Texas Governor Greg Abbott Calls for Convention of the States to Reclaim Power Wrongfully Assumed by Federal Government

Decrying a government "run amok," Abbout announced:

"If we are going to fight for, protect and hand on to the next generation, the freedom that [President] Reagan spoke of...then we have to take the lead to restore the rule of law in America," Abbott said during a speech at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Policy Orientation that drew raucous applause from the conservative audience. He said he will ask lawmakers to pass a bill authorizing Texas to join other states calling for a Convention of States.
Along with the speech, Abbott released a nearly 70-page plan -- part American civics lesson, part anti-Obama diatribe -- detailing nine proposed constitutional amendments that he said would unravel the federal government’s decades-long power grab and restore authority over economic regulation and other matters to the states.
"The irony for our generation is that the threat to our Republic doesn't come just from foreign enemies, it comes, in part, from our very own leaders," Abbott said in a speech that took aim at President Obama, Congress and the judicial branch.

Among the amendments sought by Abbott is a mechanism by which the states could overturn federal law, which is long overdue.

His proposed amendments are:

Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
Require Congress to balance its budget.
Prohibit administrative agencies--and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them--from creating federal law.
Prohibit administrative agencies--and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them--from preempting state law.
Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.

I see this as vital in both senses -- vital in the sense of "necessary," and vital in the sense of "demonstrating a healthy amount of life and energy."

A participatory democracy must be both democratic and, well, participatory. The Big Picture sketch of the evolution of government of the last 80 years is to make government remote and controlled not by citizens but by a specialized, inbreeding class -- the civil service and management class -- which has its own insular class mores and class goals and has its own strong class interest.

It is time to take power back away from them and return it to the hands of those the Constitution says will wield ultimate political power: Us. The actual citizens. The American people generally, and not some weird inbred, intermarrying Government Caste.

The more power this caste as robbed from the people, the more the people themselves have been sapped of energy, initiative, and, frankly, virtue.

A free people is an energetic, vital, virtuous people.

Unfree people are bent, warped things who begin thinking not in terms of natural productivity and industry but merely of gaming advantages and payoffs from their masters.

Without freedom, people lose their natural initiative and zest for living.

They become drones, cogs, and drudges.

It's time to be a free people again.

Not just for ourselves-- the fate of the world depends on Free Americans.

Unfree Americans are no better than any other people twisted by oppression and reduced expectations and sharply delimited boundaries.

They're not even Americans.

Open Thread. And happy weekend!

Posted by: Ace at 06:12 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 Maybe Mark Levin will move to Texas.

Posted by: AE at January 08, 2016 06:14 PM (+ft6G)

2 There is no harm in trying, we are officially fucked now that we have a dictator and SCOTUS that makes law. There is nothing worse that can happen as we currently, as it is now, don't have a Republic anyway.
Burn the fucker down!

Posted by: Rob in Katy at January 08, 2016 06:14 PM (eYTQP)

3 Abbot 2016!

Posted by: chique testing testing at January 08, 2016 06:15 PM (iynDC)

4 I envy Texas. I do.

Posted by: @votermom at January 08, 2016 06:16 PM (cbfNE)

5 Wait, is this the article 5 convention Mark Levin has been calling for?

Posted by: @votermom at January 08, 2016 06:17 PM (cbfNE)

6
If those were passed we might even save the Republic. And good for him for trying, but I am pessimistic. It seems too many people in this country want to be ruled.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 08, 2016 06:18 PM (ODxAs)

7 I don't know if it's an article v convention or not. I assume it is. I think there are two pathways to calling for such a convention, one by the federal officials in congress (good luck with that), and the other by 2/3rds of the states.

Posted by: ace at January 08, 2016 06:19 PM (dciA+)

8 The government drones are not going to be happy.

Good.

Make it so.

Posted by: Anna Puma at January 08, 2016 06:19 PM (pu60A)

9 I like the list, but elect me President first and I'll do most of it administratively in the short term.

Posted by: JEM at January 08, 2016 06:20 PM (o+SC1)

10 Gov Abbott is a bad ass. Texas appears to be full of 'em.

Posted by: ChristyBlinky, aging supermodel Redneck Queen at January 08, 2016 06:20 PM (7lqMl)

11 A million times. This. We need a million more things like this.

Posted by: Eli Cash at January 08, 2016 06:21 PM (3w28y)

12
Any and all of those amendments could be put up by the Republican controlled Congress, and passed with some good ol' "bipartisan" support from the Dems.

"Require Congress to balance its budget."

Oh, never mind.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 08, 2016 06:22 PM (kdS6q)

13 I have a painful boner now. Thanks Ace.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 06:22 PM (rwI+c)

14 FUCK YEAH!!!

Posted by: BrotherJ at January 08, 2016 06:22 PM (tiZ4y)

15 Oh great ace decides to ditch us with the beginnings of "An Article V Convention is needed" "No! its the worst thing ever you stupid idiot" argument.

Thanks a lot ace

Happy weekend.

Posted by: buzzion - Pinochet 2016! at January 08, 2016 06:22 PM (zt+N6)

16 Going to Padre Island in camper for 2 weeks in Feb. Born in Pa. but a winter Texan at heart.

Posted by: redenzo at January 08, 2016 06:23 PM (WCnJW)

17
Abbot's BADASS.

You too Ace. Levin just teased this and you snagged it!

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:23 PM (zLP1L)

18 7 I don't know if it's an article v convention or not. I assume it is. I think there are two pathways to calling for such a convention, one by the federal officials in congress (good luck with that), and the other by 2/3rds of the states.

Posted by: ace at January 08, 2016 06:19 PM (dciA+)

even if we could get 2/3 of the states on board, there would be a few "swing states" who would ruin any proposed amendment.

I don't see how article V works out for small govt people at this point.

Maybe 40 years ago.

Now?

I doubt it.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 06:24 PM (AkOaV)

19 Admiral Kirk to buzzion, "Aren't you dead?"

Posted by: Anna Puma at January 08, 2016 06:24 PM (pu60A)

20 It is a risky move, but so is doing nothing.

Not a fan of it, but fuck it, go for it.

At the very least it will provide clarity.

Posted by: eman at January 08, 2016 06:24 PM (NLUIA)

21 Texas needs to secede in place. Quit taking Federal money for anything, and quit helping the Feds oppress their citizens.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 06:24 PM (rwI+c)

22 20 It is a risky move, but so is doing nothing.

Not a fan of it, but fuck it, go for it.

At the very least it will provide clarity.
Posted by: eman at January 08, 2016 06:24 PM (NLUIA)

Not risky at all. But if we do nothing, it is national suicide for sure.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:25 PM (zLP1L)

23 Secession!

Posted by: All Hail Eris, Literate Savage at January 08, 2016 06:25 PM (jR7Wy)

24 The Convention of the States should also look at repealing the 17th amendment giving state legislatures the power to appoint senators rather than by popular vote. This has proven a disaster. Just look at how long some of these fossils stay in there and do not represent states anymore just federal overreach.

Posted by: Jock-Strap at January 08, 2016 06:25 PM (ftKKE)

25 A balanced budget? They won't even pass a fucking budget. Apparently budgets are racist or something.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 06:25 PM (4ErVI)

26 Texans always move 'em.

Posted by: Zombie Robert E. Lee at January 08, 2016 06:26 PM (rwI+c)

27 21 Texas needs to secede in place. Quit taking Federal money for anything, and quit helping the Feds oppress their citizens.
Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 06:24 PM (rwI+c)

or just secede.

I have a feeling it would work out very well for them. The influx of "makers" would more than offset any additional financial burdens the state would take on.

And plus, they would be able to get rid of or greatly scale back the most costly line items that the fed gov chips in for -- medicaid, welfare, etc.

The biggest "real" loss would be highway funding... and again, I think the influx of producers and businesses attracted to low regulation / low taxes would more than offset that.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 06:26 PM (AkOaV)

28 Why doesn't he get the Texas Delegation to submit them to Congress as amendments today?

I'd like them to work within the system.

Remember the present Constitution started as a convention to improve the original Confederation of States Constitution.

Posted by: rd at January 08, 2016 06:26 PM (Ltj2h)

29 DO NOT think that we would be the only folks who wish for a Convention of the States. The Democrats would LOVE to be able to make changes to the original Amendments, especially the 2d. How will the Convention of the States keep from being hijacked by liberals who are dead set on getting rid of the very amendments we practical folks consider the most important??
Susan Lee

Posted by: Susan Lee at January 08, 2016 06:26 PM (DCupU)

30 or just secede.

Ahem.

Posted by: Zombie Robert E. Lee at January 08, 2016 06:26 PM (rwI+c)

31 even if we could get 2/3 of the states on board, there would be a few "swing states" who would ruin any proposed amendment.
---
Which states have Republican state houses at the moment?

Which might if there's another anti-DC wave election this year?

That's what we have to work with.

Remember state GOP != DC GOPe.

Posted by: Methos at January 08, 2016 06:27 PM (ZbV+0)

32 >>>It is a risky move, but so is doing nothing.

The only thing more dangerous than action is inaction.

Posted by: ace at January 08, 2016 06:27 PM (dciA+)

33
Repeal the 17th and 16th.

Those two are the root of virtually all the damage over the past 100+ years.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:27 PM (zLP1L)

34 The risk is you could end up with Amendments that Obama thinks are just ducky.

Posted by: eman at January 08, 2016 06:27 PM (NLUIA)

35 Yes, this is the Art V Convention States.

Time to get involved.

Posted by: Cicero Kaboom! Kid at January 08, 2016 06:27 PM (MgcKq)

36 28 Why doesn't he get the Texas Delegation to submit them to Congress as amendments today?

I'd like them to work within the system.

Remember the present Constitution started as a convention to improve the original Confederation of States Constitution.
Posted by: rd at January 08, 2016 06:26 PM (Ltj2h)

a) because the 17th means that Senators do not give a shit about what the state elected officials think

b) because it would go NOWHERE in congress.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 06:27 PM (AkOaV)

37 34 The risk is you could end up with Amendments that Obama thinks are just ducky.
Posted by: eman at January 08, 2016 06:27 PM (NLUIA)

it would still require ... 3/4 of the states (IIRC) to approve any amendment.

So it would not be a big risk that we'd get WORSE amendments. Just that any amendments that were proposed would be watered down to the point of being meaningless in order to get that many "blue" states on board.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 06:28 PM (AkOaV)

38 32 >>>It is a risky move, but so is doing nothing.

The only thing more dangerous than action is inaction.
Posted by: ace at January 08, 2016 06:27 PM (dciA+)

THIS.

The Article V process is the last firewall (the 2nd amendment notwithstanding, G-d forbid) that our Founders gave us. It needs to be used.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:29 PM (zLP1L)

39 Why doesn't he get the Texas Delegation to submit them to Congress as amendments today?
------------------

Bwahahahahah. Woooooo, hoooo.

You ofay rednecks crack me up

Posted by: Sheila Jackson Lee at January 08, 2016 06:29 PM (oFSUK)

40 The Federal Govt isn't following the constitution we have now.

Posted by: Semi-Literate Thug at January 08, 2016 06:29 PM (/f6Nd)

41 I approve too but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

Posted by: A normal man at January 08, 2016 06:29 PM (BO/km)

42 Pennsylvania has a GOP senate and house. They suck.

Posted by: @votermom at January 08, 2016 06:29 PM (cbfNE)

43 The Article V process is the last firewall (the 2nd amendment notwithstanding, G-d forbid) that our Founders gave us. It needs to be used.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:29 PM (zLP1L)

There's a reason the southern states did not go that route before the war of southern secession.

It would be almost impossible to get any "good" amendments through the process. Article V would be mostly meaningless, i would think.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 06:30 PM (AkOaV)

44 The reality is that most of these are going to need certain carve-outs, certain exceptions.

You're not going to balance the budget in times of declared war, but you should not be able to wage undeclared war off the books either.

When you start talking about prohibiting Federal preemption of state law you're gonna have people talking about turning the clock back to 1850. You'll need some basic civil rights protections - somewhere short of letting people self-identify on gender - written in.

If you let the Supreme Court decide when they are in fact 'invalidating' a democratically-enacted law then none of them will ever be 'invalidated', they'll just be limited in scope and all those 5-4 rulings will be 'clarifications'. Right now we have a situation in which each branch of government has been more or less left to define its own role, and the executive and the judicial have grabbed the ring and the legislative has run away.

Posted by: JEM at January 08, 2016 06:30 PM (o+SC1)

45 I love Greg Abbott. I was right about him.
Prediction: He will be president of the United States one day.

Posted by: L, Elle at January 08, 2016 06:30 PM (2x3L+)

46 All of the proposals sound good. At least worthy of consideration.

So what would it realistically take to get this convention going? Would 3/4ths of the state legislatures have to pass identical resolutions?

Posted by: chemjeff at January 08, 2016 06:30 PM (+4mdw)

47 37 So it would not be a big risk that we'd get WORSE amendments. Just that any amendments that were proposed would be watered down to the point of being meaningless in order to get that many "blue" states on board.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 06:28 PM (AkOaV)

It takes a 38 state majority to pass any legislation. There is no "danger" of a bad amendment because it would never pass if it even got the chance to be voted on.

Go read "The Liberty Amendments." Please.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:30 PM (zLP1L)

48 How will the Convention of the States keep from being hijacked by
liberals who are dead set on getting rid of the very amendments we
practical folks consider the most important??
---
How many state houses do they control?

If it's not 2/3s of them, the leftists don't get a say in the outcome. They at best get a veto if it's more than 1/3.

And so what if they did? Then nothing changes and we remain on the path towards national divorce, amicable or otherwise.

Posted by: Methos at January 08, 2016 06:30 PM (ZbV+0)

49 All Hail Eris,

Msg in comm ctr

Posted by: Anna Puma at January 08, 2016 06:30 PM (pu60A)

50 even if we could get 2/3 of the states on board

There it is. Half of the Republican Governors probably wouldn't go along with it.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Staring at the Lake in the rain at January 08, 2016 06:30 PM (WWdgA)

51 It's happening Reg! It's really happening!

Posted by: Mark in Portland at January 08, 2016 06:30 PM (QJBko)

52 Prohibit administrative agencies--and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them--from creating federal law.

This one sounds good but in practice it wouldn't work. Rules that apply statutory law to a myriad of specific situations are something that can't practically be included in legislation. There is a legitimate role for regulation-making by executive agencies. The problems happen when agencies subvert the intent of the legislation by using regs to implement political agendas.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at January 08, 2016 06:30 PM (8ZskC)

53 I admire the spirit here, but a lot of these are kinda dumb.

Okay, you need seven justices to overturn a law? You mean like Obamacare? And how the hell do we apply this to District Courts and the Circuit Courts of Appeal?

I like the idea that the states can repeal federal laws, but without setting up a third legislative chamber, how are we going to get thirty-four state legislatures to get on the same page and vote for repeal? That'll take forever. Who's going to coordinate that? It sounds like the constitutional amendment process, which itself takes forever.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 08, 2016 06:31 PM (cdw0X)

54 The Federal Govt isn't following the constitution we have now.

And there's the rub. It does no good to plaster the holes someone is shooting through your walls if you don't disarm him first.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 06:31 PM (rwI+c)

55 Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Interesting. Seems as if it's needed.

Posted by: Ben Dover at January 08, 2016 06:31 PM (fbovC)

56 46 All of the proposals sound good. At least worthy of consideration.

So what would it realistically take to get this convention going? Would 3/4ths of the state legislatures have to pass identical resolutions?
Posted by: chemjeff at January 08, 2016 06:30 PM (+4mdw)

The states send representatives to craft the actual amendments together.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:31 PM (zLP1L)

57 i wish when been given the chance to move i would have chosen texas. what a yuge mistake.

Posted by: willow at January 08, 2016 06:31 PM (+wjl1)

58 It takes a 38 state majority to pass any legislation. There is no "danger" of a bad amendment because it would never pass if it even got the chance to be voted on.

Go read "The Liberty Amendments." Please.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:30 PM (zLP1L)

I don't think you read what I wrote.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 06:31 PM (AkOaV)

59 I approve!

Posted by: James Madison at January 08, 2016 06:32 PM (5buP8)

60 "They become drones, cogs, and drudges."

Hey!

Posted by: The Drudge Report guy at January 08, 2016 06:32 PM (k3w9p)

61 Happy Weekend!

Aren't you the furry little optimist?

