The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[miked]

Yeah, I mean if Jon has no say in what you get to do in your personal life, what's the point?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

There's also the whole thing where Ron Paul believes in state's rights unless you happen to be pregnant. Then he has no problem voting for federal abortion laws.

While I myself am pro-choice, I don't see how this is inconsistent. Murder laws are not a state's rights issue.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

You have to realize and I'm sure you do that for many conservatives, that'd be a feature, not a bug of state's rights.

*nods*

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Because if you want it to be a 'state issue', you wouldn't vote for a bill than bans late term abortions on a federal level regardless of your position on choice.

... which he obviously doesn't. I would imagine that if he feels abortion is murder, then he wouldn't be inconsistent in thinking it a federal issue.

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Maybe those making the average income should budget better.

The example he showed where 50K leads to only 100-200 a month in marginal spending was a pretty tight budget (just a mortgage and the most basic expenses you would expect a family to live off of).

I'm a big fan of taking a tight budget approach and reducing your debts down to zero as quickly as possible. Even as a single man making more than 50K at the time, it can be a pretty boring life. With all the taxes and expenses you pay in that bracket you can easily have trouble keeping afloat or building up savings. This isn't 50K back in the good old days you may remember where it was a lot of money... inflation has been ticking up higher than wages for a while now (even faster if you use better statistics than the gamed CPI). If any of you are making more than 50K and have debt beyond your mortgage you should just shut up about average incomes budgeting better, you have more resources and you still can't do what you just assume everyone else should.

-----

As for removing the cap on the social security and medicare taxes, I'd be fine with just removing the tax on everyone. Turn social security into an individual retirement account backed by government bonds (i.e. the supposedly 'no risk' investment portfolio). You pay as much money into it as you want (but you have no control over the investment) and it is tax free until you take it out. If they want to mandate some percent of your salary up to 100K is required, so be it. The problem with this 'pool' approach is its so easy to steal from and it doesn't compute mathematically so they keep bumping the age in the hopes of people dying off or penalizing them to reduce costs. It is another example of negative incentives plaguing a system. If it was all individual based there would be no need to set an age limit beyond 55 or 60.

You have to figure out how to clean up the mess they already created, but you don't make any progress by burning money at full speed and pointing to demographic statistics to explain the failure of a bad system design in the first place.

-----

I don't consider Social Security a 'redistributive success', it has some nice side effects and a good goal in theory... help take care of old people who have worked their whole life but probably don't have investment skills. The problem is it has been raided by Congress repeatedly, the funds were not truly invested like they should have been, and its built to extract just from the working class to handle an obligation that stresses the working class economy.

People are expected to save for retirement, properly raise a family, and oh ya spend enough money to keep our consumption crazed economy alive. The math doesn't add up, and its even worse when you put on tax burdens to take a lot of that money right off the top (10% FICA, 20-30% income tax on the middle class). Social Security, as structured, is a weight that is slowing down the sector of the economy that is the most important for sustained economic growth (the middle class).

Not to mention its a failure because the only options it has to reduce costs is to increase human suffering (penalties for early withdrawl, increasing the age limits to collect higher and higher, decreasing what is covered for Medicare, donut holes and what not). It means we are paying in a ton of money with an expectation that the quality of service we receive in return will be crap. I'd rather have people have 10% more of their money throughout their life, than forced 'savings' they cannot collect until they are 80, and benefits that don't cover anything.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Except he's said repeatedly and let me quote him on this, "The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it." Expanding federal abortion regulation is not getting the federal government out of it.

I believe that was in the context of determining the criminal penalty for the breaking of the law. I don't see that as the same as the federal government determining murder is illegal.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Except he's said repeatedly and let me quote him on this, "The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it." Expanding federal abortion regulation is not getting the federal government out of it.

DING DING DING!!!

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I hate this black or white stance on issues. Regulation is sometimes good and it's sometimes bad.

Deregulation in my opinion is good on moral grounds. As a business owner, why should I have to pay a guy who is only worth $3/hour, $7 hour? Not only does that hurt my bottom line, but it hurts those who have skills. Because the guy who has a skill and makes $25/hour, now has to take a $4/hour cut because some bum needs to hit the minimum wage. The moral issue is punishing those who better our society.

