.
#73, I don’t like the drift to the “Imperial Presidency” any more than you do. The office is too powerful. But this is different. There is no constitutional mandate to defend every challenge to every law equally.
So, please tell me why you’re so hot to trot that the Justice dept. should give DOMA the priority you would apparently like it to have. Can you?
The case with this president is a special one once you consider that he is picking and choosing those he himself deems to be “Constitutional: and those he deems not.
While the Constitutionality of DOMA has not been successfully challenged in the court, he deems it unconstitutional, while Obamacare has been deemed unconstitutional by a Federal court with an implict stay issued that affects 22 states, he ignores that and continues to implement thatb law.
It is evern more improper to issue such a policy at a time when the subject statute is being litigated in court, without any stays being issued.
what we have here is a President who ignores stays when they are issued, amd makes them up when they have not been.
But then again, he represents the party that condones fraud being perpetrated on the citizens of Wisconsin by teachers and doctors issuing fake sick slips so the teachers can get paid for taking the day off to protest against his politicval enemies.
#64 Tedtam, Gee that sure adds up to a sackful of items for articles of impeachment, examples of violating the oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
He is consistently inconsistent. He has no need to work on being anything because he is a perfectly evolved being. Shut up and eat your pudding.
Especially if it furthers an agenda you agree with.
That’s the difference between most of us and you Bob.
Things that are wrong are wrong all the time for most of us.
Lest we forget: The siege of the Alamo began 175 years ago today.
No need for prioritizing.
There really is no “enforcement” required as ther are no penalties assessed in the statute.
He just needs to let the various challenges extant work thier proper way through the court, rather than taking gthe courts duties and decisions upon himself.
I really is a very dangerous precedent to set, especially when combined with the court rulings he is currently ignoring.
This is not an “imperial presidency”. He is taking on powers denied to him by the Constution that the founders placed there so that no one branch of government would become too powerful.
#80/78 I get that you don’t like Obama. I’m not fond of him either, and I didn’t vote for him.
The pick & choose behavior of the justice dept. is not his invention, nor is the imperial presidency. It’s been around for a century. Also, would you care to take a look at all the “signing statements” and executive orders that his predecessor did?
btw, Wisconsin has exactly nothing to do with federal defense of DOMA.
How can you have your pudding id you don’t eat your beef?
I have no idea where you got that idea as I never mentioned DOMA specifically. Again, all I am remarking on is that you seem to find it ok for the executive to pick and choose among laws to enforce or ignore.
Who cares what his predecessors did or did not do? Things are either constitutional or they are not. If a signing statement is thought to be unconstitutional, then a challenge should be brought before the courts, just the same as if the law itself were. Ditto executive orders.
Part of the problem with signing statements is that the laws being passed are so convoluted that the president feels a need to state his opinion of their meaning when accepting the responsibility for their enforcement. In my opinion, such laws should be vetoed until a clearer law replaces the ambiguous one.
I would be remiss if I did not, and then compare them to the ones this president has. But we’re not talking about signing statements here. We’re talking enforcement of a law that was signed by Bill Clinton that bot he and his replacement followed.
But it has everything to do with the lawlessness of this President and thus is germaine to the central topic. If it were just DOMA, I may be inclined to agree with you, but this man’s disdain for the laws of this country began when he suspended a central concept of contract law in deciding who was going to be the winners and losers in the GM bailout by giving the Unions preference over the bond holders, and it continues apace (which also makes Wisconsin germaine to the subject, as it appears his lawlessness is done to benefit some citizens monetarily at the expense of others).
For a guy who dislikes Obama, you sure do make a lot of excuses for him.
But you go ahead, there’s more important things to consider than what Obama is doing, right?
Bob follows the Dennis Moore school of politics. Why bother?
Here’s the insidious thing about this:
Obama is like the bad kid in school who makes yo9u complicit in his shoplifting by stealing stuff you like and giving it to you.
Adults know the difference, children go along with it.
Who are these men of lust, greed, and glory?
bob #17;
Sounds like the Left version of Felps.
Wait, did I just classify Felps as “right”? Yuck!
#18;
Seriously, Hamous, speak to HAL Jr. Treating the rest of us like bob is not good for my blood pressure. In fact, it’s annoying. Since you have issue with bob, deal with bob directly.
Heh, bob, my daughter and I made brownies last night and you can’t have any.
Just kidding, you’d more than welcome to have some if you were over. They were good. SAM’S Club bulk purchase.
The issue is never the issue.
#90 darren
Lighten up.
Just popped in after my class. Good class. Only had to move one kid. Had to tell another he couldn’t put his chair at his friend’s table. Other than that, we had an excellent class.
Bob seems to be focusing on the “selective enforcement” of a law.