Posted by: Garrett at January 08, 2016 06:32 PM (kXpr4)

62 We don't need a Constitutional Convention - we simply need to enforce the one we've got.

First task is to restore the plain meaning of the Interstate Commerce Clause - the abandonment of its plain intent has been responsible for more mischief than any other mis-application of the Constitution.

One-man-one-vote is another 20th Century "evolution" that desperately needs to go.

Posted by: One-Eyed Cat Peeping in the Seafood Store at January 08, 2016 06:32 PM (aeVIR)

63 For some one who claims he doest like to watch television, you sure watch a lot of television, Ace.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at January 08, 2016 06:32 PM (iQIUe)

64 50 even if we could get 2/3 of the states on board

There it is. Half of the Republican Governors probably wouldn't go along with it.
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Staring at the Lake in the rain at January 08, 2016 06:30 PM (WWdgA)

The governors are not a part of the process, IIRC. It is the state legislatures themselves that do this. Now you might have a leader in a State chamber that could oppose this and that's a problem, as in Arizona.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:33 PM (zLP1L)

65 36. And why would a conventional n of states be any better than our current Congress.

I still shudder to think of who would be appointed to a Constitutional Convention? They would all be very "moderate" and we'd end up with a modern european convention.

Posted by: rd at January 08, 2016 06:33 PM (Ltj2h)

66 Ace, you said, "Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation." twice.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at January 08, 2016 06:33 PM (LUgeY)

67 thas racist

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 08, 2016 06:33 PM (8nyus)

68 58 I don't think you read what I wrote.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 06:31 PM (AkOaV)

Okay, let me rewind . . .

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:33 PM (zLP1L)

69 Longbows or crossbows?

Kate and Edith? Or just Kate?

Posted by: Anna Puma at January 08, 2016 06:33 PM (pu60A)

70 I like the suggestions Mark Levin has too. Chiefly, I think we need to term limit the Senate, and the Supreme Court and actually, any Federal court. Screw any form of entrenched interests that think they have perpetual rule.

Then there is the unfund list, of which is nearly endless..
(not in any preferential order)

All redundant government programs.
Ad Council
EPA
NEA
NPR / PBS
National Endowment for the Arts
HUD
Federal Housing Dept.
HHS
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Energy
Flat tax the IRS out of a job

I am sure there are more..

Posted by: Dr. Doomsday at January 08, 2016 06:34 PM (W41Dn)

71 We will finally enshrine the right to a living wage.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 06:34 PM (rwI+c)

72 This is fabulous!!

Talk about demonstrating that elections matter: the MSM was all set to coronate Wendy "I filibuster for late-term abortion" Davis as the next governor of Texas instead of Abbott.

Posted by: Lizzy at January 08, 2016 06:34 PM (NOIQH)

73 46 All of the proposals sound good. At least worthy of consideration.

So what would it realistically take to get this convention going? Would 3/4ths of the state legislatures have to pass identical resolutions?

Posted by: chemjeff at January 08, 2016 06:30 PM (+4mdw)

Yes. They must adopt identical language. Hence, impossibility of a 'runaway convention'.

Posted by: Cicero Kaboom! Kid at January 08, 2016 06:34 PM (MgcKq)

74 i have doubts in general We are a moral people.
so i imagine most will chose to keep their shitty reps, as long as one item on their list is checked off.

Posted by: willow at January 08, 2016 06:34 PM (+wjl1)

75
I think we can get enough state legislatures for the convention, but not enough states to approve the amendments.

So really no risk, just some disappointment.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 08, 2016 06:35 PM (ODxAs)

76 >>I am sure there are more..

Dept. of Education - kill Common Core!

Posted by: Lizzy at January 08, 2016 06:35 PM (NOIQH)

77 65 36. And why would a conventional n of states be any better than our current Congress.

I still shudder to think of who would be appointed to a Constitutional Convention? They would all be very "moderate" and we'd end up with a modern european convention.
Posted by: rd at January 08, 2016 06:33 PM (Ltj2h)

IT'S NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION!!!!!

It is an Article V process for the states to propose amendments.

Every day the Fed, the Executive and the Judiciary are ignoring/destroying the Constitution. This process returns the power back to the people.

Please. Read the damn book??

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:35 PM (zLP1L)

78 Repeal the 17th, as well.

Unbalanced the legislative branch, and eliminated the representation of the sovereign states in favor of rank populism.

Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at January 08, 2016 06:36 PM (oVJmc)

79 Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.

I'm not down with this one. Maybe in the past. But right now we got some shit to overturn if we get the chance.

Posted by: WhatWhatWhat! at January 08, 2016 06:36 PM (HMt16)

80 >>>Ace, you said, "Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation." twice.

no, he said it. I saw that too, but it's not an error: First he says use that mechanism to overrule agency lawmaking, then he says use that mechanism to overrule federal pre-emption of state laws.

Posted by: ace at January 08, 2016 06:36 PM (dciA+)

81 Okay, let me rewind . . .

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:33 PM (zLP1L)

JJ -- my point was that in order to get 3/4 of the states, they'd have to water down any proposal big time to get that many states on board.

To the point where any amendment would be close to meaningless.

There is no political will in a good, say, 1/2, of states to pass any of the amendments abbott is proposing.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 06:36 PM (AkOaV)

82 this is irresponsible. the responsible way is to begin with a constitutional amendment that will allow Congress to regulate speech.
Thank Harry Reid by sending him five dollars in Monopoly money, which is what we're headed for, thanks the the Fed.

Posted by: Satan on the way at January 08, 2016 06:36 PM (qSIlh)

83
So, for those who poo-poo this process, I guess your answer is "just elect more Republicans."

I'm getting a friggin' aneurysm here.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:37 PM (zLP1L)

84 Kate.

Apparently you can talk Edith into just about anything. So it isn't necessarily exclusive...

Posted by: Garrett at January 08, 2016 06:37 PM (kXpr4)

85 Texas Governor Greg Abbott Calls for Convention of the States to Reclaim Power Wrongfully Assumed by Federal Government
I approve.

I vehemently DISapprove.

Why?

Not because I dislike an of Abbott's proposal, but because the political process is now completely dominated by traitorous unAmerican progressives on one side and amoral triangulating accommodating GOPe-ers on the other.

And once you call a Constitutional Convention, EVERYTHING is on the table. It is not limited to the proposal you THINK you called the convention for.

So what will happen is, essentially, the communist traitors (posing as Democrats) will call for the dissolution of the First Amendment, by proposing a "Ban on Hate Speech" amendment, intended to silence conservatives, and then the GOPe will "compromise" with the poorly worded wishy-washy semi-dissolution of the First Amendment, which for the rest of time the Left will twist to further dominate public discourse and thereby destroy the nation.

Posted by: zombie at January 08, 2016 06:37 PM (jBuUi)

86 I'm a furries little optimist.

Posted by: guy dressed as an ewok at January 08, 2016 06:37 PM (DLIIY)

87 One-man-one-vote is another 20th Century "evolution" that desperately needs to go.
Posted by: One-Eyed Cat Peeping in the Seafood Store

One-man-one-vote is definitely last century. In the 21st century, a local democrat operative in Cleveland (I think it was Cleveland anyway) can admit on camera to voting 8 times for Obama, and fuck-all happens to her.

Posted by: Prince Ludwig the #Problematic at January 08, 2016 06:38 PM (jb+28)

88 81 There is no political will in a good, say, 1/2, of states to pass any of the amendments abbott is proposing.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 06:36 PM (AkOaV)

It has to be tried, again and again and again until we get the amendments we want that reverse the Leviathan and restore our freedom.

Must be done. There is no other alternative to this aside from armed insurrection.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:38 PM (zLP1L)

89 Looks like a great list. I need to think through the implications of each of the proposals, but on a quick read ... looks good.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 08, 2016 06:38 PM (oKE6c)

90 It would be better to limit SCOTUS jurisdiction by addressing Marbury vs. Madison once and for all and taking away what SCOTUS never had in the first place - the alleged right of judicial review. That a couple of idiots in black robes can impose their will over the elected representatives of Congress is ridiculous. Just ask Thomas Jefferson...

Posted by: dziwny at January 08, 2016 06:38 PM (JeNJK)

91 We gotta eat too!

Brought to you by:

Posted by: The Ad Council at January 08, 2016 06:38 PM (BO/km)

92 Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.

I'm not down with this one. Maybe in the past. But right now we got some shit to overturn if we get the chance.
---
The courts had their opportunity to do the right thing and refused.

That's why one of the amendments is to give states the ability to throw out bad law

Posted by: Methos at January 08, 2016 06:38 PM (ZbV+0)

93 So, for those who poo-poo this process, I guess your answer is "just elect more Republicans."

I'm getting a friggin' aneurysm here.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:37 PM (zLP1L)

I'm not AGAINST an article V convention, I'm just saying the chances of it working are... slim.

But it would be a fig leaf for R's to say "WE DID IT! WE FIXED DC! And if you just donate $35..."

I guess I'm just saying -- don't get your hopes up.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 06:38 PM (AkOaV)

94 This government is out of control and needs to be reined in period.

Posted by: Jock-Strap at January 08, 2016 06:39 PM (ftKKE)

95 Heh.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 06:39 PM (rwI+c)

96 And once you call a Constitutional Convention, EVERYTHING is on the table. It is not limited to the proposal you THINK you called the convention for.

Come on, it'll be fine. We'll have Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell on our side.

*ducks*

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at January 08, 2016 06:39 PM (8ZskC)

97 God Bless(ed) Texas.

Posted by: Lauren at January 08, 2016 06:39 PM (bYGAR)

98 I think the chasm of political thought between citizens is our real problem. The silent majority is no longer the majority.
It will never happen but the only thing that will save the American ideal is a friendly divorce where one side can continue that great experiment. The other side can revert back to the European model. I also dream about winning the power ball lottery.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at January 08, 2016 06:39 PM (MNgU2)

99 No no, I mean what would be required to convene this convention?

I am glad Abbott is saying this, and others have proposed ideas for conventions, but who is actually doing the work to get this convention off the ground?

Posted by: chemjeff at January 08, 2016 06:40 PM (+4mdw)

100 I think I'll go buy Power Ball tickets for tomorrow. Instead of engaging in the circular firing squad.

If I win, will try to buy Congress.

Posted by: Anna Puma at January 08, 2016 06:40 PM (pu60A)

101
And why would a convention of states be any better than our current Congress.
Posted by: rd

Have I ever mentioned my father was a mailman?

Posted by: Gov Kasich - Leading the delegation from O-Hi-O

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 08, 2016 06:41 PM (kdS6q)

102 It has to be tried, again and again and again until we get the amendments we want that reverse the Leviathan and restore our freedom.

Must be done. There is no other alternative to this aside from armed insurrection.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:38 PM (zLP1L)

Well, not that I think armed insurrection would have any chance of success either, but I don't see how any of this is... unwindable at this point.

I'm not against anyone TRYING. I'm not trying to be a debbie downer here. I just don't have high hopes.

More likely scenario? We slowly descend in to European mediocrity for a few more generations, then slowly descend in to another dark ages type world within a few hundred years. And people look back as the 1776 to say 1960 period as the high point of human achievement.

Depressing, I know.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 06:41 PM (AkOaV)

103 85 Posted by: zombie at January 08, 2016 06:37 PM (jBuUi)

In that case, then what's the difference? What's the problem?

We have a runaway government right now, every damn day. It will take 38 states to ratify an amendment. And I sincerely doubt that any one will be more than a page long, let alone 2,000.

If an amendment that abolishes the direct election of Senators is written, then that is what is voted on.

Same for all the other issues. There aren't that many progressives or GOP-e to stop this at the state level. If there is, then they won't even participate in the process itself.

Governors and Senators are excluded from this. It's the state legislatures.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:41 PM (zLP1L)

104 At the end of the day, I think saying Barky is a Constitutional Scholar is like saying a demolitions expert is a structural engineer.

Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at January 08, 2016 06:41 PM (5buP8)

105 by the way, I've been advocating for a amendment which would allow some method to reverse Sup Ct decisions. If the House and Senate can override a veto, I can see a similar arrangement to overrule a Sup CT decision, although I'm really not brilliant enough to come up with a good way of doing it. Come 2017, Pres Trump and Atty Gen Cruz can probably get it done. Expect the Dems to oppose it because taking power away from the SC and giving more power to the people who are actually elected is undemocratic.

Posted by: Satan on the way at January 08, 2016 06:41 PM (qSIlh)

106 Happy Weekend to you too, Ace !

You hit it right on the head with "the fate of the world depends on Free Americans" ! That was the driving force behind (some large %-age) of the world's progress for a century or more. No wonder that statists and neo-feudalists have been scheming to bring us down all this time.

Posted by: sock_rat_eez at January 08, 2016 06:41 PM (S0bOl)

107 29 DO NOT think that we would be the only folks who wish for a Convention of the States. The Democrats would LOVE to be able to make changes to the original Amendments, especially the 2d. How will the Convention of the States keep from being hijacked by liberals who are dead set on getting rid of the very amendments we practical folks consider the most important??
Susan Lee
Posted by: Susan Lee

EXACTLY.

Those are my same sentiments in comment #85.

Posted by: zombie at January 08, 2016 06:42 PM (jBuUi)

108 The governors are not a part of the process, IIRC. It is the state legislatures themselves that do this. Now you might have a leader in a State chamber that could oppose this and that's a problem, as in Arizona.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:33 PM (zLP1L)

...and Chicag- errrr Illinois. You can drop two out of that number, right off.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Staring at the Lake in the rain at January 08, 2016 06:42 PM (WWdgA)

109 It will never happen but the only thing that will save the American ideal is a friendly divorce where one side can continue that great experiment. The other side can revert back to the European model. I also dream about winning the power ball lottery.
Posted by: Max Rockatansky at January 08, 2016 06:39 PM (MNgU2)

Personally, I think some kind of "national divorce" is the only way to "save" the american system.

And I don't see how that happens.

So yeah, I agree. We're doomed.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 06:42 PM (AkOaV)

110 So what will happen is, essentially, the communist traitors (posing as
Democrats) will call for the dissolution of the First Amendment, by
proposing a "Ban on Hate Speech" amendment, intended to silence
conservatives, and then the GOPe will "compromise" with the poorly
worded wishy-washy semi-dissolution of the First Amendment,
---
Except that the national GOPe doesn't get a seat at the table. and even if they did, and somehow crap amendments like you suggest get out of the convention, they then have to ratified by 3/4 of the states, which will never happen. And even if it somehow did, we're right back on the path to national divorce, which is no change from today.

Posted by: Methos at January 08, 2016 06:42 PM (ZbV+0)

111 "Prediction: He will be president of the United States one day."

I very much hope so. Abbott is perhaps the last good man in politics.

Sometimes I'm cynical and think we need an asshole to burn things down, but sometimes I feel a faint glint of hope and think that maybe, maybe a good man can save us.

(Oh, and I think this was the Big Announcement he was talking about a week ago or so)

Posted by: Lauren at January 08, 2016 06:43 PM (bYGAR)

112 Posted by: Susan Lee

EXACTLY.

Those are my same sentiments in comment #85.
Posted by: zombie at January 08, 2016 06:42 PM (jBuUi)

I think the 2A is safe... the D's would need 3/4 of states to repeal it.

Seems highly unlikely.

I feel comfortable saying that even my purple state would never go for that.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 06:43 PM (AkOaV)

113 So what will happen is, essentially, the communist
traitors (posing as Democrats) will call for the dissolution of the
First Amendment, by proposing a "Ban on Hate Speech" amendment, intended
to silence conservatives, and then the GOPe will "compromise" with the
poorly worded wishy-washy semi-dissolution of the First Amendment, which
for the rest of time the Left will twist to further dominate public
discourse and thereby destroy the nation.

Posted by: zombie at January 08, 2016 06:37 PM (jBuUi)
I have no doubt that some crap amendments would come out of the convention
But it would have to be approved by 3/4ths of the states to be approved, so only 13 states would have to vote no in order to stop the crap amendments, I think there are at least 13 state legislatures we can count on?

Posted by: chemjeff at January 08, 2016 06:43 PM (+4mdw)

114 102 Depressing, I know.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 06:41 PM (AkOaV)

I'm going to support it as best as I can. I'm not going to just throw up my hands and say to hell with it.

We can bitch, moan and complain here every damn day, but here is a process that actually has a shot - A SHOT - at working to start unwinding this.