Regulation is bad when it's used to dumb down society too. I'm sorry, but if you signed a shitty mortgage, that's on you. If you picked up a credit card that has 30% interest, that's on you. When you start telling society that they don't have to be smart enough to read a piece of fucking paper before they take out a $300,000 loan, then you're hurting it as a whole.

On the other hand, regulation is good when it betters society. Banks should not be allowed to get too big where their failure destroys our economy. A business should not be allowed to control so much marketshare that it dramatically hurts most of its citizens. They shouldn't be able to create unsafe working conditions.

It's not about whether regulation is good or bad, it's about whether this particular one is good or bad for the country.

As a business owner, if you pay any employee more than they are worth, you fire the employee. That is stupidity on your part. A reasonable minimum wage is fine, if you don't have the brainpower to process basic cost/benefit analysis please get the hell out of business, there are enough of you clogging the arteries as it is (e.g. Wall Street).

Regulations are useful for creating systems, you want systems with positive incentive mechanisms that have minimal inhibition to growth. This usually means limited but powerful regulations that have teeth.

If you want to fight minimum wage, you make a claim that it reduces lower class employment since it unreasonably sets the price of labor at a point where many jobs don't provide net benefit. The argument that you reduce payments to skilled workers because of it is logically corrupt. The argument that you pay more than a job is worth is logically moronic. If the job is necessary for you to create product (i.e. a veggie pickin migrant to get your product out of the field) than it is a cost of doing business. If your product isn't worth all of its costs, you don't have a business anymore, liquidate the situation to whatever gets you the most money.

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I think "isn't quite" is probably understating it considerably.

I don't believe most people have enough sense for libertarianism to be remotely desirable, and without the social conservatism aspect there'd be no chance I'd have become a GOP supporter. As fiscally conservative as I may be, those issues take a tremendous back seat to social concerns for me.

Nothing wrong with supporting the platform you want, I at least appreciate that you understand what you want most of the time and have some backbone. I just wish more Republicans would attack Paul on platform grounds rather than names like 'paultards', it demeans the attackers more than the attacked.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

DING DING DING!!!

Actually, no?

http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm

Agree or disagree, I think he's perfectly consistent.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Actually, no?

http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm

Agree or disagree, I think he's perfectly consistent.

Don't let the facts get in the way of SteveBollea trying to discredit Ron Paul on one issue out of 1000's. He nailed him! Obviously then Paul is just as bad as McCain and Palin. So back to partisan potshots and simple arguments about Fox News and racist tea party attendees.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

Even Ron Paul has said you are not going to kill Social Security and Medicare over night. No doubt the propaganda will say he's going to throw granny out on the street to the wolves, but if anyone paid attention to the guy he makes a calm and well reasoned argument... it might not be one you agree with, but I have to say he seems to show a lot more class than his opposition.

As far as I've heard, his plan for Social Security and Medicare is to phase them out over time. Given they are likely to collapse from their own weight by the time most 40 year olds are due to collect, it might make sense to set up a gradual transition rather than let the programs just explode (they will because all those FICA taxes have been pirated to fuel spending and pork so instead of building up an investment, the accounts are all IOUs).

I'll be the first to counter some of Paul's arguments, but at the same time a number of things he is saying are based on real facts that the 'party' (Republicrats) deliberately ignores.

I'd also venture that Paul isn't quite the party that Jon supports, he promotes a platform he considers 'traditional Republican values' which have never truly been embraced by the real party which is really a shadow puppet for big money in the modern area (under the facade of religious populism). Paul is essentially a pure libertarian platform, socially liberal (under the guise of state rights) and fiscally conservative (in the classical sense of the term, not the Reagonomics sense).

Its really quite annoying that his own party tries to treat him like he is garbage when he at least presents himself with class and true conviction at all times. All they need to say is that they don't agree with his policies, the problem is they don't have a platform of their own (until their lobbyists write it for them) so they just resort to namecalling and playing to their Fox News handlers. I lean Democrat but after the most recent disgrace I'd vote for Paul, Kucinich, or any 'party-rebel' type in a heartbeat before another party stooge candidate. I'm sick of the smug two party hollow puppets and their low class, low honesty personalities.