My big problem: Obama came out and declared the law unconstitutional.
Obama. He did it. Not the Supreme Court. Choosing not to enforce the law is one problem. Declaring himself to be the judicial branch of our government is whole ‘nother issue.
But then, he’s the messiah. He can do that. Or at least try.
bob;
O’s has had a DOMA-free vision of the nation. He’s fighting for the world you are enamoured with. Answering the “challenge” why government should recognize marriage is a no brainer. The dissing of DOMA by Obama’s DOJ is unprecedented. It is very likely to create legal turmoil in the nation and wagonburner’s solution by far is the best one regarding those who are anti-DOMA.
Now, regarding, “the other side” dissing laws as well, let me guess, you probably were quick to say sometihng against the first prosecution of written porn whereas with not enforcing DOMA you’re fine with. You care not at all for the structure and procudure of government like voting and watching out for judges, presidents, Congress, et al; of overstepping their authority so long as the law you deem good is enforced.
You’re a living danger to freedom. And before you respond with an attack on the social cons/me please focus on the issue. I took issue with your disregard for procedure and institutes set up to protect freedom. If it establishes law or policy you like, you don’t care how it is done or whom is over empowered by dong so.
I’m sorry for the rank and file teachers, but y’all gotta pull up your Huggies and deal with your unions.
Providence plans to pink slip all teachers.
wagon #93;
I don’t like my words getting restricted, especially when it’s not from my doing. I’m very fine with conducting myself within established parimeters and checking myself hen I’m called out for getting out of line. This is not a feature restricted due to abusing it or for wrecking havoc on this program’s usability. This is a restriction on my use of a word. That is annoying.
My dos centavos.
Tedtam;
Actually, my understanding is that Obama came out and declared a portion of a law unconstitutional and left the rest in tact. Personally, I don’t have a problem with a president declaring any law pr any portion of any law unconstitutional so long as he is sincere in doing so. But, again, wagonburner made a very good point: it **IS** the law and should be enforced. For those who do not like the law, repeal it.
Ya know what? I enjoy the interaction here, but when it comes down to it, this is MY blog. I will run it in any manner I see fit. You’re free to make suggestions but I’m not sure how you got the impression that you can control it. I can tell you this – the hubris exhibited in the above quotes is most certainly not the way to convince me into acting on your suggestions. I suggest you read the first and last sentences of the disclaimer below.
#98 Darren
Well, that’s nice of you. I refuse to grant the executive office of the President the powers constitutionally granted to either the Legislative or Judicial branches, even if he’s sincere.
I’m sure there’s more than one tyrant in our history that started out sincerely thinking he was doing the right thing.
Whew… that’s a relief. Since my issues aren’t an issue, no worries.
Oh but if I went ’round sayin’ I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away.
One of the powers of a president IS to decide what is constitutional and what is not. I is NOT to disregard a law “just because” he thinks it is unconstitutional. DOMA is the law of the land and should be enforced despite what Obama thinks of it. He’s free to declare it unconstitutional and oppose it; but it should be enforced.
LOL. Argue with your better half long enough you discover the issue is really yo butt.
Heh… all bets are off at that point.
Hamous;
I enjoy the interaction here as well. I also enjoy the free expression of thought. I find that expression hindered when words become banned from being used. And, yes, annoying. Whether or not you’re convinced by my words is up to you. Yes, you now have cause to dig in and not budge because I came out too bold regarding your word restriction. This does not at all mean I do not recognize that this is your blog and the bottom line is that the decisions of conduct falls to you. I chose to be frank as this is a pet peeve of mine and perhaps you being “told what to do”, which I have not done other than express myself, is yours. So be it. You know my position on this matter.
Christine O’Donnell asked to be on Dancing with the Stars. Please go away lady, you’ve served your purpose and we thank you.
Dude #106;
GJT #108;
#104 Darrent
Um, no. He can personally THINK a law is unconstitutional. So can my cat. It doesn’t change the fact that it is legislation voted into law by representatives of the citizenry.
He can decide not to enforce it. His hand can be forced through legal means, as well as elections. His DOJ is required to uphold the law, and not doing so should be challenged by the states. Not enforcing a law does not take it off the books, it just makes him constitutionally stupid and incredibly arrogant.
To come out and as President and declare a law unconstitutional, and state that as the reason why enforcement will not occur – that is stepping over a boundary that leads to the destruction of the system of checks and balances that is supposed to keep one branch of government from becoming too powerful.
Again, it’s not a question of enforcement, folks.
It’s a question of defending, in federal courts, challenges against a law. Every president’s justice dept. has had the power to pick and chose the cases they prioritize and spend our money on.
Are we getting our money’s worth out of defending DOMA? Make a positive fiscal case for doing so, if you can.