Even if all it does is piss off the Leftists and the Kronies, isn;t it worth it for that alone?

I say hell yes.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:43 PM (zLP1L)

115
Require Congress to balance it's budget.
.........................

What, no more ObamaMath?
1+1 = 10,000 because 9,998 was hidden so shut up.

Posted by: wth at January 08, 2016 06:44 PM (HgMAr)

116 To all the nay-Sayers...

What we have now is working so well. For example: The electorates of 30+ states have decided that gay marriage is not something they endorse. A few more and it is a done deal. Instead we get a decision from not five but one deciding vote.

This is a nation of United States. Check AllenG's nic.

I would start with the 9th and then go to the 10th. Then clarify the meaning off the 14th Amendment. Then the 17th. F*ck court precedents.

Posted by: Golfman at January 08, 2016 06:44 PM (48QDY)

117
I fear Max has it, and ace towards the end of the post you basically touched on it.

There *might* simply not be enough "Americans" left - in the historically meaningful sense of independent sorts who instinctively oppose too much govt. control of their lives, who value freedom and understand it has costs and drawbacks.

No way to determine this with confidence. But just looking at the bottom line (results), I have long felt this is the problem. People, at least a working majority, are content with the crappy governance they're getting - either because it doesn't affect them and they're LIV, or they're on the gravy train and that cancels out any objections they might have (a combo that probably pairs up the odd couple of many govt. employees and the dependent degraded welfare class).

Posted by: rhomboid at January 08, 2016 06:44 PM (QDnY+)

118 108 ...and Chicag- errrr Illinois. You can drop two out of that number, right off.
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Staring at the Lake in the rain at January 08, 2016 06:42 PM (WWdgA)

I say there are 38 legislatures out there. The 2010 and 2014 midterms loom very large for this.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:44 PM (zLP1L)

119 77 65 36.

JJ I agree we need to do something. But once the convention is started, anything can be amended.

Including the Second Amendment. And the First.

Think reasonable regulation and hate speech. If we cannot get these amendments through using the normal process, why does anyone think it will happen after a convention?

Posted by: rd at January 08, 2016 06:44 PM (Ltj2h)

120 "Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law."

This would effectively leave large swaths of the country with no individual right to keep and bear arms.

Posted by: Mark1971 at January 08, 2016 06:45 PM (vaR50)

121 Roger that, Anna.

Posted by: All Hail Eris, Literate Savage at January 08, 2016 06:45 PM (jR7Wy)

122 100
I think I'll go buy Power Ball tickets for tomorrow. Instead of engaging in the circular firing squad.

If I win, will try to buy Congress.

Posted by: Anna Puma at January 08, 2016 06:40 PM (pu60A)
But I've got the winning ticket in my pocket, I call dibs on Congress first!

Posted by: chemjeff at January 08, 2016 06:45 PM (+4mdw)

123 Even if all it does is piss off the Leftists and the Kronies, isn;t it worth it for that alone?

I say hell yes.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:43 PM (zLP1L)

I'm not trying to piss in anyones Wheaties, I'm just saying I don't have high hopes that any of this is fixable.

By design, it's most decidedly... unfixable.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 06:45 PM (AkOaV)

124 no, he said it. I saw that too, but it's not an error: First he says use that mechanism to overrule agency lawmaking, then he says use that mechanism to overrule federal pre-emption of state laws.

The first thing I thought of was Blazing Saddles "rape" scene.

I just thought he liked it.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at January 08, 2016 06:46 PM (LUgeY)

125
The governors are not a part of the process, IIRC. It is the state legislatures themselves that do this.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton

The state delegations would be selected by the state legislature, which means governors would likely be the delegation leader, in many if not most cases.

So, Kasich and Christie amending the Constitution.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 08, 2016 06:46 PM (kdS6q)

126 "Unfree Americans are no better than any other people twisted by
oppression and reduced expectations and sharply delimited boundaries."

Absolutely. We need to expand our freedoms, not limit them.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 08, 2016 06:46 PM (Zu3d9)

127 re: SCOTUS.

Get rid of Marbury.

Problem solved.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 06:46 PM (AkOaV)

128
Screw buying congress I'll just buy my own island.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 08, 2016 06:47 PM (ODxAs)

129 There aren't that many progressives or GOP-e to stop this at the state level. If there is, then they won't even participate in the process itself.

Governors and Senators are excluded from this. It's the state legislatures.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton

My problem is that I'm seeing this from a California vantage point. Deranged hyper-progressives now have a super-ooper-dooper-majority in the CA assembly and Senate, and regularly pass the most insane communist laws. They will be representing me in this process.

I can't even visualize a state in which is the state legislature is anything other than treasonous.

Posted by: zombie at January 08, 2016 06:47 PM (jBuUi)

130 119 77 65 36.

JJ I agree we need to do something. But once the convention is started, anything can be amended.

Including the Second Amendment. And the First.

Think reasonable regulation and hate speech. If we cannot get these amendments through using the normal process, why does anyone think it will happen after a convention?
Posted by: rd at January 08, 2016 06:44 PM (Ltj2h)

No. It can't. No GOP legislature, let alone 38 would even contemplate an amendment that guts the 1st and 2nd. It's about proposing amendments to restore the power of the 9th and 10th.

Everything you cite has already happened illegally and against our will.

Again, read Levin;s book. It's laid out very clearly and addresses your unfounded concerns.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:48 PM (zLP1L)

131 One more (fantasy) suggestion: lower the bar for a treason conviction. No need for two people to witness the same overt act.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 08, 2016 06:48 PM (oKE6c)

132
"And happy weekend!"
.....................

Thanks. I'm taking the grandkids skiing. Their first time.

Posted by: wth at January 08, 2016 06:48 PM (HgMAr)

133 My (unsolicited) opinion on Article V convention---

--Why go to all the trouble? HRH Barky the First will ignore it, just like the current edition.

--Does anyone really believe the result of such convention would *end up* being a net gain for We The People?

--Certainly, "our betters" are salivating at the chance to revoke the entire Bill of Rights.

Posted by: JQ Flyover at January 08, 2016 06:48 PM (044Fx)

134 So, Kasich and Christie amending the Constitution.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 08, 2016 06:46 PM (kdS6q)

There is no way in hell that NJ's legislature would make Chris Christie a delegation leader.

And, the delegations will not ratify....that is the purview of the legislatures themselves.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 08, 2016 06:48 PM (Zu3d9)

135 129 Posted by: zombie at January 08, 2016 06:47 PM (jBuUi)

California won't even participate. If they do, they have ONE vote. For once, they are irrelevant.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:48 PM (zLP1L)

136 Sometimes I'm cynical and think we need an asshole to burn things down, but sometimes I feel a faint glint of hope and think that maybe, maybe a good man can save us.

(Oh, and I think this was the Big Announcement he was talking about a week ago or so)
Posted by: Lauren at January 08, 2016 06:43 PM (bYGAR)

Sadly, one good man will be drowned by the entrenched bureaucracy and a comfy, cozy, crony Congress.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Staring at the Lake in the rain at January 08, 2016 06:48 PM (WWdgA)

137 Word.

Posted by: The Wolf Who Cried Boy at January 08, 2016 06:48 PM (BfPSD)

138 Get rid of Marbury.

Marbury is a procedural power. The executive can ignore it any time they choose, pace Lincoln. They just choose not to.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 06:49 PM (rwI+c)

139 A few prominent talk show hosts have brought this up, but I just keep thinking about few leftist states want the federal government to take over their responsibility

Posted by: Skip at January 08, 2016 06:49 PM (3ZgzE)

140 I don't see anything about borders in there, nor anything about employing felons (illegal aliens are felons by their first act). A huge chunk of our current mess goes away with secure borders and no employment for illegals.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 06:49 PM (kXoT0)

141 My problem is that I'm seeing this from a California
vantage point. Deranged hyper-progressives now have a
super-ooper-dooper-majority in the CA assembly and Senate, and regularly
pass the most insane communist laws. They will be representing me in
this process.

I can't even visualize a state in which is the state legislature is anything other than treasonous.

Posted by: zombie at January 08, 2016 06:47 PM (jBuUi)
But the entire California commie delegation is outvoted by the two delegations from Wyoming and Texas
just think of it that way

Posted by: chemjeff at January 08, 2016 06:49 PM (+4mdw)

142 133 --Certainly, "our betters" are salivating at the chance to revoke the entire Bill of Rights.
Posted by: JQ Flyover at January 08, 2016 06:48 PM (044Fx)

If that really is the case, then it will turn bloody and soon.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:49 PM (zLP1L)

143 How long will the whole process take?

During that time how will the State Legislatures change?

What are the risks presented by compromise?

You have to game this out and you have to be ready to face bad scenarios.

Don't say to yourself they can't do that or they can't do some other thing.

Posted by: eman at January 08, 2016 06:50 PM (mR7Es)

144 Whoo hoo Ace is taking the rest of the weekend off,

Posted by: Skip at January 08, 2016 06:50 PM (3ZgzE)

145 Okay, I agree with Abbots proposed amendments, but what would Democrats try to achieve in such a convention? And how likely would it be that they succeed?

Posted by: The Nayden Broad at January 08, 2016 06:50 PM (/ykaN)

146 I think there are at least 13 state legislatures we can count on?
Posted by: chemjeff

I dunno. I hope so. I'm clouded by California-itis.

Posted by: zombie at January 08, 2016 06:50 PM (jBuUi)

147 Wow. Light in the midst of darkness. Go, Abbott, go!

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at January 08, 2016 06:50 PM (B8JRQ)

148 Yeah those squinty eyed sonsabitches at the Ad Council have got to go.

I know they're watching me through my television set I use in my heavily fortified rec room.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 06:51 PM (4ErVI)

149 >>>>> Sometimes I'm cynical and think we need an asshole to burn things down, but sometimes I feel a faint glint of hope and think that maybe, maybe a good man can save us.
-------
Lauren, I have become incredibly jaded and cynical watching all this mess unfold over the last 7 yrs, but I haven't lost a sense of hope, thankfully. I still believe in miracles. I've witnessed minor miracles happen before me. This would be a giant miracle, but I haven't given up hope just yet. I'll let you know once I do. I do t think we're at that point just yet.

Posted by: L, Elle at January 08, 2016 06:51 PM (2x3L+)

150 Restore the Theocracy of 1787!

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 06:51 PM (rwI+c)

151 145 Okay, I agree with Abbots proposed amendments, but what would Democrats try to achieve in such a convention? And how likely would it be that they succeed?
Posted by: The Nayden Broad at January 08, 2016 06:50 PM (/ykaN)

Not likely they achieve anything. Each state has ONE vote in the process. The blue commie states won't even participate in this. And if they do, they are outnumbered in control of state legislators.

They will never participate in crafting amendments that RESTORE the Constitution.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:52 PM (zLP1L)

152
Have I ever mentioned my father was a mailman?
Posted by: Gov Kasich - Leading the delegation from O-Hi-O
........................

he said with pursed lips as he began to recite his list of accomplishments

Posted by: wth at January 08, 2016 06:52 PM (HgMAr)

153 I dunno. I hope so. I'm clouded by California-itis.

Posted by: zombie at January 08, 2016 06:50 PM (jBuUi)
Well that is understandable.
But just know that it only takes 13 states to stop something truly bad.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 08, 2016 06:52 PM (+4mdw)

154 Has Kasich thrown in the towel yet? I haven't been paying attention.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 06:53 PM (rwI+c)

155 So once again, I see lots of people talking about this stuff, but who is actually working towards making this type of convention a reality?

Posted by: chemjeff at January 08, 2016 06:53 PM (+4mdw)

156 If Texas secedes, then a border fence goes up so damn fast, it will make your head spin. Shut down the Texas corridor and California falls into the sea.

Friend has a son who is ex-Army and a lot of his buddies now work on big Texas ranches keeping the flood of illegals from burning down houses and killing cattle. A lot of those ranches have bunkhouses spread out to facilitate moving cattle around the ranch. Many of them are no longer usable due to squatters trashing them.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 06:53 PM (kXoT0)

157 143 How long will the whole process take?

During that time how will the State Legislatures change?

What are the risks presented by compromise?

You have to game this out and you have to be ready to face bad scenarios.

Don't say to yourself they can't do that or they can't do some other thing.
Posted by: eman at January 08, 2016 06:50 PM (mR7Es)

The process will take a few years. And I seriously doubt that there is a compromise position in repeal of the 17th amendment for example. Most of these are very clearcut proposals to restore power to the people.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:53 PM (zLP1L)

158 What are the chances the left will hijack the process and give us worse than we have, if this happens? I honestly don't know.

But I do know what those chances are if we don't change anything, and that's 100%.

Try to make it work, it's all you can do.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at January 08, 2016 06:54 PM (bLnSU)

159 Why do I think that a "call for an Article V Convention" is just another act in failure theater?

If these Amendments are sooooo damned popular, push them in Congress! Make them Vote! And when they do not go anywhere, at least we know a little more on who we need to replace.

Make the goddamned assholes in DC do their jobs!

Posted by: rd at January 08, 2016 06:54 PM (Ltj2h)

160 If that really is the case, then it will turn bloody and soon.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:49 PM (zLP1L)

I guess my problem is this -- I think if it were going to "turn bloody" as you say, it would have happened by now.

I don't think there are enough people who give enough of a shit or are informed enough to know the difference who will do anything.

Maybe its just because I'm surrounded by liberals, but I see "good" people who casually suggest confiscating guns, outlawing "hate speech", who think Obama is the best president since Washington, and who are entirely uninformed about every. single. thing. that happens in the world around them. They catch one panel of liberals on abc/nbc/cbs/cnn/msnbc once a month and repeat those lame talking points and htink THEY are the informed ones, and I'm the idiot.

With a country full of people like that... I just... I don't know.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 06:54 PM (AkOaV)

161
I do not oppose anything here, nor do I have high hopes.

Paradox is trying to fix a broken system that is broken because basic integrity is gone. This lack of integrity - fealty to rule of law, logic, common sense and honest interpretation of language - can easily chew up/spit out any "reforms" enacted, even if they're const. amendments.

Balanced budget amendment idea is the clearest example. Absolutely no chance it would ever constrain spending. Why? Because dishonest, irresponsible manipulation of numbers, words, concepts provide endless workarounds to those seeking to evade the restrictions. I believe const. requirements for balance, as well as sensible restrictions such as prohibiting funding for capital projects to be diverted to operating costs, exist in many states. They even worked for a long time. But recently, not so much.

Davis was recalled/Arnie was elected partly on the basis that Davis had been breaking just these sorts of rules/laws. Before long, Arnie was doing it too. Reaction? Zzzzzzzzzzz. I'd say the base level of system integrity in CA has actually been declining, rapidly. The idiotic "bullet train" project has been brazenly breaking the terms of their authorizing statute on $$$$, had to be taken to court to stop. This is now simply a routine occurrence. I'd bet that 30 years ago, it was unheard of.

The rot is hardly confined to the Beltway class, ace.

Posted by: rhomboid at January 08, 2016 06:54 PM (QDnY+)

162 152
Have I ever mentioned my father was a mailman?
Posted by: Gov Kasich - Leading the delegation from O-Hi-O
........................

he said with pursed lips as he began to recite his list of accomplishments
Posted by: wth at January 08, 2016 06:52 PM (HgMAr)

Did his dad schtup all the housewives???

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:54 PM (zLP1L)

163 Posted by: chemjeff at January 08, 2016 06:53 PM (+4mdw)

http://www.cosaction.com/

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 08, 2016 06:54 PM (Zu3d9)

164 So are the tolerant Facebook/Twitter liberals accusing Abbot of treason and demanding he be killed in a drone strike yet, or do we have to wait another hour for that?

Posted by: Cave Johnson at January 08, 2016 06:56 PM (5/vU+)

165
What Harry just said.

Posted by: rhomboid at January 08, 2016 06:56 PM (QDnY+)

166 Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.

While the rest of the suggestions are good, I'm hesitant over these two.

Just because SCOTUS has become political doesn't mean that going full political via the states will somehow reverse that. If anything, that would make things worse.

Also, SCOTUS doesn't invalidate enough laws.

Posted by: The Political Hat at January 08, 2016 06:56 PM (vBeA5)

167 Has Kasich thrown in the towel yet? I haven't been paying attention.
Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!

