Sunday, April 29, 2007
There is more than one way to skin a cat... or a President
“What I’m saying, there’s four ways to influence a president. And one of them’s impeachment,” Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
Rep. Murtha sees impeachment as a way to "influence a president."
Similarly, filing foundless charges against the owner of a porn shop is a way to drive him out of town. Likewise, the best way to shut down a nuisance bar is to stage an underage alcohol buy and the best way to disuade kids from smoking is to covertly introduce PCP into the filler tobacco.
Look guys... the Dems were put into power to END THIS KIND OF SENSELESS crap!!!
We held ourselves up as the party of right, the party that would not be corrupted by power, that would obey the law and not make a spectacle of political process. If our party leaders have something, USE IT; not to "influence" him, but to remove him. This is the ONLY legitimate use of the power.
If we don't have anything to remove him, than make sure you don't over-reach.
This comes back, of course, to a basic rule of law... the public is not as gullible as we think and, when they see through our charade, they hate us for our trying to dupe them. This is true for litigators and for legislators.
Murtha... you and the other loudmouths should stop fishing for trouble. There is more than enough to do without manufacturing work.
Read more!
Rep. Murtha sees impeachment as a way to "influence a president."
Similarly, filing foundless charges against the owner of a porn shop is a way to drive him out of town. Likewise, the best way to shut down a nuisance bar is to stage an underage alcohol buy and the best way to disuade kids from smoking is to covertly introduce PCP into the filler tobacco.
Look guys... the Dems were put into power to END THIS KIND OF SENSELESS crap!!!
We held ourselves up as the party of right, the party that would not be corrupted by power, that would obey the law and not make a spectacle of political process. If our party leaders have something, USE IT; not to "influence" him, but to remove him. This is the ONLY legitimate use of the power.
If we don't have anything to remove him, than make sure you don't over-reach.
This comes back, of course, to a basic rule of law... the public is not as gullible as we think and, when they see through our charade, they hate us for our trying to dupe them. This is true for litigators and for legislators.
Murtha... you and the other loudmouths should stop fishing for trouble. There is more than enough to do without manufacturing work.
Read more!
Saturday, April 21, 2007
DC voting rights and standing
The House has voted to give DC full voting rights in Congress. The bill has moved to the Senate, where passage is somewhat in doubt. And if the Senate does pass the bill, I'm not sure whether the President will sign it.
Let's just assume that this passes and is signed by President Bush. What would be the route to question the bill's constitutionality? Putting aside the question of whether this is constitutional, who would have standing to even bring a suit before the Court?
The only way I could imagine that this would be challenged is by a citizen claiming that his representation has been diluted by DC's Congressional representative (I'm not sure that Utah's additional rep - granted as a compromise - would be included in the same case). Sure it's a flimsy argument, but I don't see how any other party could gain standing to sue.
Any other ideas?
Read more!
Let's just assume that this passes and is signed by President Bush. What would be the route to question the bill's constitutionality? Putting aside the question of whether this is constitutional, who would have standing to even bring a suit before the Court?
The only way I could imagine that this would be challenged is by a citizen claiming that his representation has been diluted by DC's Congressional representative (I'm not sure that Utah's additional rep - granted as a compromise - would be included in the same case). Sure it's a flimsy argument, but I don't see how any other party could gain standing to sue.
Any other ideas?
Labels: constitutional law, DC vote, standing
Read more!
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Here We Go Again
As the "blame the guns" game sadly begins following the tragedy at Virginia Tech, I again am amazed at just how inconsistent these types can be.
Officers believe he repeatedly watched "Oldboy" as part of his preparation for the killing spree. The film, which won the Grand Prix award at the 2004 Cannes film festival, has been described as "an ultra-violent movie of obsession and revenge". It contains stylised scenes of killings and an attempted suicide, and is filled with what one critic called "punishing emotional violence".
Hmmmm. If we're blaming the guns, how about blaming the movies when the killer left behind overwhelming evidence of his inspiration? If guns can kill people all by themselves, perhaps we should start to ask more seriously if violent movies and music actually cause death too? Therefore an attack on the 1st amendment would be just as warranted as an attack on the 2nd amendment.
But you won't hear that message from Hollywood or most liberal anti-gun crusaders. Hollywood consistently asks for the American people's money while offering a message of "do as I say, not as I do." As the entertainment industry generally opposes gun rights for ordinary people, they are surrounded by bodyguards licensed to carry heat. And then they consistently use guns and violence as a theme for their music, tv, and movies.
Yet you'll never hear the suggestion from them of chipping away at the 1st amendment or that its freedoms were meant for a different time and place. So let's be consistent. If you really want to tear up the Bill of Rights and re-write a constitution in the name of oppresive security, then let's do it. Afterall, many fallen socialist governments have left behind great examples for us to follow. But if not, let us defend ALL of our freedoms even at a time like this when it isn't fashionable or fun.
Read more!
Officers believe he repeatedly watched "Oldboy" as part of his preparation for the killing spree. The film, which won the Grand Prix award at the 2004 Cannes film festival, has been described as "an ultra-violent movie of obsession and revenge". It contains stylised scenes of killings and an attempted suicide, and is filled with what one critic called "punishing emotional violence".