+1

I found a candidate that articulates how I truly feel like no other candidate ever has. Do I agree with him on everything? No. But he has views that appear to care about individuals before business and corporations. (I agree with you that Kucinich has different views than mine but also seems to be consistent to trying to help people before corporations) That is why the corporations have such hatred for both. Why individual people do is beyond me?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

it creates social disparities and issues - what about the married gay couple from MA who want to travel to TX on vacation and one of the partners gets critically injured - all of a sudden his husband doesn't have the same rights with regard to making medical decisions or visiting him in the hospital that he would have in MA? That's just a mess, and just one simple example of the issues with that.

This is why free markets "fix" such things. If a state does not support gay marriage/couples to this extent then it will be losing a significant share of business & ancillary spending from this group. This decreases demand, which decreases the revenue for the local businesses.

It may take longer than you prefer, but such is the way social change occurs naturally. But I really think you (figuratively) should strongly think of the consequences of imposing federal mandates on every state. It may be fine when you agree with them principally...but what happens when you (and your state's majority) don't? Just sayin...

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

This is why free markets "fix" such things. If a state does not support gay marriage/couples to this extent then it will be losing a significant share of business & ancillary spending from this group. This decreases demand, which decreases the revenue for the local businesses.

It may take longer than you prefer, but such is the way social change occurs naturally. But I really think you (figuratively) should strongly think of the consequences of imposing federal mandates on every state. It may be fine when you agree with them principally...but what happens when you (and your state's majority) don't? Just sayin...

the free market can't fix the idea of "oh no's we were driving through state x when my (gay) spouse had a massive heart attack and now i can't make their medical decisions for them."

Plus - what if somebody has a very specific job and could only live in one of a few places. Are you trying to say they should have to choose between being able to make a living and support themself, and denying a fundamental part of who they are?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

It may take longer than you prefer, but such is the way social change occurs naturally. But I really think you (figuratively) should strongly think of the consequences of imposing federal mandates on every state. It may be fine when you agree with them principally...but what happens when you (and your state's majority) don't? Just sayin...

All of the things that I would impose on every state are focused on inclusion, treating everyone equally, and basic civil rights. That's a fundamental belief that I have. As long as those federal mandates are focused on inclusion and treating folks equally I won't disagree with any of them. Regardless of my personal feelings about say Muslims (for example).

That's the difference between a society focused on equality and basic rights and one focused on exclusion and denying rights to classes of people. I don't have to be afraid of everybody being equal and having basic rights.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

The free market had 100 years to fix shit when it came to Jim Crow. Guess what, it took federal law and the National Guard to do it. The free market is not all powerful and can't fix everything, especially when it comes to things like discrimination when the people doing the discriminating have all the power and leverage.

Such an impatient society we are. I bet another 50-75 years would've done the trick.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

The free market had 100 years to fix shit when it came to Jim Crow. Guess what, it took federal law and the National Guard to do it. The free market is not all powerful and can't fix everything, especially when it comes to things like discrimination when the people doing the discriminating have all the power and leverage.

I don't want to argue semantics...but having enough power & leverage to discriminate would mean the law would not pass. I also think we have a much different world than the 19th to mid 20th century as well.

Maybe federal law is the appropriate forum for this. I'm just of the opinion it would also correct itself at some point due to outside pressures, dependencies, & influences that would not have existed years ago.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

You have to realize and I'm sure you do that for many conservatives, that'd be a feature, not a bug of state's rights.

Of course they'd have to be reminded that the Articles of Confederation were tossed out for a reason .

[molson]

Serious question for the liberals in the thread - is there ANY law that you would support, that you would vote for, that you DON'T feel Congress has the authority to apply uniformly across the United States? I mean, is that part of the argument, the thing that the constitution was based on, now just completely dead?

I wish we could have a constitutional convention, and a new constitution. To me, that would beat just ignoring the old one.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

Serious question for the liberals in the thread - is there ANY law that you would support, that you would vote for, that you DON'T feel Congress has the authority to apply uniformly across the United States? I mean, is that part of the argument, the thing that the constitution was based on, now just completely dead?

I wish we could have a constitutional convention, and a new constitution. To me, that would beat just ignoring the old one.