The Ohio GOP endorsed him today. He's a shoe out.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 08, 2016 06:56 PM (FkBIv)

168 161 The rot is hardly confined to the Beltway class, ace.
Posted by: rhomboid at January 08, 2016 06:54 PM (QDnY+)

Amendments aren't the typical pork laden telephone book size laws. They are very clearcut in intent and concise.

The people who are promoting this process are decent and moral people. I think it really is our last chance.

George Mason really was prescient.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:57 PM (zLP1L)

169 Posted by: rhomboid at January 08, 2016 06:54 PM (QDnY+)

Amendment #28:

In the event that congress submits or ultimately accepts a budget that is not balanced, all representatives who were members of that congress shall be immediately recalled and permanently barred from federal office. All expenditures approved by that congress shall be included in the total.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 08, 2016 06:58 PM (Zu3d9)

170 They will never participate in crafting amendments that RESTORE the Constitution.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:52 PM (zLP1L)
___

Well, I didnt assume that they would participate to do that, but will they try to pursue an FDR style 2nd Bill of Rights? Do we trust the GOP enough not to reach across the aisle? Im very skeptical if we judge the idea of such a convention merely by how much we like our amendment wish list. I cannot imagine that this is without risk.

Posted by: The Nayden Broad at January 08, 2016 06:58 PM (/ykaN)

171 Repeal the 17th, as well. Unbalanced the legislative branch, and eliminated the representation of the sovereign states in favor of rank populism. Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at January 08, 2016 06:36 PM

Despite the number of people who share your view, I can't go for this one.

You want the House to pick Senators? I can't see that making any improvement at all. Letting political hacks determine the makeup of another political-hack body strikes me as much worse than letting the Great Unwashed do it.

If that does come to pass, it must be accompanied by a reduced term of office (say, two years, but four as the absolute maximum), and strict term limits (two terms and out).

I think some of y'all are taking the Great Game of Politics view, and not thinking of the damage that might result in the Real World.

Posted by: MrScribbler at January 08, 2016 06:58 PM (mIvL9)

172 As to the 2nd Amendment, some very Liberal states have huge gun owning populations...Pennsylvania is the top state in the nation for number of hunters per capita.

Upstate NY
Downstate IL

etc.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 06:58 PM (kXoT0)

173 (pulls aside rep from liberal state)

Yes, I understand this is not your preference, but if this passes, *you* will have more relative power, authority, and funding.

*ding*

Won't work every time, doesn't have to.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at January 08, 2016 06:58 PM (bLnSU)

174 This is a good start, but not nearly enough. By what right, for example, does Obama import foreigners and "seed" them throughout the states, creating ghettos of invaders who will create chaos and/or vote for Democrats? By what right does Congress take impeachment off the table because they don't want to admit the first black president is a miserable tyrant, leaving the country at his mercy?

But let's go with this. So how does Abbot, as a leader, get the other 34 states on board? He's stood up (metaphorically), he should now move it forward.

Posted by: despair at January 08, 2016 06:59 PM (VrdxH)

175 My problem is I despise a large percentage of my fellow citizens who will never change as I will never change. i don't see a reconciliation. A successful Convention though may elicit a call from the Left for my fantasy divorce.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at January 08, 2016 06:59 PM (MNgU2)

176 170 Well, I didnt assume that they would participate to do that, but will they try to pursue an FDR style 2nd Bill of Rights? Do we trust the GOP enough not to reach across the aisle? Im very skeptical if we judge the idea of such a convention merely by how much we like our amendment wish list. I cannot imagine that this is without risk.
Posted by: The Nayden Broad at January 08, 2016 06:58 PM (/ykaN)

There is very little downside if any. If we do nothing, it all goes in the shitter. How fast or slow is the only issue.

READ LEVIN'S BOOK. It's in the library if you don't want to buy it.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:00 PM (zLP1L)

177 Just trying to take one possible amendment.
Put on the table the question of who has the right of citizenship, but this is just a hot topic example.
Many states get enough of funds from the feds and enjoy the population increase as well as a leftist position to want to keep the status quo so I could see this as something that probably couldn't pass a new amendment.

Posted by: Skip at January 08, 2016 07:00 PM (3ZgzE)

178 I can't even visualize a state in which is the state legislature is anything other than treasonous.
Posted by: zombie at January 08, 2016 06:47 PM (jBuUi)

What's that Braveheart quote? "The Nobles want what you want, but they've much to risk..."

Or, something like that.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Staring at the Lake in the rain at January 08, 2016 07:00 PM (WWdgA)

179 CBD, thanks!

Posted by: chemjeff at January 08, 2016 07:00 PM (+4mdw)

180 Now I'm coming in my pants after reading that list.

Re "one man, one vote": Back in the '60s, we came as close to calling a Con-con by the states as we ever did, just one state shy of the 2/3, to overturn that SC decision.

It was retarded. It invalidated the practice such as here of having the state senate made up of one senator per county. No, because of population differences, the supremes mandates that states had to divide their senate into districts of equal population. This made the senate the same as the state houses.

At the federal level, the senate is one state one vote(well, two votes). The Court said, well that is explicitly in the constitution, which otherwise mandates equal proportion, "one man, one vote".

Posted by: publius (not Breitbart publius) at January 08, 2016 07:00 PM (dvuhZ)

181

GREG ABBOTT COMING UP NEXT ON LEVIN.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:00 PM (zLP1L)

182
Did his dad schtup all the housewives???
....................

until his penis was bitten off one day by a jealous Dachsund

Posted by: wth at January 08, 2016 07:01 PM (HgMAr)

183 182 until his penis was bitten off one day by a jealous Dachsund
Posted by: wth at January 08, 2016 07:01 PM (HgMAr)

Schnitzel, you bad weeneee!!!

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:02 PM (zLP1L)

184 We should change the make-up of the Senate. Instead of two Senators elected by the people (or even by the legislature), the Governor of each state will automatically be one of the two Senators, with the other Senator being another state elected official of their choice (Lt. Gov., Sec. of State, A.G., Legislative spearker or state Senate Prez./Prez. pro Tem., &c.)

Posted by: The Political Hat at January 08, 2016 07:02 PM (vBeA5)

185
Why do I think that a "call for an Article V Convention" is just another act in failure theater?

If these Amendments are sooooo damned popular, push them in
Congress! Make them Vote! And when they do not go anywhere, at least we
know a little more on who we need to replace.

Make the goddamned assholes in DC do their jobs!

Posted by: rd at January 08, 2016 06:54 PM

^ I agree. (Not holding my breath, though.)

Posted by: JQ Flyover at January 08, 2016 07:02 PM (044Fx)

186 Weiner vs weiner.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 08, 2016 07:02 PM (FkBIv)

187 172 As to the 2nd Amendment, some very Liberal states have huge gun owning populations...Pennsylvania is the top state in the nation for number of hunters per capita.

Upstate NY
Downstate IL

etc.
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 06:58 PM (kXoT0)

What's good is that the Governors and Senators are not part of the process.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:03 PM (zLP1L)

188 GREG ABBOTT COMING UP NEXT ON LEVIN.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:00 PM

So, is Angry Kermit the Frog going to badger Abbott about dropping all his nutball ideas and just crusading for Levin's "Liberty Amendments"?

Posted by: MrScribbler at January 08, 2016 07:03 PM (mIvL9)

189 You want the House to pick Senators?

Article the first, Section. 3.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years;

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 07:03 PM (rwI+c)

190 Re the 17th: No, the state legislatures chose the Senators, not the "House".

This was the biggest architectural change to the federal govt ever made, and it just screwed the balance up. The Senate represented the states, as states, not the people. The House represented the people. To pass anything, both had to agree. The 17th took the states completely out of the federal power loop.

Posted by: publius (not Breitbart publius) at January 08, 2016 07:03 PM (dvuhZ)

191 Well, there is one thing that is going to change a lot of minds very quickly.

Misbehaving Syrian Refugees

These yutes in big American cities are eventually going to wild a fair number of Liberal women, who will then be told to put some ice on it. Reality is a misty distant concept for a lot of these women, so a vicious rape that comes with a nasty side order of drug resistant TB and venereal diseases including HIV given the inbred boy buttsecks fetish that infests the ME.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 07:03 PM (kXoT0)

192 I hope it happens. Have to try it before shooting starts.

Posted by: anti-socialist at January 08, 2016 07:04 PM (o9lmn)

193
138/Grump - Marbury

Yep, the executive's compliance with increasingly perverse/indefensible SCOTUS decisions is voluntary.

Went back and forth on this with Caesar North of the Rubicon here once.

The time I thought it was finally the point at which the executive should politely tell SCOTUS to go f**k itself was Bush v. Hamdan, wherein Kennedy usurped the treaty power in a ludicrous and brazen fashion. The judicial system, which is collapsed in terms of its proper role and American sensibility, has always shown the most deference in the area of national security and foreign policy. Hamdan was the universe's way of saying "time to put the SCOTUS in its place", but as with so much else, Bush just didn't have the will to do the smart and right thing.

Anyway, SCOTUS/judiciary should be cut down to size, and dramatically so, and that's all already in the scope of work for Congress. But they don't even consider doing it. Seems unlikely any const. amendment will do what a supine executive and legislature don't even consider doing.

Posted by: rhomboid at January 08, 2016 07:04 PM (QDnY+)

194
We see eye to eye with this Greg Abbott dude.

Posted by: pygmy cannibals at January 08, 2016 07:04 PM (HgMAr)

195 185 Make the goddamned assholes in DC do their jobs!

Posted by: rd at January 08, 2016 06:54 PM

I'm really at my wits end. The process BYPASSES Congress and that's the whole point of it. Why do we want to make Congress which has no respect for us do this? For what purpose? Fuck Congress. They've screwed us long and hard enough. This can let us screw them.

I give up. READ LEVIN'S BOOK.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:05 PM (zLP1L)

196 Delegation Doctrine.

Abbott speaks it.

Posted by: alexthechick - we don't deserve SMOD but so deserve Cthulhu at January 08, 2016 07:05 PM (IrByp)

197 188 So, is Angry Kermit the Frog going to badger Abbott about dropping all his nutball ideas and just crusading for Levin's "Liberty Amendments"?
Posted by: MrScribbler at January 08, 2016 07:03 PM (mIvL9)

Why so bitter?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:06 PM (zLP1L)

198 I'm onboard. Let's do this.

Posted by: Willy at January 08, 2016 07:06 PM (ersJc)

199 It is a risky move, but so is doing nothing

If you start shooting beforehand it's just murder.

Posted by: DaveA at January 08, 2016 07:06 PM (DL2i+)

200 As Sgt. York might say, "You can be fer or again' it. I'm fer it."

Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at January 08, 2016 07:06 PM (u5gzz)

201 Many states get enough of funds from the feds and enjoy the population increase as well as a leftist position to want to keep the status quo so I could see this as something that probably couldn't pass a new amendment.

Posted by: Skip at January 08, 2016 07:00 PM (3ZgzE)

How about an amendment that bars the Federal government making money given to the states dependent on the states passing laws that the Federal government couldn't impose on their own?

Or better yet, ban the Federal government from giving money to the states.

Posted by: The Political Hat at January 08, 2016 07:06 PM (vBeA5)

202 This dude Abbott is on a roll.

Posted by: pygmy cannibals at January 08, 2016 07:06 PM (HgMAr)

203 Hell yes.

Posted by: wisenheimer at January 08, 2016 07:07 PM (qnhj2)

204 Here here! I like all nine.

Here is #10.....repeal the 17th amendment.

Posted by: Hairyback Guy at January 08, 2016 07:07 PM (ej1L0)

205 The Senate of the United States shall be composed of
two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for
six Years;

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 07:03 PM

Okay, yeah, my bad. I'm wrong.

But I'm not sure that's any improvement. In the two states where I have lived the majority of my years (CA and MA), the state legislatures have been even more corrupt, lazy and venal than the 435 in D.C.

Posted by: MrScribbler at January 08, 2016 07:07 PM (mIvL9)

206
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.A.Lincoln -January 27, 1838

Posted by: flawless male logic at January 08, 2016 07:08 PM (lKyWE)

207 It's nice to dream.

No IRS
No Dept of Edumaction

etc.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 07:08 PM (kXoT0)

208 Has anyone ever looked at the wonderful South African Constitution? It is very progressive. The people have all kinds of modern rights. They even have the right to 10 kWh of electricity every month. And the right to make the utility string the lines, and pay for it all.

I can just see Sheila Jackson Lee and Hank Johson, Moonbeam Jerry Brown, Chucky Schumer and the like pushing all these progressive amendments. They are POSITIVE RIGHTS!!!! And the milk toast GOPe will go along. Want to bet that they won't find 37 spineless state legislatures to pass these types of amendments???

Posted by: rd at January 08, 2016 07:08 PM (Ltj2h)

209 Yep, the executive's compliance with increasingly perverse/indefensible SCOTUS decisions is voluntary.

I mean something slightly different than the raw power to ignore a ruling. I don't believe they can, and Lincoln didn't either. But, they don't rule on laws, they rule on cases. When they decide a case, it's binding on the Executive, in that case. Marbury is just a statement that since they will rule thus on every such or similoar case brought before them, the law is effectively repealed. Except that they can't rule on every case. There are too many.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 07:08 PM (rwI+c)

210 So this is where the Washington City government attacks a sovereign state (Texas). And you can bet your ass they really want to make an example of us. Well, all I can say is-
COME AND TAKE IT.

Posted by: Eromero at January 08, 2016 07:09 PM (b+df9)

211 Great post, ace.

Those amendments sound good, and long overdue.

Posted by: rickl at January 08, 2016 07:09 PM (sdi6R)

212 Re "one man, one vote": Back in the '60s, we came as close to calling a Con-con by the states as we ever did, just one state shy of the 2/3, to overturn that SC decision.

It was retarded. It invalidated the practice such as here of having the state senate made up of one senator per county. No, because of population differences, the supremes mandates that states had to divide their senate into districts of equal population. This made the senate the same as the state houses.

Posted by: publius (not Breitbart publius) at January 08, 2016 07:00 PM (dvuhZ)

Interestingly enough, if the old state Senate map that was in force in California before the "1 person 1 vote" SCOTUS rulings were still in place, the California state Senate would have a GOP majority.

In Nevada, there would be at most 2-3 state Senators out of 17, with many of those seats potentiall going to either the Libertarians or the Independent American Party (which is hard right).

Posted by: The Political Hat at January 08, 2016 07:10 PM (vBeA5)

213 @204 Here is #10.....repeal the 17th amendment.
--------------

Hell yes. While we're reaching for the stars, repeal the 16th, too.

Posted by: Willy at January 08, 2016 07:10 PM (ersJc)

214 One thing that I find interesting about the pre-17th Senate selection is that the Constitution says they shall choice, but not the manner of their choosing. The Legislature could appoint them themselves, let the Governor recommend one, or even have a plebiscite if they so chose.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 07:12 PM (rwI+c)

215 Now is the time to do it since the Republicans control 33 or 34 state legislatures.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at January 08, 2016 07:12 PM (MNgU2)

216 Why so bitter?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:06 PM

Not bitter, JJ. Just a wee bit tired of people puffing up Levin. He's a radio talker, not a doer.

Posted by: MrScribbler at January 08, 2016 07:12 PM (mIvL9)

217 You want the House to pick Senators? I can't see that making any improvement at all. Letting political hacks determine the makeup of another political-hack body strikes me as much worse than letting the Great Unwashed do it.

Posted by: MrScribbler at January 08, 2016 06:58 PM (mIvL9)

I don't understand this. The 17th Amendment isn't about the House picking Senators...

Posted by: East Bay KG at January 08, 2016 07:13 PM (YUrE9)

218 Instead of just repealing the 17th Amendment, why not just the state's the freedom to choose their Senators however they like?

In the years running up to the 17th Amendment, legislatures were increasingly having popular elections to choose the Senator, and then rubber stamping the results.

If they want their Senators popularly elected, they can.

If they want the Legislature to elect them, they can.

If they want the Governor to serve or choose the Senator, they can.

If they want to take a random name out of the phone book, they can.

Posted by: The Political Hat at January 08, 2016 07:13 PM (vBeA5)

219 And once you call a Constitutional Convention, EVERYTHING is on the table. It is not limited to the proposal you THINK you called the convention for.

Posted by: zombie

It's not a Constitutional convention.

It's not a Constitutional convention.

It's not a Constitutional convention.

It's not a Constitutional convention.

It's not a Constitutional convention.

It's not a Constitutional convention.

It's not a Constitutional convention.

It's not a Constitutional convention.

