Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by ProdigalHorn, Dec 6, 2018.
Now that’s no malarkey there.
Good points. I'm not sure that the Left per se opposes states rights. I don't think they're that ideological about it. They oppose them when a state is hostile to their agenda. However, when a state is doing their dirty work (See California.), they're all for states' rights.
In the legal world, the fact that state power was negotiated doesn't diminish them. They were diminished because of policy differences, and some of the diminishment was legitimate (actual changes in the law) and some was illegitimate (bogus court decisions).
States' rights were very much respected for the first several decades. Their rights and powers came by design. The Constitution set up a framework that gave the federal government enumerated power and the states general power. It did this by listing out the federal powers but only listing out powers denied to the states and granting states the Tenth Amendment. It also gave the states significant power to protect its rights by giving it direct influence within the federal government. As you mentioned, the electoral college gives the states power to select the president. (The choose to hold elections, but they don't have to.) However, they also had the power to choose their US senators, and remember that the Senate confirms judges. That made it much harder for a state-hating judge to get on the Supreme Court.
The diminishment of states' rights came first through constitutional amendments. We outlawed slavery (13th Amendment) and made racial discrimination in voting rights illegal (15th Amendment). As important as the were, they were very much products of their time. Had those things not been passed, would we still have slavery or explicit denials of the vote to blacks? I don't think any serious thinker believes that.
The bigger long-term change was requiring states to grant equal protection of its laws and not deny life, liberty, or property without due process of law (14th Amendment). That kind of imprecise and broad language gave the courts a lot of wiggle room to challenge state actions, and it became the big vehicle by which states lost rights. For the first several decades, the courts interpreted the 14th Amendment fairly narrowly.
However, in 1913 states lost the power to choose their senators and therefore their voice in selecting the federal judiciary. Once that happened, there was nothing to hold back the courts, and they ran wild by essentially turning the 14th Amendment into a judicial veto over all state laws and interpreting the federal powers ridiculously broadly, especially starting with the New Deal. That slowed down in the 1970s and even reversed a little with the Rehnquist Court in the '90s, but that was by interpreting federal power less broadly, not by narrowing the 14th Amendment's application.
The Roberts Court has done a little to help but not much. We need at least one and perhaps two more justices who actually know what a judge's job is to really make an impact. Roberts and probably Kavanaugh are willing to help a little, but they don't have an ideological belief in it. Accordingly, they aren't going to do anything big.
I dont know how these people are able to look at themselves in the morning each new day
It's pretty embarrassing how Beto and Kamala were basically crushed when so many people fell for their virtue signaling arrogance.
And so now who is left to virtue signal on the behalf of all the other virtue signalers?
Basically nuttin but a bunch old white folk (Sanders, Warren, Biden, Buttigieg, Steyer, Bloomberg & SlobberKlobuchar). And maybe ol Hillsy. Does this make them white supremacists?
it's kind of funny watching the media today, it is as if they only now realized Warren is white too.
The Dems who have dropped out have spent $74M pursuing their failed bids
The spent $74M on their own name brand recognition. This was completely about their egos and personal ambitions.
Imagine if that $74 million had gone to the poor...
Running for President is an expensive hobby.
I have a theory about diversity. If green is green, it shouldn't take a white male to declare it to be so. Every other demographic should also be able to identify green as green. Same as accounting (I'm a CPA). GAAP is GAAP and a man, a woman, a trans, a black etc. should all be able to apply GAAP properly. Diversity does not mean GAAP has changed. Now, pretend green or GAAP is existing law. Why can't every demographic see it as the same law? That is what diversity has become; not that any demographic can get to the same correct answer, but instead it has become that diversity means different answers when only one is correct.
Diversity should mean that anyone can be as competent as the next person regardless of their demographic. It does not necessarily mean a completely different world view when the language of the law is clear.
As for diversity meaning a different answer, then that would be in the arena of changing the law. But changing the law should not be looking at existing law and interpreting it differently. It would mean Congress would debate the change and pass a law. Then once enacted, the judge, regardless of demographic should interpret it the same, which goes back to my point above.
They are corrupt. They believe in their goodness (or lust for power) so much that they have deluded themselves into an evangelical state that they believe something has commanded them to behave as sanctimonious arrogant hypocrites.
After that post I do not see a future in politics for you. Too logical.