It is not up to Congress to decide if a law is constitutional or not. That is the duty of the Supreme Court. And in several decisions, the Supreme Court has granted that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress a lot of leeway.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

It is not up to Congress to decide if a law is constitutional or not. That is the duty of the Supreme Court.

Yes, I know how that works. OK, from the perspective of the Supreme Court then. If you were a justice, would you EVER find that a law, that you felt was a good law, exceeded the constitutional authority of the federal government. (Not that it violated the 14th amendment or anything, but that it utilized powers reserved for the states) Is that even on the table anymore?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

Yes, I know how that works. OK, from the perspective of the Supreme Court then. If you were a justice, would you EVER find that a law, that you felt was a good law, exceeded the constitutional authority of the federal government. Is that even on the table anymore?

You actually think this has never happened before? I thought you passed the bar?

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

You actually think this has never happened before? I thought you passed the bar?

You're not answering the question so I'll assume that you don't understand it and/or that you're just being a jackass for some reason.

Anyone else? How far does this go? How about a federal ban against not picking up after your dog's shit? I'm sure we can connect that to interstate commerce somehow, because the shit came from food that was probably manufactured in another state.

[cartman]

You are speaking in vague hypothetical terms, with the underlying inference that the Supreme Court would never find a law unconstitutional. Since this has happened many times in our nation's history, I guess I don't understand what you are asking.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

To an honest question, when it comes to economic and social policy, not really. On civil liberties and questions of national defense, I think quite frankly the courts haven't done enough to knock down those laws. But yes, I believe in a living constitution that changes with the times.

Fair enough, but I always wondered then - why do we need a constitution if it's "living"?

Why stretch the commerce clause 8 ways from Sunday? Why do we insist on pretending we're bound by these things?

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

You are speaking in vague hypothetical terms, with the underlying inference that the Supreme Court would never find a law unconstitutional. Since this has happened many times in our nation's history, I guess I don't understand what you are asking.

I'm not asking what the Supreme Court did. I'm asking what liberals feel now about what the Supreme Court should do, and what their opinion of the state of constitutional law is now. In particular, is the federal government limited at ALL from regulating things that were once considered the domain of the states.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

Fair enough, but I always wondered then - why do we need a constitution if it's "living"?

why does it have to be one or the other?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not asking what the Supreme Court did. I'm asking what liberals feel now about what the Supreme Court should do now, and what their opinion of the state of constitutional law is now.

Should do now about what, exactly? Or are you trying to say the "liberals" would never find something unconstitutional?

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Because of the certain things it does protect. There's a reason why the Founders didn't put much in the Constitution about economic or social policy, but they did put a whole bunch of stuff in their about one could call basic liberties.

By the way though, your whole Supreme Court question is sort of a circular one. If I think something is a good law, then I think it's Constitutional, then I wouldn't declare it unconstitutional.

But then again, I also think one of the best possible things we can do to help the country is eliminate the Senate, so it's not like I think the Constitution is perfect.

But why do we need the 14th amendment to give the Court the authority to strike down laws, if the federal government has the power to just make federal laws that can tell what the states to do anyway?

I just think the system is obsolete. We gave citizens in states rights so that the federal government would have the power to reign in states from violating those rights. That power is irrelevant now, because the federal government can do whatever it wants. The Court doesn't need the 14th amendment to find that a law violates a constitutional right. The federal congress can just pass a law that superceeded anything the state does.

I'm not saying any of this is necessarily a bad thing - it's just changing.....

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

Should do now about what, exactly? Or are you trying to say the "liberals" would never find something unconstitutional?

The Court finds things unconstitutional all the time, but only very, very rarely on the basis that it has exceeded its constitutionally-given powers.

[molson]

Or to put it another way - there could be an amendment to the constitution to guarantee homosexuals the right to marry. But there's no need to do that, if the federal government just passes a law that creates the same right. The constitution is obsolete in that way (in that view).

And maybe that's a good thing, I don't know. It just all seems silly to me to pay lip service to this document that can be changed at a whim.

I guess the worst-case scenario is the constitution continues to fade into irrelevance, and the legislative and judicial branches kind of merge together and control everything. Even that's not necessarily bad I guess, since we have some power to vote legislators in and out. It's just a very different country than the one they teach in high school government classes.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by molson

I wish we could have a constitutional convention, and a new constitution. To me, that would beat just ignoring the old one.