Do you get the fucking point yet?

Posted by: weft cut-loop at January 08, 2016 07:13 PM (9YDUz)

220 216 He's a radio talker, not a doer.
Posted by: MrScribbler at January 08, 2016 07:12 PM (mIvL9)

Ever hear of Landmark Legal Foundation? He's been going after the NEA, EPA and IRS for years.

And the things he has said over the past 7 years or so have educated me on things I never knew and should have been taught.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:14 PM (zLP1L)

221 At this point in time what do we have to lose?

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 07:14 PM (voOPb)

222 219 Posted by: weft cut-loop at January 08, 2016 07:13 PM (9YDUz)

Forget it, Weft. Sometimes it's like pissing into the wind. Even here, unfortunately.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:15 PM (zLP1L)

223 213 Hell yes. While we're reaching for the stars, repeal the 16th, too.

Posted by: Willy at January 08, 2016 07:10 PM (ersJc)

It's in Levin's book, but it's not part of Abbott's plan, I don't think. Of all people Hucklebee has proposed a Fair tax.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:16 PM (zLP1L)

224 Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:14 PM (zLP1L)

I'm not a big Levin fan but his Legal Landmark Foundation does good work and would classify him as a doer.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at January 08, 2016 07:16 PM (MNgU2)

225 Abbott 2017
Republic of Tejas

Posted by: phreshone at January 08, 2016 07:16 PM (LoIJo)

226 How about an amendment that allows states to limit voting to those who don't directly (as opposed to more general things such as roads) take out more money from the state than they put in?

On Welfare? Can't vote.

Get "Green eneregy" money from the government? Can't vote.

In a public school? Can't vote.

I'd even extend this to those who earn the money as bureaucrats.

Posted by: The Political Hat at January 08, 2016 07:17 PM (vBeA5)

227
It's not a Constitutional convention.
It's not a Constitutional convention.
It's not a Constitutional convention.
It's not a Constitutional convention.
It's not a Constitutional convention.
It's not a Constitutional convention.
It's not a Constitutional convention.
It's not a Constitutional convention.

Do you get the fucking point yet?
Posted by: weft cut-loop

So -- you're saying it's a Constitutional convention then?

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 08, 2016 07:17 PM (kdS6q)

228 You can argue that taking the states as states out of the loop via the 17th was the sine qua non of federal usurpation. Senators representing state governments would not for the shit that takes away state power, unfunded mandates, forcing them to pass laws in order to get money and all that shit.

Trying to change it back would bring up charges of "anti-democracy". LIVs, who don't understand the issue, and couldn't be made to understand, would be vulnerable to this.

So, giving the states the power to overturn federal law, as Abbot's proposals do, may be the best we can do. In the original Senate, a majority of the states' representatives had to agree to pass a federal law (or filibuster proof majority, however the rules were back then).

This would be veto, and require 2/3 of the state legistlatures. So it's weaker than the original pre-17th system, but if that's the best we can do, it's better than nothing by a long shot.

Posted by: publius (not Breitbart publius) at January 08, 2016 07:17 PM (dvuhZ)

229
COME AND TAKE IT.

Posted by: Eromero at January 08, 2016 07:09 PM (b+df9)

Would you take some help from a wasp Yankee? I would be glad to help Texas out.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 07:17 PM (voOPb)

230 Posted by: MrScribbler at January 08, 2016 06:58 PM (mIvL9)

it would be the state legislatures, not the house of reps, picking senators.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 07:17 PM (AkOaV)

231 208 Posted by: rd at January 08, 2016 07:08 PM (Ltj2h)

They only each get ONE vote. It will never happen because it will never be allowed to be proposed.

And you presuppose these states will participate in the first place.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:17 PM (zLP1L)

232 28 Why doesn't he get the Texas Delegation to submit them to Congress as amendments today?

I'd like them to work within the system.

Remember the present Constitution started as a convention to improve the original Confederation of States Constitution.
Posted by: rd at January 08, 2016 06:26 PM (Ltj2h)

This IS working within the system. Article V of the Constitution specifically allows for it.

Posted by: rickl at January 08, 2016 07:18 PM (sdi6R)

233

Trump/Abbot 2016: Come on -- you know you wanna

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 08, 2016 07:18 PM (kdS6q)

234 9 points??? Shit I can't remember 3

Posted by: Rick Perry at January 08, 2016 07:18 PM (LoIJo)

235 You have to game this out and you have to be ready to face bad scenarios.

We got 19T$ reasons not to worry about it.

Posted by: DaveA at January 08, 2016 07:18 PM (DL2i+)

236 Did his dad schtup all the housewives???
....................

until his penis was bitten off one day by a jealous Dachsund
Posted by: wth at January 08, 2016 07:01 PM (HgMAr)
---
what a putz

Posted by: willow at January 08, 2016 07:19 PM (+wjl1)

237 Pass an amendment that prohibits Senators and Representatives from succeeding themselves (i.e. immediate reelection)?

Posted by: The Political Hat at January 08, 2016 07:19 PM (vBeA5)

238
Okay guys, I'm getting frustrated. And I don't want to do that around here.

I've said my peace. Later.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:19 PM (zLP1L)

239 GOD HATES SMURFS

SMURFS DIE, GOD LAUGHS

Posted by: Hypercalvinist Smurf at January 08, 2016 07:19 PM (5luh1)

240 Ever hear of Landmark Legal Foundation? He's been going after the NEA, EPA and IRS for years.
And the things he has said over the past 7 years or so have educated me on things I never knew and should have been taught.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:14 PM

I'm not going to argue about Levin, JJ. I think he is far superior to the rest of the Chairborne Radio Commandos.

But if he knows what the country needs -- hence his book -- he should know damn well that what the country needs right now is something more than pinpricks on the hides of EPA, NEA and IRS.

When he comes out for the prosecution of Shrillery, the impeachment of Choom Boy and a wholesale rash of indictments against the 535 criminals in D.C., let me know.

Posted by: MrScribbler at January 08, 2016 07:20 PM (mIvL9)

241 If you're frustrated here don't go to Twitter mr. Sefton

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 07:20 PM (voOPb)

242 Obama is such a pussy, i can kick his ass from my chair

Posted by: Greg Abbott at January 08, 2016 07:21 PM (LoIJo)

243 Instead of just repealing the 17th Amendment, why not just the state's the freedom to choose their Senators however they like?
In the years running up to the 17th Amendment, legislatures were increasingly having popular elections to choose the Senator, and then rubber stamping the results.
If they want their Senators popularly elected, they can.
If they want the Legislature to elect them, they can.
If they want the Governor to serve or choose the Senator, they can.
If they want to take a random name out of the phone book, they can.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 08, 2016 07:13 PM (vBeA5)

Yup....I like this too. Anything is better than strait elections to the office where Santa Clinton or Santa McCain can bribe and buy votes to stay in the Senate forever.

Posted by: Hairyback Guy at January 08, 2016 07:21 PM (ej1L0)

244 >>> How about an amendment that allows states to limit voting to those who don't directly (as opposed to more general things such as roads) take out more money from the state than they put in?

I want literacy tests. Not too keep minorities from voting, too keep self-selected dumbasses from voting.

Posted by: fluffy at January 08, 2016 07:21 PM (AfsKp)

245 'Trying to change it back would bring up charges of "anti-democracy".'

Not 'would'. 'Has'.

That was scumbag Bennet's campaign against Ken Buck here in Colorado. Buck had mooted that certain amendments, like the direct-election amendment, were mistakes. Scumbag Bennet ran ads that Buck was proposing to burn the Constitution.

Buck had made some silly comments as well, but on this much Buck wasn't silly - Buck was right, just outside Colorado's overton-window at the time.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at January 08, 2016 07:21 PM (6FqZa)

246 i wonder what type of hand the media would show . imagine their using their position for their personal ideological outcome. siccing their constituents on scared politicians

Posted by: willow at January 08, 2016 07:21 PM (+wjl1)

247 I'll add my suggestions:

Raise the voting age back to 21, except in for those in active service, where it can remain 18
Clarify the "birthright citizen" issue
Term limits, including SCOTUS
Senators go back to being appointed by their states

Posted by: josephistan at January 08, 2016 07:22 PM (7qAYi)

248 The rot is hardly confined to the Beltway class, ace.

Gotta start somewhere.

Posted by: DaveA at January 08, 2016 07:22 PM (DL2i+)

249 The Daily Mail has their typically semi gruesome photos of the ISIS terrorist the Egyptians killed at the Red Sea resort today. Never thought I'd enjoy viewing that kind of photo but I do.

Posted by: Tuna at January 08, 2016 07:23 PM (JSovD)

250
JJ, don't get exasperated.

I think many who are skeptical of the outcome support the idea as a "no regrets" option.

I'm not too concerned about a "rogue" convention of states, and I really have no idea what the political handicapping would be on likelihood of achieving X or Y.

As I said, I don't oppose the idea. My despair is that when integrity and rule of law are gone - which really is the basic problem, not just a hostile intermediary in the form of the Beltway class - enacting new rules could offer slim hope of improvement.

Posted by: rhomboid at January 08, 2016 07:23 PM (QDnY+)

251 At this point in time what do we have to lose? Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian............................What difference, at this point, does it make?

Posted by: Hillary!s mudflaps at January 08, 2016 07:24 PM (HgMAr)

252 Not too keep minorities from voting

For the record, I don't want "minorities" voting either. If you belong to a group that news-anchors label a "community" with a straight face, you're a foreign nation, and you should be treated as a self-governing Ottoman millet by law.

I sure as fuck don't want some other "community" deciding on *my* fate. If I wanted that I'd move to the United Arab Emirates.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at January 08, 2016 07:24 PM (6FqZa)

253 the bonfires are lit

this is evidence of light and hope

in a dark time

Posted by: Feh at January 08, 2016 07:25 PM (Uk9e2)

254 No law, except for declaring war, can be passed without "sitting" for 6 months.

Posted by: josephistan at January 08, 2016 07:25 PM (7qAYi)

255 I was disappointed that there wasn't an NFL Pick'em Group this year. I was also disappointed there wasn't a Bowl game Pick'em either. And since it doesn't look like anyone else is going to do a Fantasy Playoff Challenge I did.

www.nfl.com Go to Fantasy Choose Playoff Challenge.

Group Name: Ace Of Spades HQ
Password: Ewok

Join if you would like.

Posted by: buzzion - Pinochet 2016! at January 08, 2016 07:25 PM (zt+N6)

256 Make the goddamned assholes in DC do their jobs!

They're not, won't and can't. They're interests no longer align with the state or district they represent.

Posted by: DaveA at January 08, 2016 07:27 PM (DL2i+)

257 241 If you're frustrated here don't go to Twitter mr. Sefton

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 07:20 PM (voOPb)

Avoid it like plague. I am trying to de-social media myself.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:27 PM (zLP1L)

258 @240 MrScribbler Levin has come out for Cankles prosecution & impeachment of TFG.

Regarding the alphabet soup agencies Abbots plans would almost neuter them.,it's a start. Libs don't do everything at once. Incrementalism

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 07:27 PM (voOPb)

259 J.J like a dork I subscribed to it in November. Arrgh

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 07:28 PM (voOPb)

260 240 When he comes out for the prosecution of Shrillery, the impeachment of Choom Boy and a wholesale rash of indictments against the 535 criminals in D.C., let me know.
Posted by: MrScribbler at January 08, 2016 07:20 PM (mIvL9)

He has. Repeatedly. The problem is he doesn't have the power to do that, like the rest of us. He DOES have a very influential voice, which thank G-d is on our side.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:28 PM (zLP1L)

261
As I said, I don't oppose the idea. My despair is that when integrity and rule of law are gone - which really is the basic problem, not just a hostile intermediary in the form of the Beltway class - enacting new rules could offer slim hope of improvement.

Posted by: rhomboid at January 08, 2016 07:23 PM (QDnY+)

i imagine when the livs discover what hand they've allowed themselves to be dealt and money doesn't flow as freely And when they realize that those we appoint have all gathered the money and power for themselves along with special rights , They might become not as complacent and decide goose and gander times.

might. and i do believe when govt decides it is Better than the laws they themselves shoved on the citizenry, when people are tired of swallowing the unfairness /Unequalness of the deal they might revolt.

that's my fear, because we can't stay stupid forever

Posted by: willow at January 08, 2016 07:29 PM (+wjl1)

262 >>> For the record, I don't want "minorities" voting either. If you belong to a group that news-anchors label a "community" with a straight face, you're a foreign nation, and you should be treated as a self-governing Ottoman millet by law

We in the Furry-American community take umbrage at you, Sir.

Posted by: fluffy at January 08, 2016 07:29 PM (AfsKp)

263 Make the goddamned assholes in DC do their jobs!

Make the trains run on time.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 08, 2016 07:29 PM (FkBIv)

264 On a side note, in the Yahoogroup I asked if anyone was interested in putting together a conservative model state constitution.

Most of the proposed model state constitution tend to be minimalist and more Progressive than Jacksonian.

E-mail me at the e-mail address on my site linked below if you are interested.

Posted by: The Political Hat at January 08, 2016 07:29 PM (vBeA5)

265 No matter what form the final proposals take, the general spirit of them should include the following to main principles:

1) Putting the states, as states, back in the federal loop of power. As it is now, they have absolutely no say so at all over federal law.

2) Reversing the Supreme Court's arrogation to itself as the sole "decider" of Constitutional interpretation. And, as Abbot's proposals do, this check should be in the hands of states, as states.

Those two should be the fundamental guiding principles, no matter what the details of the final form. The details are important, of course, but this is the big picture of what you're trying to accomplish.

Posted by: publius (not Breitbart publius) at January 08, 2016 07:29 PM (dvuhZ)

266 when integrity and rule of law are gone - which really is the basic
problem, not just a hostile intermediary in the form of the Beltway
class - enacting new rules could offer slim hope of improvement.

Yes, this exactly!

Posted by: JQ Flyover at January 08, 2016 07:30 PM (044Fx)

267
If it makes everyone around here feel any better, I would prefer an Agusto Pinochet to come along to do some "house cleaning" for a few years.

But, hey. What are you gonna do?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:30 PM (zLP1L)

268 these actions are also symbolic and have value as such as indications of vigor and something to emulate

sometimes you have to stand up

Posted by: Feh at January 08, 2016 07:31 PM (Uk9e2)

269 I want literacy tests. Not too keep minorities from voting, too keep self-selected dumbasses from voting.

Would that include spelling?

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 08, 2016 07:31 PM (FkBIv)

270 an amendment i would like would state that any federal/state employee elected or whatever is to be held by every law that the citizenry are to be held to.

Posted by: willow at January 08, 2016 07:32 PM (+wjl1)

271 I brought up seeing Muzzy atrocities, I do look at them (not all and don't go out of my way to see them) just to see the pure evil of these people. Talking of bravery the Jordanian pilot that was captured and burned alive in the cage showed a amazing courage. Maybe watching these pictures have made me absolutely hate them.

Posted by: Skip at January 08, 2016 07:32 PM (3ZgzE)

272 If it makes everyone around here feel any better, I would prefer an Agusto Pinochet to come along to do some "house cleaning" for a few years.

But, hey. What are you gonna do?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:30 PM (zLP1L)

Get a voodoo witch doctor and zombify his corpse?

Posted by: The Voodoo Hat at January 08, 2016 07:32 PM (vBeA5)

273 272
Get a voodoo witch doctor and zombify his corpse?
Posted by: The Voodoo Hat at January 08, 2016 07:32 PM (vBeA5)

You wear a lot of hats, no?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:34 PM (zLP1L)

274 I want literacy tests. Not too keep minorities from voting, too keep self-selected dumbasses from voting.

Would that include spelling?

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 08, 2016 07:31 PM (FkBIv)

No, it will include the Gom Jabbar...

Posted by: Hat Muad'dib at January 08, 2016 07:34 PM (vBeA5)

275 gah adherence to all laws they have passed.

sorry brain is tired

Posted by: willow at January 08, 2016 07:34 PM (+wjl1)

276 skip, I watched that video too and will never forget it

they are dead, and deserve death

Posted by: Feh at January 08, 2016 07:35 PM (Uk9e2)

277 Greg Abbot's quite a guy. Stand up Greg, let everybody see you.

Posted by: Joe Biden at January 08, 2016 07:35 PM (VRc/p)

278 On a amendment convention i would worry about stuff leftists would try and as its been mentioned some conservatives might get all squishy giving away things to get some small compensation.