Ironically, I must quote a Liberal on the idea of being a politician:
"Speak out you got to speak out against the madness
You got to speak your mind if you dare
But don't, no don't, no, try to get yourself elected
If you do you had better cut your hair, mmm"
Long Time Gone
More unconstitutional garbage from Warren:
Elizabeth Warren Wants To Help Workers With Unpredictable Schedules
That is one of the funny things about the SAT. It has undergone multiple changes over years, with the intention of reflecting whatever social ideas and theories they want reflected. But the SATs keep putting out the same results.
I find that hilarious.
That NYT guy simple refused to give the direct and honest answer. He was acting like a politician or political surrogate whose job it was not to answer questions but simply to repeat a talking point.
But he is not a politician or a surrogate, he is professional journalist. And so his behavior is a huge problem.
Self-flagellation is such a nauseating look.
She has already blamed racism for dropping out. Not that the donations dried up. Not her pathetic polling numbers. Not that no one had a clue what she stood for.
But that is a tricky argument. Because she cannot blame Republicans or Fox News or Trump given this is her own party's primary.
So just what exactly is she saying?
If we had an honest media, one of them would have already asked her this question. But they havent. And they wont.
It's called a white majority. And yet which side say's Trump is subverting our democracy (which we're not)? I don't think they are able to find the common thread to explain their losses. Let me help: You are vile people with no leadership qualities at all. It's not about racism. It's about your hatred and inability to inspire our NATION.
I have to admit I did not know Natl Review spent time on anyone other than Trump
Sounds like O'Keefe has some new totally hidden video getting ready to drop, from inside one of the Dem campaigns. Where they talk about wealth confiscation by force.
This idea is not exactly original, we've seen this idea play out many times before, from Russia through Venezuela. Yet these people seem to think they are the first to think of it, or at least "it will work this time because WE are different!" Erm, no you're not and no it won't. Think about it -- if you were super wealthy and saw this coming, what would you do? Would you just sit there and let them roll over you? Or would you take whatever steps are necessary to protect yourself and your family?
Could not have happened to a nicer skank.
You sound a lot like Charles C. Cooke (see 3 posts up)
In fact, I have to admit Ive never seen the two of you in the same room at the same time
She can always go back to screwing Willie Brown.
There is a cadre of political kingmakers, on each side, who target people like this each season. As you point out, the target candidate must possess the requisite ago. But it's more than that, they must also have the assets to spend up front to get the ball rolling -- campaigns do not pay for themselves. Every season, they identify new potential candidates -- not really having anything to do with whether they could actually win an election but whether they can afford this cadre of consultants. They identify their targets and then use their own ego against them to manipulate the target into thinking they can win. But make no mistake, the primary motivation here is that the consultants remain employed and able pay their own bills. I have personally been a witness to this process and it is quite an amazing thing to see happen.
If you think of it in these terms, then it is much easier to understand what the heck some of these losers were thinking by entering whatever race they entered. They got talked into it. Persuaded. Or manipulated if you prefer (Beto holla). And this, once again, explains one of the ways that the counties around DC are always among the richest per capita in the country. But it's not limited to DC. I saw it happen up close and personal in Travis County.
Inspired by Kamala's campaign failures.
"I'd like to do a song of great social and political import... it goes like this...
"Oh Lord, won't you buy me, a Mercedes Benz..."
Oh wait... wrong one...
Politics is not a game of reason or truth. It is a game of power that seeks to capitalize upon the emotional impairment of the people.
The accumulation of power should not be gained through hatred but instead by a combination of forward thinking intellect and compassion for those truly in need. Hatred is not leadership. Anarchy is not leadership. You cannot lead a nation by division though there are limits to everything in terms of resources along with safeguards against abuse. There will always be someone with a justifiable feeling of marginalization and there will always be someone who must make the hard decisions for the union.
Extremism will cause rational truth seekers in your own party to reject your message. A majority is not by default a belief in your own supremacy; it is a numbers game that will become more pronounced in a tribal society. A democracy is majority rule and minority abuse. We are not designed at the federal level as a democracy. That's why we have an electoral college and the bill of rights. But abuses do occur. Watch for them and cherish the separation of powers and constitutional safeguards against the ambitions and tyranny of the majority almost as much as you cherish your own life because it may be your life that is in someone's way.
Think and act kindly. Think and act intelligently. Do not rely upon rhetoric from powerful people to create your own self-image. Do not allow rhetoric from powerful people make you hate someone you've never met. Do not think politically as you will find yourself creating a political mind in others that do not think that way. Your assumptions will then create division.
You have the ability to be the vision you have for the nation.
That is your personal power.
My take on the two recent dropouts:
Beto—all style, no substance. A total lightweight.
Kamala—incredibly unlikeable. Mean, bitter, venom-tongued, negative charisma. Each debate made her look worse and worse.