100% agree here.

Wasn't if Jefferson that said every generation should rewrite the constitution from scratch (or something like that?)

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

The Court finds things unconstitutional all the time, but only very, very rarely on the basis that it has exceeded its constitutionally-given powers.

Isn't by definition "unconstitutional" the finding that the act was not allowed by the Constitution?

Originally Posted by molson

Or to put it another way - there could be an amendment to the constitution to guarantee homosexuals the right to marry. But there's no need to do that, if the federal government just passes a law that creates the same right. The constitution is obsolete in that way (in that view).

And maybe that's a good thing, I don't know. It just all seems silly to me to pay lip service to this document that can be changed at a whim.

If you feel that a law carries the same legal weight as an amendment to the Constitution, then there really isn't anything more to say. The Constitution can't be changed on a whim. It has only been amended 27 times since 1787.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I don't get your argument. Do you think the federal government should only pass Constitutional Amendments? I mean, I think even Ron Paul would say that's a bridge too far.

No, though I'm a big fan of constitutional amendments. I think they should be pursued more often. Remove all doubt.

The federal government does have the authority to do all sorts of things, pass all sorts of laws. But not quite as much as they actually carry out (IMO).

Things that used to be considered for constitutional amendments, can simply be passed as federal laws today. I just don't think that's desirable, and it's certainly not what's intended.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

If you feel that a law carries the same legal weight as an amendment to the Constitution, then there really isn't anything more to say. The Constitution can't be changed on a whim. It has only been amended 27 times since 1787.

There's no reason to amend the constitution if you can just pass a federal law that says the same thing. Especially when the federal law is easier to pass, and it acts directly on the citizens, instead of just the governments, like the constitution does.

[molson]

Originally Posted by lungs

100% agree here.

Wasn't if Jefferson that said every generation should rewrite the constitution from scratch (or something like that?)

Ya, I really think something like that was intended. Or at least, I'm sure a lot of the framers expected there'd be hundreds of amendments by now, and that many of the older amendments would be repealed.

That'd be a good college course assignment - design a new constitution.

[SportsDino]

I don't know if I qualify as liberal anymore, since I'm maybe not socialist/lemming enough to count, but my take:

One good reason for having power in the states is because proximity to power is somewhat important. The farther away the majority of your life is determined, the easier it is for a sneaky group of colluders to band together and ferret away your liberties.

In the ideal, the government is minimalist. Federal government worries about keeping other nations out of our hair, and making sure state governments don't fight too much against each other, and that the laws of one state are reasonably respected by other states.

National standards are pursued there as they relate to basic human safety and commerce.

State governments should be similarly minimal. They provide services that are best administered at a state level, as determined by public policy. So if a whole state is full of socialist wannabes, they can vote themselves a welfare state and most importantly, they have to make their state budget balance. So, infinite services, fine, collect infinite revenues and you are golden.

I won't determine here what the state should do, let a population decide and budget it and its none of my business except my home state.

The rest of everything, should be reserved to the citizens, as the Constitution and Founding Fathers intended. We shouldn't be a nanny state, or a police state, forcing people to do this thing or that thing, pay for anything and everything (or in the modern world, pay nothing and everything at the same time, yay debt).

I think the best way to solve gay marraige.... don't make it a concern of state or federal government, and move all the benefits into their own individual definitions. You want to share money with someone, apply for the 'single entity tax status' and be done with it. Stop making laws around a religious construct to begin with and you don't need to put stupid conditions on it.

Give people rights by default and take them away when you have a clear reason to, don't assume the government is all first and the people live by its mercy (the current interpretation of law it seems).

That said, start repealing any federal law that doesn't have a basis in the Constitution, a little at a time. Don't have to wait for the courts to do so btw, as we saw from repeal of Glass-Steagle for instance (boooo, though you gotta say corporate money knows how to get things done).

The less representatives I need to influence to get my local services straight, the better. I would love if about 50% of government didn't need to get past the municipal level... instead of 100% of everything is either a federal initiative or bust. I also think a less intrusive and more focused government could cost less and actually accomplish more.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

There's no reason to amend the constitution if you can just pass a federal law that says the same thing. Especially when the federal law is easier to pass, and it acts directly on the citizens, instead of just the governments, like the constitution does.