Posted by: Skip at January 08, 2016 07:36 PM (3ZgzE)

279 agreed willow, a thousand times

we are a decadent and rotted thing

Posted by: Feh at January 08, 2016 07:36 PM (Uk9e2)

280 or even have a plebiscite if they so chose

In fact, many of them did. About 33 states at the time of the amendment already used popular election to choose Senators.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at January 08, 2016 07:36 PM (2lndx)

281 Dear concern trolls who think an Article V Convention would inevitably be hijacked by the leftists . . .

1) How, precisely, would that be functionally different than what we have today?

2) Republicans now control a wide majority of State governments. Democrats are diligently working to make sure that never happens again. We will not get another chance. Count on it.

3) Name a workable alternative to an Article V Convention, other than secession and revolution. Revolutions and civil wars kill a lot of people and destroy a lot of property. They are things to be avidly avoided. ("Working within the system?" See: 114th Congress, controlled by Republicans, yet still utterly unable to contain the leftist agenda. The national Republican party has been co-opted. There is some hope yet in the State GOP parties.

There is yet a window of hope.

You concern trolls may, as far as I am concerned, defenestrate yourselves through that window and let serious people discuss the problem.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 07:37 PM (s5o+q)

282 Surprised I'm not seeing more comments for term limits.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 08, 2016 07:37 PM (Wckf4)

283 The heck with everything else.

16th and 17th must go first.

Then we can talk.

Posted by: exsanguine at January 08, 2016 07:37 PM (dZhSr)

284 282 Surprised I'm not seeing more comments for term limits.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 08, 2016 07:37 PM (Wckf4)

The debate has been about the futility/stupidity/dangerousness of the process and not necessarily about possible amendments.

But, hell yes. Including judges.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:38 PM (zLP1L)

285
I love Greg Abbott. I was right about him.

Prediction: He will be president of the United States one day.

Posted by: L, Elle at January 08, 2016 06:30 PM (2x3L+)

He'll need to pick someone with the last name of Costello to be his VP

Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 08, 2016 07:38 PM (45oDG)

286 Burn the Witch0 MrScribbler mentioned it.

i agree it's better than lifetime tenures of pay to play crap. and deals within wheels.

Posted by: willow at January 08, 2016 07:39 PM (+wjl1)

287 Okay, yeah, my bad. I'm wrong.

But I'm not
sure that's any improvement. In the two states where I have lived the
majority of my years (CA and MA), the state legislatures have been even
more corrupt, lazy and venal than the 435 in D.C.

Posted by: MrScribbler at January 08, 2016 07:07 PM (mIvL9)

You're not wrong. That amendment came about due to a populist uprising in the late 19th century. The railroads were buying up state legislatures and the inevitable resulted.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 07:39 PM (4ErVI)

288 285 He'll need to pick someone with the last name of Costello to be his VP
Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 08, 2016 07:38 PM (45oDG)

Frank?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:40 PM (zLP1L)

289 No amendment on Aliens? Think forward people.

Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at January 08, 2016 07:40 PM (C5Y8A)

290 Very Well said Ace.

And proud of my governor for advancing the only real long term solution to our nightmare.

Posted by: Alamo at January 08, 2016 07:41 PM (aVNi6)

291 284 282 Surprised I'm not seeing more comments for term limits.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 08, 2016 07:37 PM (Wckf4)

The debate has been about the futility/stupidity/dangerousness of the process and not necessarily about possible amendments.

But, hell yes. Including judges.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:38 PM (zLP1L)

I've been trying to figure out a way to combine term limits with some prohibition on former office holders going on to cushy lobbying jobs with non-profits or corporations.

Best I've been able to do so far is something like an American House of Lords . . . another house of Congress, with no real power, but offering exceptionally cushy retirements to former office holders on the condition that they have no other employment.

The devil is in the details, as well as quite possibly in the concept itself.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 07:43 PM (s5o+q)

292 By what means do they propose to limit the range of changes the convention of states may decide? For that matter, what voting process is used for making any changes?

It appears all states take part in the convention as there is no stated
limit stating only those states calling for the convention may take
part. This leaves the convention open to hijacking.

The former is critical because the convention could get taken over by progressives and turn its original intent upside down. There is no limiting mechanism proposed in the Constitution itself. So once the convention begins anything and everything can be modified.

The latter is also unspecified in the Constitution. Precedent appears to be one vote one state. We know how that works out in the Senate, don't we?

One additional question rather suggests itself, how are the delegates chosen? Therein likes the seeds for having the convention blow up in our faces.

Beware of that for which you wish for you may receive it and discover its side effects.

{^_^}

Posted by: JDow at January 08, 2016 07:43 PM (RxSVW)

293 This headline over at the sidebar made my day: Breitbart has gone full beeve.

I couldn't see too much detail in the photo, but it looked nicely trimmed. They needed a closer shot.

Unlike most "nekkid" protests, this girl was hot. These I can get behind.

Posted by: publius (not Breitbart publius) at January 08, 2016 07:44 PM (dvuhZ)

294 289 No amendment on Aliens? Think forward people.
Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at January 08, 2016 07:40 PM (C5Y8A)

I'm totally for an amendment banning Alien eruption from a host body prior to the third trimester.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 07:44 PM (s5o+q)

295 And it will never happen, but we can dream.

The only thing that is going to shut down the fed is the armed revolution that is coming.

Posted by: Andrew at January 08, 2016 07:45 PM (zcuxU)

296 And so it begin..

In the course of human events...

Posted by: Kreplach at January 08, 2016 07:45 PM (zeEmA)

297
You concern trolls may, as far as I am concerned, defenestrate yourselves through that window and let serious people discuss the problem.
Posted by: filbert

Calling for a Constitutional convention or a Convention of the States as a realistic solution to our current problems is the political equivalent of playing Fort underneath the coffee-table.

We know you're having fun, but time to put the cushions back on the couch. Mommy and Daddy have company coming over and we're going to spend the evening getting liquored up on Rob Roys.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 08, 2016 07:45 PM (kdS6q)

298 1) How, precisely, would that be functionally different than what we have today?

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 07:37 PM (s5o+q)

Because the old forms provide at least some barrier. The form, even if it is de facto ignored, does provide some framework and limitation, as well as norms that can be appealed to.

Removing that would completely unchain the Progressives... think S. Africa's constitution

Posted by: The Constitutional Hat at January 08, 2016 07:46 PM (vBeA5)

299 Breitbart has gone full beeve.

Gee, Wally!

Posted by: The Beeve at January 08, 2016 07:46 PM (FkBIv)

300 @281 2) Republicans now control a wide majority of State governments. Democrats are diligently working to make sure that never happens again.
----------------

Good point. Here in FL a judge let left leaning voters "rights" groups redraw congressional voting district to make things more "fair" (for dems).

The left never stops. They have to be fought everyday.

Posted by: Willy at January 08, 2016 07:47 PM (ersJc)

301 about possible amendments.

No net taxpayer = no vote.
No balanced budget = no vote. (No war exception, if you can't afford to win it aint worth killing over).

Posted by: DaveA at January 08, 2016 07:47 PM (DL2i+)

302 Re a runaway convention. It takes *****3/4****** of the states to ratify any changes by the Art. V convention. The convention can runaway all it wants. The SJWs could take it over and turn it into some full communist manifesto, but in order for one word of it to become law, Supreme Law, 75% of the states must agree.

That's also a big hurdle of getting something positive done.

If 3/4 of the states agree to SJW nonsense, then we're gone anyway.

Posted by: publius (not Breitbart publius) at January 08, 2016 07:47 PM (dvuhZ)

303 In the event that congress submits or ultimately accepts a budget that is not balanced, all representatives who were members of that congress shall be immediately recalled and permanently barred from federal office. All expenditures approved by that congress shall be included in the total.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 08, 2016 06:58 PM (Zu3d9)

Section 2. "Balanced" in this context is defined as: Receipts during the each fiscal year must be equal to or greater than outlays for that same fiscal year. Moving line items to previous years via legislation is forbidden.

Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 07:48 PM (mSKnV)

304 I've been trying to figure out a way to combine term
limits with some prohibition on former office holders going on to cushy
lobbying jobs with non-profits or corporations.

Best I've been able to do so far is something like an American House
of Lords . . . another house of Congress, with no real power, but
offering exceptionally cushy retirements to former office holders on the
condition that they have no other employment.

The devil is in the details, as well as quite possibly in the concept itself.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 07:43 PM (s5o+q)

Just ban lobbying.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 07:49 PM (4ErVI)

305 good to see a politician outlining constructive steps. Abbot needs to take the next step and actually make this happen

Posted by: Grad School Fool at January 08, 2016 07:49 PM (A9KzJ)

306 I can't always tell what extra videos on this site are supposed to be there or are ads that could be different for everyone. But the dog with sunglasses and his head out the car window cracks me up endlessly.

Posted by: Skip at January 08, 2016 07:49 PM (3ZgzE)

307
Calling for a Constitutional convention or a Convention of the States as a realistic solution to our current problems

Is EXACTLY the procedure and has been used multiple times.

Posted by: DaveA at January 08, 2016 07:50 PM (DL2i+)

308 >> 13 I have a painful boner now. Thanks Ace.

Everything's bigger in Texas.

Posted by: Duncanthrax the Bellicose at January 08, 2016 07:51 PM (GWySV)

309 285 He'll need to pick someone with the last name of Costello to be his VP

Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 08, 2016 07:38 PM (45oDG)

Frank?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:40 PM (zLP1L)

Sure. Abbott and Costello 2016.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 08, 2016 07:51 PM (45oDG)

310 Calling for a Constitutional convention or a Convention of the States as a realistic solution to our current problems is the political equivalent of playing Fort underneath the coffee-table.

We know you're having fun, but time to put the cushions back on the couch. Mommy and Daddy have company coming over and we're going to spend the evening getting liquored up on Rob Roys.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 08, 2016 07:45 PM (kdS6q)

The whole "We can't do this because the libs will hijack it" line of BS just drives me crazy.

By that measure, we never should have created universities.

Or the printing press.

Or the United States.

It's a concern-troli/panic reaction/PTSD line, masquerading as something trying to sound "sober and adult."

It's not sober and adult.

It's juvenile and knee-jerk. It's unworthy of discussion and debate, because it's not a position open to discussion and debate. It's an obstinate digging-in of the heels.

Lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 07:52 PM (s5o+q)

311 "At this point in time what do we have to lose? Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian............................What difference, at this point, does it make?..................................
Posted by: Hillary!s mudflaps"

Exactly. What's the worst that could happen ?
About what we'll be looking at after 8 years of Hillary! anyway.

Posted by: sock_rat_eez at January 08, 2016 07:52 PM (S0bOl)

312 Just ban lobbying.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 07:49 PM (4ErVI)

Yah, but I kinda like the whole "freedom of speech" and "petition for redress" thing. It would be nice to figure out a way to get back to that.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 07:53 PM (s5o+q)

313 Brilliant!! Add to a document they disregard at their whim. Article V isn't necessary for a State to assert themself. I enjoyed the "limited powers" he wishes to add...as if it's not currently there. This reflects poorly upon Abbot.

Posted by: jk at January 08, 2016 07:53 PM (naN6T)

314 By what means do they propose to limit the range of changes the convention of states may decide? For that matter, what voting process is used for making any changes?

Posted by: JDow

FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME, IT'S NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

They are amendments. Each State legislature has to pass the exact same text in whole or it does not become law.

There's nothing to hijack.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at January 08, 2016 07:53 PM (9YDUz)

315 Okay, Imma defenestrate through yon window to go read this:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42589.pdf

I guess I'll have to go buy Mr. Levin's The Liberty Amendments as well, and it's not even Sunday Book Thread Day....

Posted by: JQ Flyover at January 08, 2016 07:53 PM (044Fx)

316 Because the old forms provide at least some barrier. The form, even if it is de facto ignored, does provide some framework and limitation, as well as norms that can be appealed to.

Removing that would completely unchain the Progressives... think S. Africa's constitution
Posted by: The Constitutional Hat at January 08, 2016 07:46 PM (vBeA5)

So, basically, the same effect as appointing one more Progressive to the Supreme Court, then?

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 07:54 PM (s5o+q)

317
Calling for a Constitutional convention or a Convention of the States as a realistic solution to our current problems

Is EXACTLY the procedure and has been used multiple times.
Posted by: DaveA

Are we talking about the same thing?

Every state except Hawaii has applied for an Article V Convention at one time or another. The majority of such applications were made in the 20th century. While there is no official count of the number of applications, one private count puts the total number of applications at over 700. The Article V Convention process has never been used to amend the Constitution.

Wiki

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 08, 2016 07:55 PM (kdS6q)

318 Yah, but I kinda like the whole "freedom of speech"
and "petition for redress" thing. It would be nice to figure out a way
to get back to that.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 07:53 PM (s5o+q)

Lobbying isn't freedom of speech. It's how big business bought off Congress. And the last time I checked, those big boys don't seem that concerned about free speech.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 07:55 PM (4ErVI)

319 Best I've been able to do so far is something like an American House of Lords . . . another house of Congress, with no real power, but offering exceptionally cushy retirements to former office holders on the condition that they have no other employment.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 07:43 PM (s5o+q)

"Any private organization which employs, with our without monetary or other compensation, any former member of the United States Supreme Court, United States Congress, Presidency, or any United States Military branch above the rank of Colonel, with in six calendar years from their last holding office or commission:

"Will forfeit the right to any Federal or state contracts, any Federal 'stimulus' or 'bailout' monies, any Federal grants, for any reason, for a period of fifteen years."

No doubt some legal eagle Horde member can clean that up a bit. Ignore the Critters themselves; make the penalty for HIRING one so dire no one would do it.

Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 07:55 PM (mSKnV)

320 The left never stops. They have to be fought everyday.
Posted by: Willy at January 08, 2016 07:47 PM (ersJc)

Leftism is like cancer. There is no cure. There is only remission.

If you're lucky.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 07:56 PM (s5o+q)

321 Lobbying isn't freedom of speech. It's how big business bought off Congress. And the last time I checked, those big boys don't seem that concerned about free speech.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 07:55 PM (4ErVI)

we have a right to redress grievances.

lobbying is constitutional.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 07:56 PM (AkOaV)

322 "I've been trying to figure out a way to combine term limits with some
prohibition on former office holders going on to cushy lobbying jobs
with non-profits or corporations."

Lobbyists are essentially applicants to compete for sweet, sweet government money. You dry up Federal money, and you dry up lobbyists.

F'rinstance, if we limit the central Federal government to such enumerated powers as running a military and protecting borders, and get them out of THINGS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS POKING ITS NOSE INTO, like subsidizing solar energy farms, bailing out insurance companies, or mandating medical coverage -- and fund said government in accordance with its very limited duties -- then what's the point of having lobbyists? There's no rent to seek, no government cheese to collect, so there's no point in keeping lobbyists on your payroll.

Posted by: Qoheleth at January 08, 2016 07:56 PM (iIzG7)

323
FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME, IT'S NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
Posted by: weft cut-loop

Ok, ok -- it's a Constitutional Convention. You win.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 08, 2016 07:56 PM (kdS6q)

324 Watched a youtube snippet of the queen mother's funeral procession. All her children marched behind the casket in military uniform including Princess Anne. I had to look it up but she holds numerous military honors.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at January 08, 2016 07:56 PM (iQIUe)

325 >> They are amendments. Each State legislature has
>> to pass the exact same text in whole or it does not
>> become law.

>> There's nothing to hijack.

As long as you have a solid 25 or so states with not just GOP but reasonably conservative statehouses you should be reasonably safe against passing garbage, the critical point is that no one caves to 'omnibus' amendments that let the bad guys slip through the nasty bits.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go back to 'researching' the naked Cologne 'performance artist'.

She ain't bad.

Posted by: JEM at January 08, 2016 07:57 PM (o+SC1)

326 No interest whatsoever in chasing that imaginary rabbitt-chimera through Wonderland & down the rabbitt hole.

We can' t even defend NPR! There is a finite amount of political capital, & we' be fools to waste what little we have on this Impossible Dream.

Damn but Dr. Screwloose from Toulouse has a big lead in NH. Yikes.

Posted by: mnwxyz at January 08, 2016 07:57 PM (NiHAc)

327 320 The left never stops. They have to be fought everyday.
Posted by: Willy at January 08, 2016 07:47 PM (ersJc)

Leftism is like cancer. There is no cure. There is only remission.