Hmmmm. If we're blaming the guns, how about blaming the movies when the killer left behind overwhelming evidence of his inspiration? If guns can kill people all by themselves, perhaps we should start to ask more seriously if violent movies and music actually cause death too? Therefore an attack on the 1st amendment would be just as warranted as an attack on the 2nd amendment.
But you won't hear that message from Hollywood or most liberal anti-gun crusaders. Hollywood consistently asks for the American people's money while offering a message of "do as I say, not as I do." As the entertainment industry generally opposes gun rights for ordinary people, they are surrounded by bodyguards licensed to carry heat. And then they consistently use guns and violence as a theme for their music, tv, and movies.
Yet you'll never hear the suggestion from them of chipping away at the 1st amendment or that its freedoms were meant for a different time and place. So let's be consistent. If you really want to tear up the Bill of Rights and re-write a constitution in the name of oppresive security, then let's do it. Afterall, many fallen socialist governments have left behind great examples for us to follow. But if not, let us defend ALL of our freedoms even at a time like this when it isn't fashionable or fun.
Read more!
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Hell Freezeth Over
And I'm not referring to the 1 foot of April snow currently falling in the Northeast either!
Former House Speaker and possible presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and 2004 Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) are set to square off on climate change next week, their staffs announced Thursday.
I'm undecided on global warming. As a fisherman, an environmentalist, and a Florida resident, the issue of rising sea levels and rising sea temperatures greatly affects my family's future. However, I'm also not prepared to abandon America's ability to compete fairly in the global trade wars by blaming everything on our big business. We need them too.
I often don't know what to think. So I think debates such as these are great ideas. If such open debate is actually allowed to flourish with the participation of leading politicians (if not thinkers), I do think a consensus will emerge over time. And we desperately need that in this and other areas. Kudos to Gingrich and Kerry. I'll be watching. Now if only Cheney would agree to a debate with Murtha!
Read more!
Former House Speaker and possible presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and 2004 Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) are set to square off on climate change next week, their staffs announced Thursday.
I'm undecided on global warming. As a fisherman, an environmentalist, and a Florida resident, the issue of rising sea levels and rising sea temperatures greatly affects my family's future. However, I'm also not prepared to abandon America's ability to compete fairly in the global trade wars by blaming everything on our big business. We need them too.
I often don't know what to think. So I think debates such as these are great ideas. If such open debate is actually allowed to flourish with the participation of leading politicians (if not thinkers), I do think a consensus will emerge over time. And we desperately need that in this and other areas. Kudos to Gingrich and Kerry. I'll be watching. Now if only Cheney would agree to a debate with Murtha!
Read more!
McCain and Iraq
A quick note on John McCain who so far is being out-fundraised by both Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. I continue to like McCain for several non-Iraq reasons such as his outsider tendencies and his military background. Yet, increasingly I become convinced that his Iraqi policies may indeed doom his chances of becoming president.
To McCain's credit, he consistently supported a larger and stronger American show of force in Iraq when it was desperately needed back in 2003-2005 -- while the current administration believed a smaller and sleeker military would work better. McCain was correct.
But now McCain is making the Bush-esque mistake of viewing Iraq with rose colored glasses. After a recent trip to Baghdad, McCain reported things were much better than expected and that the media was actually at fault for under-reporting the progress being made.
Perhaps. But the actual correspondents on the ground have now fired back. And it should be noted they do so without the the benefit of McCain's military-enforced around-the-clock security detail.
CBS News' Allen Pizzey: "Now, McCain and some other senators were there on Sunday, and they claimed, "Oh, we walked around for a whole hour…and we drove in from the airport. Gosh, aren't we great, we drove in from the airport." Excuse me, Mr. McCain, you drove in in a large convoy of heavily armed vehicles. The last one had a sign on it saying "Keep back 100 yards. Deadly force authorized." Every single car that they approached or passed pulled over and stopped, because that's the way it is. When one of those security details goes by, every ordinary person gets the hell out of the way, in case they get shot.
Read more!
To McCain's credit, he consistently supported a larger and stronger American show of force in Iraq when it was desperately needed back in 2003-2005 -- while the current administration believed a smaller and sleeker military would work better. McCain was correct.
But now McCain is making the Bush-esque mistake of viewing Iraq with rose colored glasses. After a recent trip to Baghdad, McCain reported things were much better than expected and that the media was actually at fault for under-reporting the progress being made.
Perhaps. But the actual correspondents on the ground have now fired back. And it should be noted they do so without the the benefit of McCain's military-enforced around-the-clock security detail.
CBS News' Allen Pizzey: "Now, McCain and some other senators were there on Sunday, and they claimed, "Oh, we walked around for a whole hour…and we drove in from the airport. Gosh, aren't we great, we drove in from the airport." Excuse me, Mr. McCain, you drove in in a large convoy of heavily armed vehicles. The last one had a sign on it saying "Keep back 100 yards. Deadly force authorized." Every single car that they approached or passed pulled over and stopped, because that's the way it is. When one of those security details goes by, every ordinary person gets the hell out of the way, in case they get shot.
Read more!