Found a mixed bag of goodies on The Couch today. A lot of corny jokes, and a lot of bickering. Is mesonoxian the banned word? Naw, couldn’t be that, I never saw that word anywhere but here. Guess I’ll find out when I hit Post Comment.
Glad for the discussion about the propriety of a president and his executive branch minions declaring anything unconstitutional, that was constructive.
What you chose to do is tick me off. What you chose to do is try and moderate the moderator.
I’ve installed other plugins and, when the general feeling was expressed in a respectful manner, deactivated them. There’s no “digging in”. Don’t demand anything from me.
Tedtam;
I think we’re arguing about something we agree on. The president may declare any law unconstitutional but he’s not free to disregard the enforcement of established law. I, for example, and 100,000% convinced that the federal income tax is unconstitutional but you bet I’d enforce it **while** trying to reduce or eliminate it.
Let me clarify. He is not the **sole** decision in **deciding** the constitutionality of any given law but, yes, he absolutely may **declare** a law unconstitutional. By that I do not mean he may give a law legal unconstitutional status.
Take the following into consideration:
LINK
At that point Bush should have whipped out the pen and vetoed campaign-finance reform. Likewise let’s say a fictatious conservative president followed Bush (ironically it would have been McCain had the Republicans won the that presidential election) and felt the exact same way as Bush. Well, by that point McCain-Feingold would have been law and despite his opposition it should be upheld.
Hope that’s more clear as to what I was getting at.
Not too sure about that one. Barf kitty may have better judgement than many people, but I’m not sure (s)he is up to ConLaw just yet.
If the President thinks legislation is unconstitutional, he has a duty and obligation to veto it. Once the (a, any) President signs a bill into law, there are two ways to get rid of it: repeal it through legislation, or convince the courts it is unconstitutional.
Hamous;
Apologies to ticking you off. For the record I did NOT think, “how can I tick off Hamous? Oh ,yeah, by being frank.” This just happens to be a pet peeve of mine and obviously I’ve found yours.
I have not tried to “moderate the moderator” in any way, shape, or form. I simply dislike what the moderator haos done. I thought it fun the first day but not beyond. I think at this point any offense the moderator takes regarding this matter is his own choice.
If you could please take issue you have with bob up with bob directly, I would appreciate that. Personally, I do not like to be treated as if I was an offending person when I am not.
(From hubris to humility, I took the lead)
No president should be able to “declare” a law unconstitutional. He or she might express such an opinion as freely as you or I, but doing so carries no weight.
Or simply instruct the justice dept. to give it a lower priority than other constitutional challenges to questionable laws.
The plot thickens……
I love it when bob defeats his argument with his own argument. It makes my job so much easier.
Goooooooooo, bob!!!!!
#121 Darren, can you name a case when DOMA was “enforced” after a government entity violated that law?
My argument is that there is a big difference between enforcing a law, and spending money defending a legal challenge against it.
My argument stands unchallenged.
#119;
I can. You can. Why can’t the president?
Or tell the DOJ not to defend in court? In effect, treating it as unconstitutional after declaring it unconstitutional?
But no worries for the New Black Panthers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/bethersmi/doma-unconstitutional-gay-rights-groups-celebrate_n_827355_78473773.html
#122;
Not really. The only legitimate time would be when marriage crosses state lines.
#124 darren
IOW – He’s trying to play both sides of the issue because he doesn’t know how to make a decision.
Context, Darren, context.
Portions of the DOMA have already been judged unconstitutional. Again, what’s the benefit of spending taxpayer dollars on that dead horse? That is the question that nobody seems willing or able to answer rationally.
But let’s take it up tomorrow. I think it’s approaching your bedtime (and mine too.)
I agree the DOJ should theoretically defend the laws of the land, but in reality would we want them to if they didn’t agree with it? Sabotage comes to mind.
Like section 3? What court ruled it unconstitutional I wonder?
To define am marriage? Are you kidding? You telling me that you (used generically) can declare yourself married to one of your own children to get federal benefits? The only thingf DOMA does is not obligate one state to accept the marriage of another. This is a federal(istic) issue. States should define marriage but we also have the constitutional obligation that a contract made in one state must be recognized in another state. DOMA simply disallows a gay marriage performed in one state being enforced in another where their laws may prohibit such a marriage. By ignoring DOMA you’re essentially forcing all states to accept whatever one state accepts as marriage.
Satire what you will regarding gays, people will push laws to their limits and beyond, defining marriage is essential for any society to prosper.
Already beyond my bedtime. I’m slipping.
Good night, all.
Hamous, you know I luvs ya and your website.
‘That’s Assault!’: Union Protester Whacks Young FreedomWorks Activist
Just remember, folks, violent rhetoric almost always comes from the right.