If you're lucky.
Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 07:56 PM (s5o+q)

It's evil. And evil never rests. It must be confronted vigorously and relentlessly.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 07:58 PM (zLP1L)

328 Posted by: Qoheleth at January 08, 2016 07:56 PM (iIzG7)

exactly. the only reason lobbying is out of control is because congress stands their with their hands out saying "I can make things good for you. or shitty for you. your choice." (cough cough)

If Congress stuck to their enumerated powers, lobbying (as we know it) wouldn't be a thing.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 07:58 PM (AkOaV)

329 The muzzie in philly got his orders from ISIS in Syria...so much for that asshole mayor

They should throw him the fuck out of office

Posted by: FDR at January 08, 2016 07:59 PM (78pq2)

330 g'early evenin', 'rons

Posted by: AltonJackson at January 08, 2016 08:00 PM (KCxzN)

331 If the government doesn't follow its own constitution and laws now, what good is this going to do? Won't they just ignore the changes?

The problem is lack of integrity and character, and increasing levels of ignorance. Can't fix that with new rules.

Posted by: Semi-Literate Thug at January 08, 2016 08:00 PM (/f6Nd)

332 House Homeland Security Secretary: Philly Officer Shooter Acted on Islamic State Orders From Syria

Breitbart

Posted by: FDR at January 08, 2016 08:01 PM (78pq2)

333 "WABBIT"

Posted by: mnwxyz at January 08, 2016 08:01 PM (NiHAc)

334
g'early evenin', 'rons
Posted by: AltonJackson

Pull up a seat. Apparently things unexpectedly went all cracker barrel/longbow in here somewhere along the line.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 08, 2016 08:01 PM (kdS6q)

335 The muzzie in philly got his orders from ISIS in Syria...

One news report said that his mother says he was "hearing voices."

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 08, 2016 08:01 PM (FkBIv)

336 >> They should throw him the fuck out of office

I'd propose sawing Philly off from the country and giving it a good shove out into the Atlantic.

The technology to do that might be a few years down the road, though.

Posted by: JEM at January 08, 2016 08:01 PM (o+SC1)

337
Lobbying should be limited to one letter per person or organization per year to any federal agency.

The letter must be published and available for public inspection on line, permanently.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:01 PM (zLP1L)

338 The problem is lack of integrity and character, and increasing levels of ignorance. Can't fix that with new rules.
Posted by: Semi-Literate Thug at January 08, 2016 08:00 PM (/f6Nd)

Much like power, integrity and character comes out of the barrel of a gun.

Posted by: FDR at January 08, 2016 08:02 PM (78pq2)

339 Lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way.
Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 07:52 PM (s5o+q)

This x100......no diaper wearers allowed.

Posted by: Hairyback Guy at January 08, 2016 08:02 PM (ej1L0)

340 Fuck SO

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 08, 2016 08:02 PM (78pq2)

341 247 I'll add my suggestions:

Raise the voting age back to 21, except in for those in active service, where it can remain 18

Posted by: josephistan at January 08, 2016 07:22 PM (7qAYi)

I agree with that. The rationale for lowering it to 18 was that men were subject to the draft in the Vietnam era. The saying was, "If you're old enough to fight and die for your country, you're old enough to vote".

But shortly after that amendment was passed, the draft was ended. Today 18 year olds are not being sent to war against their will, so there is no reason why they should still be voting.

Posted by: rickl at January 08, 2016 08:03 PM (sdi6R)

342 335 The muzzie in philly got his orders from ISIS in Syria...

One news report said that his mother says he was "hearing voices."
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 08, 2016 08:01 PM (FkBIv)

Mostly over the phone. Not from the toaster.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:03 PM (zLP1L)

343 One news report said that his mother says he was "hearing voices."
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 08, 2016 08:01 PM (FkBIv)

Don't all muslims?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 08, 2016 08:03 PM (78pq2)

344 Lobbying should be limited to one letter per person or organization per year to any federal agency.

The letter must be published and available for public inspection on line, permanently.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:01 PM (zLP1L)

But what if I want to send a bunch of stop letters to the ATF or my congressman asking them to stop being cocks?

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 08:03 PM (AkOaV)

345 we have a right to redress grievances.

lobbying is constitutional.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 07:56 PM (AkOaV)

I can contact my congresscritter to redress my grievances.
Lobbyists are essentially applicants to compete for
sweet, sweet government money. You dry up Federal money, and you dry up
lobbyists.

F'rinstance, if we limit the central Federal
government to such enumerated powers as running a military and
protecting borders, and get them out of THINGS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
HAS NO BUSINESS POKING ITS NOSE INTO, like subsidizing solar energy
farms, bailing out insurance companies, or mandating medical coverage --
and fund said government in accordance with its very limited duties --
then what's the point of having lobbyists? There's no rent to seek, no
government cheese to collect, so there's no point in keeping lobbyists
on your payroll.

Posted by: Qoheleth at January 08, 2016 07:56 PM (iIzG7)

Can't really argue with this.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 08:03 PM (4ErVI)

346 no stop before letters*

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 08:03 PM (AkOaV)

347
Voting age should be 26, since Obamacare considers 26 year olds children.

The exemption is for those in service. 18 years old.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:04 PM (zLP1L)

348 But what if I want to send a bunch of stop letters to the ATF or my congressman asking them to stop being cocks?

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 08:03 PM (AkOaV)

Even better you can troll them on Facebook!
Make sure you mention them selling guns to the cartels. They love that.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 08:04 PM (4ErVI)

349
Posted by: filbert

If a proposed solution has a current record of 700 - 0, it is not a realistic solution. If folks want to discuss it as a "what if" or a "wouldn't it be nice" mental exercise, ok.

But that's all it is.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 08, 2016 08:04 PM (kdS6q)

350 344 But what if I want to send a bunch of stop letters to the ATF or my congressman asking them to stop being cocks?
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 08:03 PM (AkOaV)

I mean lobbyists and corporations and unions.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:04 PM (zLP1L)

351 I agree with that. The rationale for lowering it to 18 was that men were subject to the draft in the Vietnam era. The saying was, "If you're old enough to fight and die for your country, you're old enough to vote".

Posted by: rickl at January 08, 2016 08:03 PM (sdi6R)

...You're old enough to kill, but not for votin'

You don't believe in war, but what's the gun you're totin'?

Posted by: Barry McGuire at January 08, 2016 08:04 PM (AkOaV)

352 The 1962 version of "Cape Fear" is on TCM. Makes me want to go out and buy a pistol.

If Gregory Peck had just shot the fucker Robert Mitchum, it would have saved his family a lot of grief.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at January 08, 2016 08:04 PM (1ijHg)

353 I mean lobbyists and corporations and unions.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:04 PM (zLP1L)

But they'd find a way around any law we passed to that effect. And those of us without millions of dollars would not be able to utilize such means.

Again, I agree with the end goal -- but the methodology seems... fucky.

If congress followed their enumerated powers, this would not be an issue.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 08:06 PM (AkOaV)

354 The Left gains power by ignoring the rules, thuggery, deception, and cultivating a high level of ignorance in the population. If they had not done so much damage by doing all that, our existing constitution would work fine. New rules will be new rules to subvert.

I also agree that they may find a way to game a convention. They've gamed everything else.

Posted by: Semi-Literate Thug at January 08, 2016 08:06 PM (/f6Nd)

355 Eighteen years old signing up for the military should be able to drink as well.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 08:06 PM (4ErVI)

356 Ace,

The states already have a mechanism for overturning SCOTUS decisions.

So, how is that amendment to define marriage as a union between a woman and a man coming along?

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at January 08, 2016 08:07 PM (1ijHg)

357 Friday in a report from Fox News Channels Peter Doocy, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, explained that following a briefing on the shooting of a Philadelphia police officer by a suspect that had claimed to be acting at the behest of ISIS, it was his conclusion that individual was acting at the direction of ISIS.

So once again we have a radicalized individual in the United States trying to kill law enforcement, McCaul said. And when you look at the Internet activity coming out of Raqqa, Syria, into the United States every day 200,000 tweets per day the message is clear: Kill military, attack military installations, and kill police officers. Its in my judgment that this individuals carrying out these directives these orders, if you will coming out of Raqqa, Syria, from ISIS.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 08, 2016 08:07 PM (78pq2)

358 355 Eighteen years old signing up for the military should be able to drink as well.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 08:06 PM (4ErVI)

should be a state issue.

Like it always was, until Reagan tied a 21 year old drinking age to highway funding.

"just say no!" said Nancy Reagan.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 08:07 PM (AkOaV)

359 Fraulein Nekkid says she wants naked women to be treated with the same respect as clothed women. Amen. And it was pretty chilly out there, I hear....and see.

All hot women should have the option of going around nekkid. Let's put that in our Art. V convention bag of things to pass.

Posted by: publius (not Breitbart publius) at January 08, 2016 08:08 PM (dvuhZ)

360 >>>>> The 1962 version of "Cape Fear" is on TCM. Makes me want to go out and buy a pistol.
-------
I haven't seen the original version but the remake with Robert Deniro was just brutal. Deniro was so evil. That one gave me nightmares for a month

Posted by: L, Elle at January 08, 2016 08:08 PM (2x3L+)

361 Ok, there was a hangover thread last week. I appreciate that. How do I stop alcoholic diarrhea? This is kinda painful. I will remember those who help me when I am elected. I love you all.

Posted by: Hillary Clinton at January 08, 2016 08:08 PM (5luh1)

362 Eighteen years old signing up for the military should be able to drink as well.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 08:06 PM (4ErVI)

Yeah not so sure about that at all

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 08, 2016 08:08 PM (78pq2)

363 "Amendment 29:

"The Executive Branch has neither the right nor the authority to allow private individuals or corporations to disregard legally enacted laws. Thus, the so-called 'waiver' system is hereby declared illegal.

"Should any private person or organization request, and thereby receive, any written or verbal indication from the Executive Branch that they may ignore the law, the State in which that entity resides may seize any and all property belonging to said entity, and expel said entity from their borders.

"If a so-called 'waiver' is given without being requested, and the party to whom it applies indicates to their State government that they refuse it, the penalties will not apply and their property will remain inviolate."

Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 08:09 PM (mSKnV)

364 357 Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 08, 2016 08:07 PM (78pq2)

I would took a good hard look not only at ISIS but at the Panthers and BLM. They are allied and the latter are numerically, for now, more significant than ISIS.
For now.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:09 PM (zLP1L)

365 I haven't seen the original version but the remake
with Robert Deniro was just brutal. Deniro was so evil. That one gave
me nightmares for a month

Posted by: L, Elle at January 08, 2016 08:08 PM (2x3L+)

I've seen both and I gotta say the remake was damn good. Definitely not worse by any means. DeNiro really sold it.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 08:09 PM (4ErVI)

366 Lobbyist wouldn't be a problem if our government weren't for sale. If they had nothing to sell, there'd be no transactions.

Coupled, of course, with the fact that lobbyists have learned that politicians don't have to be bought; it's cheaper to rent them. Sort of like prostitutes.

Posted by: Qoheleth at January 08, 2016 08:09 PM (iIzG7)

367 Dear morons opposing article V for "hijack" reasons . . .

It occurs to me that my vitriol upthread has been somewhat intemperate.

And I haven't even been drinking. (This could be the problem.)

But I hope you realize that this particular objection to using Article V is way, way, way into the "So What???" territory.

First, the "it'll be hijacked" argument is an assertion without evidence. As such, we can argue endlessly about it without profit.

Second, the "it'll be hijacked" argument it is banal. ANY human institution can, and will eventually be corrupted. The Roman Republic/Empire (including the Byzantine form and, arguably, the Roman Catholic Church) was formed, corrupted, reformed, re-corrupted, over and over again throughout history.

How do you reform an institution (in this case the United States Government) without actually trying to reform that institution?

To do so without looking at modifying the foundational document is nibbling at the edges.

The fact that the modification process may include people, and ideas, with which you, I, and most other people posting and reading here would agree with is utterly unremarkable and unsurprising.

The fear of even trying shows a distressing lack of any kind of confidence that any kind of reform whatsoever is possible.

If that is true, than the only other options are continued decline, or war. (These are not mutually exclusive options.)

I would strongly prefer to seek other options.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 08:10 PM (s5o+q)

368 btw, too late. we're fooked.

Any amendments proposed by an Article V convention still have to ratified by the states. There are just too many Blue (Commie) states to achieve our goals.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at January 08, 2016 08:10 PM (1ijHg)

369 328 Posted by: Qoheleth at January 08, 2016 07:56 PM (iIzG7)

exactly. the only reason lobbying is out of control is because congress stands their with their hands out saying "I can make things good for you. or shitty for you. your choice." (cough cough)

If Congress stuck to their enumerated powers, lobbying (as we know it) wouldn't be a thing.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 07:58 PM (AkOaV)

Term limits would help. Since you're in DC for as long as you want they have to keep the money flowing as they are always campaigning. 12 years in DC then gone perhaps, just perhaps they would do what is right

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 08:10 PM (voOPb)

370 I would took a good hard look not only at ISIS but at the Panthers and BLM. They are allied and the latter are numerically, for now, more significant than ISIS.
For now.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:09 PM (zLP1L)

Yes I agree 100%...the radical left is in bed with islam whether they know it or not...and we should kick all the Muslim Imams out of the Prisons NOW!

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 08, 2016 08:10 PM (78pq2)

371 "Every time a business hires an employee whose job includes contacting the federal government, the federal budget shall be decreased by 1%."

Also, a kitten will die.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at January 08, 2016 08:10 PM (2lndx)

372 358 "just say no!" said Nancy Reagan.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 08:07 PM (AkOaV)

She was dead right, and yet was mocked mercilessly.

Maxine Waters (D-viant CA) can claim the CIA created crack but no one forced Lemonjello or Turdelle to buy it and smoke it.

Personal responsibility. How does it work?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:11 PM (zLP1L)

373 "Well those redcoats are just too badass, the most dominant military force on the planet. It would just be an exercise in futility to declare independence and assert our rights as citizens of a new nation. It's never been done! That Adams guy, not to mention Jefferson, is insane. And everyone knows that old bastard Franklin is a loon. This is all just crazy talk! Let's be reasonable and just hope that ol' George will relent and allow us our natural right to political liberty and just representation."

Posted by: Alamo at January 08, 2016 08:11 PM (aVNi6)

374 Coupled, of course, with the fact that lobbyists
have learned that politicians don't have to be bought; it's cheaper to
rent them. Sort of like prostitutes.

Posted by: Qoheleth at January 08, 2016 08:09 PM (iIzG7)

I saw a hilarious statement about prostitutes recently:
You're not paying them for sex, you're paying them to leave afterwards.
LOL. Might be an oldy, but I hadn't heard it before.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 08:11 PM (4ErVI)

375 So long, suckers. It looks like I'm about to Beijing the Moo Moo lifestyle.

Dear [Mr.Snark], My name is Paul Owens, 55 years old. I feel very horrible writing this message from jail where I'm currently serving life in prison sentence for killing my lovely wife 2 year ago. I contacted you because i want to compensate women now that i have regret my action. I have 9.5million dollars in my account in Hong Kong, as it is now i have no use for this huge money so I will instruct my bank to wire the money to your account to enable you help me share the said fund among women who are in pain and also share among orphanage homes

Reply to my email: paulowens5515@gmail.com for details

Engineer Paul Owens

Posted by: The Great White Snark at January 08, 2016 08:11 PM (Nwg0u)

376 Dennis Prager at the bigging of his show read a article from the New York times that the writer dismissed the Cologne muzzy mob were not conforming to their host country because hey came from a country were they were social conservatives. Dennis pointed out to him he is a social conservative, I say I am and guess most of you are. But to this leftist reporter Muzzies following a religion over a thousand years old they are.

Posted by: Skip at January 08, 2016 08:12 PM (3ZgzE)

377 If a proposed solution has a current record of 700 - 0, it is not a realistic solution. If folks want to discuss it as a "what if" or a "wouldn't it be nice" mental exercise, ok.

But that's all it is.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 08, 2016 08:04 PM (kdS6q)

So what do we do instead?

Elect more Republicans?

Tilt at the third party windmill instead?

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 08:12 PM (s5o+q)

378 "and we should kick all the Muslim Imams..."

Into a Spartan cistern.