Of course it is easier to pass a law than amend the constitution. That is why there have been thousands of laws passed by Congress, versus 27 amendments to the Constitution. The reason you pass an amendment is so that it becomes part of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and not subject to any judicial review.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by lungs

100% agree here.

Wasn't if Jefferson that said every generation should rewrite the constitution from scratch (or something like that?)

That has a certain idealistic appeal, but could you imagine 24 hr coverage of the convention by Glen Beck and Keith Olbermann as well as the non-stop advertising to try and influence the new, "supreme law of the land"?

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That has a certain idealistic appeal, but could you imagine 24 hr coverage of the convention by Glen Beck and Keith Olbermann as well as the non-stop advertising to try and influence the new, "supreme law of the land"?

In this day and age, isn't this always the case anyway?

I looked into this further and basically Jefferson didn't believe the living should be ruled by the dead and said every 19 years the Constitution should be rewritten. Those were based on life expectancies from those times so it would be a larger gap in this day age between rewrites.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

.

Things that used to be considered for constitutional amendments, can simply be passed as federal laws today. I just don't think that's desirable, and it's certainly not what's intended.

what??? what are you talking about??

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Pretty much.

Jihadi Cool: Terrorist Recruiters' Latest Weapon | KQED Public Media for Northern CA

So, what you're saying is that if we opened up a Harley factory in, say, Tehran and started a new Sturgis in the Middle East, say, in Mecca, 6 months opposite Ramadan, our terrorism problems would be a thing of the past?

Someone get on this! Stat!

SI

[JPhillips]

Steele has to be a DNC plant.

Why should an African-American vote Republican?

"You really don't have a reason to, to be honest -- we haven't done a very good job of really giving you one. True? True," Republican National Chairman Michael Steele told 200 DePaul University students Tuesday night.

[DaddyTorgo]

hahahah


that's funny

[flere-imsaho]

Amazing how much stuff changes in 5 years: ping SkyDog: Man of Steele (good article) - Front Office Football Central

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

what??? what are you talking about??

My point was that if the Supreme Court is never going to find anything unconstitutional on the grounds that the federal government is imposing on state soverignty (which is a view that many liberals feel the supreme court should have), then you don't need a constitution to be that "supreme law of the land" that all states must follow. A federal law has the same effect, because the federal law is now the "supreme law of the land".

Edit: This is even true, to a lesser extent, when you're talking about other elements of the constitution, like the protection of rights. If a constitution is "living", you don't really need it. The legislature can just decide what they think it says, and the "super-legislature" - the courts, can decide if they agree. "Judicial review" becomes just an extra-special legislative review.

[molson]

Dola-

I think the Supreme Court was intended to operate, and had for years and years, as a check against federal power. But now that we seem to trust the federal government to always do the right thing (especially with regards to imposing their will on states), then what's the role of the Supreme Court? It certainly operates as an extended wing of the federal government to further strike down states' actions. And it decides what rights people really have under our "living constitution" - it basically has the power to amend the constitution however it sees fit. Things have definitely changed.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

My point was that if the Supreme Court is never going to find anything unconstitutional on the grounds that the federal government is imposing on state soverignty (which is a view that many liberals feel the supreme court should have), then you don't need a constitution to be that "supreme law of the land" that all states must follow. A federal law has the same effect, because the federal law is now the "supreme law of the land".

Edit: This is even true, to a lesser extent, when you're talking about other elements of the constitution, like the protection of rights. If a constitution is "living", you don't really need it. The legislature can just decide what they think it says, and the "super-legislature" - the courts, can decide if they agree. "Judicial review" becomes just an extra-special legislative review.

Interesting. I'll try to respond if I get a chance today, but it might have to wait for later/tonight.

[JPhillips]

Steele also said:

For the last 40-plus years we had a ‘Southern Strategy’ that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.

He's right, but I can't believe he said it.

[flere-imsaho]

Today's bad news for the GOP:

RNC Spent $340K On Hawaii Meeting

The good news? It doesn't appear any of that money was spent on hookers. This time.