Posted by: Qoheleth at January 08, 2016 08:12 PM (iIzG7)

379 >>>> I've seen both and I gotta say the remake was damn good. Definitely not worse by any means. DeNiro really sold it.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 08:09 PM
-----
Yeah, Dack. Deniro excels at playing the role of the villain equally to playing the part of the hero. He is an incredibly talented actor.

Posted by: L, Elle at January 08, 2016 08:12 PM (2x3L+)

380 It's too late. The country has been taken over by D-Money, Smoothie and Shifty.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 08, 2016 08:12 PM (FkBIv)

381 375 Reply to my email: paulowens5515@gmail.com for details

Engineer Paul Owens
Posted by: The Great White Snark at January 08, 2016 08:11 PM (Nwg0u)

. . . And remain blessed.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:13 PM (zLP1L)

382 btw, Polly Bergen was hawt.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at January 08, 2016 08:13 PM (1ijHg)

383 Powerball up to 800 Million and still climbing

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 08, 2016 08:14 PM (78pq2)

384 NOOO! No convention of the states!

For the love of our dear Lord and Savior... Jesus Christ!

It'd be like a land war in Asia, only not nearly as promising.

Posted by: mnwxyz at January 08, 2016 08:15 PM (NiHAc)

385 A balanced budget amendment should place individual senators and congressmen/women in legal jeopardy in the event that they do not balance the budget.

Something along the lines of requiring each senator and member of congress to personally guarantee, in their individual capacity, any budget deficit. Individual citizens should also be granted standing to sue members of congress on behalf of the United States (say, in a qui tam action) to collect on these guarantees.

Put their personal finances and fortunes at stake. The budget will be balanced.

If that means that fewer people want to join Congress, so much the better.

Posted by: Revenant at January 08, 2016 08:15 PM (y64uP)

386 "Raise the voting age back to 21"

There are a nontrivial number of people on the left who aver that the voting age should be lowered to 14.

Next up: house-pet voting rights.

I wonder who Whiskers is going to back in the primary.

Posted by: torquewrench at January 08, 2016 08:15 PM (noWW6)

387
So what do we do instead?
Posted by: filbert

At this point? Carousel and Renew. Destruction and Rebirth.

Don't see any political solutions when the political game is fixed.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 08, 2016 08:15 PM (kdS6q)

388 Not really a good idea folks. You all do understand that a Constitutional convention would mean all of the Constitution can be changed, by all, you know all those pesky amendments like the 1 and 2.

Posted by: 77 11C20 at January 08, 2016 08:16 PM (Bm2CL)

389 I wonder who Whiskers is going to back in the primary.

Posted by: torquewrench at January 08, 2016 08:15 PM (noWW6)

My 3 cats are on our side, so don't worry

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 08, 2016 08:17 PM (78pq2)

390 The argument that an Article V convention might be hijacked by the left is specious.

The Federal government HAS ALREADY BEEN HIJACKED BY THE LEFT. We risk nothing, and have everything to gain.

Posted by: Qoheleth at January 08, 2016 08:17 PM (iIzG7)

391 "All hot women should have the option of going around nekkid."

Preach it, sister!

Posted by: Lena Durham at January 08, 2016 08:17 PM (GcVcH)

392 >>> Eighteen years old signing up for the military should be able to drink as well.

Not so fast.

Posted by: Gunny Hartmann at January 08, 2016 08:17 PM (AfsKp)

393 I'm reading this article about Peggy Jo Tallas. She was a woman in Texas who dressed up as a cowboy and robbed a bunch of banks in order to get money to take care of her ailing mother. Reading it I can't believe no one has made a movie out of it.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 08:17 PM (4ErVI)

394 Mitchum just shot the family dog.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at January 08, 2016 08:17 PM (1ijHg)

395 Good list, but don't forget term limits. Including SCOTUS.

And yes, he is calling for a convention of the states, not a constitutional convention. Congress can propose constitutional amendments which go to the states. This is the same idea.

Posted by: Dantes at January 08, 2016 08:18 PM (Yi9zf)

396 At this point? Carousel and Renew. Destruction and Rebirth.

Don't see any political solutions when the political game is fixed.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 08, 2016 08:15 PM (kdS6q)

Wait, wait . . . I'm unrealistic, but you're the one trotting out obscure Logan's Run references?

(chortle)

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 08:18 PM (s5o+q)

397 There is one lobbying group I would hate to see go. That's the NRA.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 08:18 PM (voOPb)

398 ""All hot women should have the option of going around nekkid."

I'd support a Constitutional amendment prohibiting Lena Dunham from undressing. Ever.

Posted by: Qoheleth at January 08, 2016 08:18 PM (iIzG7)

399 fer or agin

I'm agin.

yes I've read Levins fkn book. I'm agin.

Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at January 08, 2016 08:19 PM (Cq0oW)

400

There is nothing "obscure" about the movie classic the is Logan's Run, my fine fellow.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 08, 2016 08:19 PM (kdS6q)

401 388 Not really a good idea folks. You all do understand that a Constitutional convention would mean all of the Constitution can be changed, by all, you know all those pesky amendments like the 1 and 2.
Posted by: 77 11C20 at January 08, 2016 08:16 PM (Bm2CL)

What do you not get?

It's NOT a Constitutional Convention. We are not redrafting a new document. The states are gathering to propose new amendments to restore and strengthen the document.

You're uninformed. Go read Article V.

Better yet, read Levin's book. ANd in case you missed it, every time SCOTUS, POTUS and Congress act, it's defacto Constitutional Convention that does what you claim will happen. It already has.

But no. It's too dangerous.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:19 PM (zLP1L)

402 Before someone jumps in on the military drinking age I would like to point out I was in tech school for the Air Force at the age of 17. Though probably one of the youngest I drank if for no other reason that Colorado had a 18 year light alcohol drinking age and the bartenders assumed I was at least 18. I got to my first base in England I was still 17 for a few weeks and continued to drink only better stuff.

Posted by: Skip at January 08, 2016 08:20 PM (3ZgzE)

403 did filibert say something ?
Posted by: astute brute at January 08, 2016 08:18 PM (qQk+U)

I'd change my nic to filibuster, but the joke would get lost in the mix . . .

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 08:20 PM (s5o+q)

404 I'm surprised more of you haven't come to the burn it down option. You know that is what the left wants. They are doing it. This country needs an ugly divorce.

Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at January 08, 2016 08:20 PM (C5Y8A)

405 @389 Nevergiveup

Funny, I never thought of you as the old crazy cat Doc

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 08:20 PM (voOPb)

406
NOOO! No convention of the states!
Posted by: mnwxyz

Don't worry. Weft cut-loop said it's really a Constitutional Convention, so we're good to go.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 08, 2016 08:20 PM (kdS6q)

407 399 fer or agin

I'm agin.

yes I've read Levins fkn book. I'm agin.
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at January 08, 2016 08:19 PM (Cq0oW)

Okay. What do you suggest we do then? I support Article V but I'm not that inflexible to listen to actual real-world alternate solutions.

Do elucidate.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:21 PM (zLP1L)

408 313 Brilliant!! Add to a document they disregard at their whim.

Yep, the problem isn't so much the current Constitution as that people are ignoring the one that's already in place.

I'd like some of these ideas--but you'd still need someone to decide whether:

1. An activity is wholly within one state.

2. A federal law preempts state law.

3. Federal officials are overstepping their bounds.

4. Powers are expressly delegated to the feds in the Constitution.

Which means you're right back where you started in relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court. If you invalidate their decisions, fine, but then someone has to be the final arbiter.

I'd like to have a clear answer to that. I don't, except that a lot of our problems would have been solved by our guys appointing people to the Supreme Court over the last few decades who actually were conservatives.

I also think as long as the government has the power to influence businesses, businesses will heavily lobby it.

I appreciate the attempt to solve this. And it's tough to criticize it too much when I don't have a clear answer.

I also have a sneaking suspicion, though, that if we had a convention like this today, we'd be horrified by some of the stuff that would come out of it.

In a democracy, the public gets the government it deserves...our problems are bigger than the government.

Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 08:21 PM (QWY55)

409 "380 It's too late. The country has been taken over by D-Money, Smoothie and Shifty.
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 08, 2016 08:12 PM"

Unfortunately, I don't think those are supporting actors, and not the Main characters.

Posted by: Duncanthrax the Bellicose at January 08, 2016 08:21 PM (GcVcH)

410 I'm surprised more of you haven't come to the burn it down option. You know that is what the left wants. They are doing it. This country needs an ugly divorce.
Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at January 08, 2016 08:20 PM (C5Y8A)

That option still exists after the runaway Art.V convention y'all fear. So. Er. Never fear.

Or something.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 08:22 PM (s5o+q)

411 @404 Tinfoilbaby

I don't think the left wants to burn it down. They just want to divide & conquer. If it did burn we are armed, they are not.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 08:22 PM (voOPb)

412 I'd support a Constitutional amendment prohibiting Lena Dunham ~~from undressing~~. Ever.

Posted by: Qoheleth at January 08, 2016 08:18 PM (iIzG7)

FIFY

Posted by: The Prohibiting Hat at January 08, 2016 08:22 PM (vBeA5)

413 Before someone jumps in on the military drinking age I would like to point out I was in tech school for the Air Force at the age of 17. Though probably one of the youngest I drank if for no other reason that Colorado had a 18 year light alcohol drinking age and the bartenders assumed I was at least 18. I got to my first base in England I was still 17 for a few weeks and continued to drink only better stuff.
Posted by: Skip at January 08, 2016 08:20 PM (3ZgzE)

No doubt...I am just saying, in many instances "Kids", and many of the Enlisted in my Unit are still kids, are to young to drink responsibily. So are some of the Officers, but that is a different story.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 08, 2016 08:23 PM (78pq2)

414 I'd support a Constitutional amendment prohibiting Lena Dunham from undressing. Ever.

Posted by: Qoheleth at January 08, 2016 08:18 PM (iIzG7)

FIFY
Posted by: The Prohibiting Hat at January 08, 2016 08:22 PM (vBeA5)

Second.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 08:23 PM (s5o+q)

415 388 Not really a good idea folks. You all do understand that a Constitutional convention would mean all of the Constitution can be changed, by all, you know all those pesky amendments like the 1 and 2.

Nobody is going to touch those. It would be the kiss of death for any politician outside of Berkeley.

Makes as much sense of warning against as the risk of a convention adopting the 69th Amendment mandating dog blowjobs.

Posted by: wooga at January 08, 2016 08:23 PM (QfNMs)

416
And now, for something completely different:

Author Richard F. Miniter writes at the American Thinker that President Barack Obama may be planning a huge surprise for the 2016 election.

So heres a prediction: if Clinton gets indicted, Michelle Obama gets the Obama teams nod for the nomination.

http://tinyurl.com/hajpnat

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 08, 2016 08:23 PM (kdS6q)

417 408 Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 08:21 PM (QWY55)

If a Constitutional amendment allows a majority of states to overrule a Federal law, regulation or SCOTUS decision, it's crystal clear. There is no ambiguity at all.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:23 PM (zLP1L)

418 They're planning on remaking Logan's Run.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 08:23 PM (4ErVI)

419 Thrombosis

Oldie. I googled. Charlie Sheen seems to have originated. He oughta know.

Posted by: mnwxyz at January 08, 2016 08:23 PM (NiHAc)

420 Oh, we do need an explicit Constitutional prohibition against Lena Dunham being naked. Ever. She should be completely covered with a tarp at all times. Showing Lena Dunham naked, especially on a toilet eating cake, should be a capital crime.

The naked protester is Milo Moire, a swiss "performance artist". Google her and thank me later. She "makes art with her body".

Posted by: publius (not Breitbart publius) at January 08, 2016 08:24 PM (dvuhZ)

421 Here's an idea. Anyone who works in the Media isn't allowed to vote. Anyone who gets any money at all from the government isn't allowed to vote.

Of course, I'd include the dead and the fictional as well, but the democrats keep bringing them back.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at January 08, 2016 08:24 PM (B8JRQ)

422 This is the last best chance for peaceful change the country has left, and it behooves all who wish for a peaceful revolution to support it.

Seriously. Not making snark.

Last Best Chance.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at January 08, 2016 08:24 PM (kKHcp)

423 416 Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 08, 2016 08:23 PM (kdS6q)

So then what? Oprah declares her "The Two?"

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:24 PM (zLP1L)

424 "Well those redcoats are just too badass, the most dominant military force on the planet. It would just be an exercise in futility to declare independence and assert our rights as citizens of a new nation. Posted by: Alamo at January 08, 2016 08:11 PM (aVNi6)

Ever watched Turn on AMC, it pretty truthfully depicts how having those brutal Redcoats brutally quartered on a population that considered themselves true British subjects was England's biggest mistake. By that time, England's Army was so inured to brutalizing a colonial population into submission, they failed to realize their mistake until it was too late. That series, Gibson's The Patriot, and other movies/TV show Britain's ignorance.

Currently, the Trump phenomena is showing the Beltway Masters the same thing. They are showing the same intransigence and stupidity that the British did.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 08:24 PM (kXoT0)

425 So heres a prediction: if Clinton gets indicted, Michelle Obama gets the Obama teams nod for the nomination.

http://tinyurl.com/hajpnat

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 08, 2016 08:23 PM (kdS6q)

Quick! Somebody call 911 and tell them there's about to be a suicide!

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 08:24 PM (4ErVI)

426 Another good amendment would be to prohibit the loophole that effectivly gets around double jeopardy based on the dual sovreignty of the state and the Federal government.

If a person is charged and tried by the state, then the Federal government can not charge them again for the act in question.

Posted by: The Prohibiting Hat at January 08, 2016 08:24 PM (vBeA5)

427 Clinton will not get indicted. No Federal DA will prosecute. Millions of Clinton Foundation money will disappear, however.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at January 08, 2016 08:26 PM (1ijHg)

428 If a Constitutional amendment allows a majority of states to overrule a Federal law, regulation or SCOTUS decision, it's crystal clear. There is no ambiguity at all.

If SCOTUS issues a ruling, it's because somebody had a dispute that led to that case to begin with.

So the states overrule the ruling. Cool. Now who solves the dispute?

Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 08:26 PM (QWY55)

429 425
Quick! Somebody call 911 and tell them there's about to be a suicide!
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 08:24 PM (4ErVI)

What's she going to run on; an Obama THIRD term? Notice that no other candidate is doing that and for good reason.

Bring it on. Trump or Cruz would destroy her.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:26 PM (zLP1L)

430 Lower the drinking age to 18, and raise the voting age to 40.

Drop the voting age for veterans and active-service militiary 2 years for for every year spent in military service.

Increase the voting age 1 year for every year spent in any other governmental employ, or every year accepting any welfare benefit from the government.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 08:26 PM (s5o+q)

431 428 So the states overrule the ruling. Cool. Now who solves the dispute?
Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 08:26 PM (QWY55)

If the States override, the dispute is solved right then and there.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:27 PM (zLP1L)

432 What's this I hear about BO being Hillster's running mate? Once she's impeached he can re-acend.

Posted by: freaked at January 08, 2016 08:27 PM (BO/km)

433 A thousand times, yes!

Posted by: RobM1981 at January 08, 2016 08:27 PM (zurJC)

434 Actually it took a few years to learn how to drink responsibly. I have tried unsuccessfully to talk guys from getting silly drunk when they turn 21. As it turned out the day I did in Virginia I had planned to go out and finally have a legal drinking ( I drank on base, they didn't card me) but as luck would have it got stuck working on the flight line and missed closing time.

Posted by: Skip at January 08, 2016 08:28 PM (3ZgzE)

435 After reading "Starship Troopers" I am in favor of just letting military veterans vote. That and property owners.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at January 08, 2016 08:28 PM (1ijHg)

436 >>>All hot women should have the option of going around nekkid.

That's not befitting to the dignity of the office of President. What a puerile suggestion.

Posted by: Hillary Clinton at January 08, 2016 08:29 PM (5luh1)

437 Posted by: The Great White Snark at January 08, 2016 08:11 PM (Nwg0u)

I'll join you once I win the lotto, I'm a shoe-in

Posted by: chemjeff at January 08, 2016 08:29 PM (uZNvH)

438 So heres a prediction: if Clinton gets indicted, Michelle Obama gets the Obama teams nod for the nomination.

http://tinyurl.com/hajpnat
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 08, 2016 08:23 PM (kdS6q)

Makes sense, ValJar wanted to run Mooch in 2008, not Barky, but, the polling was awful. So the thinking was that after 8 years of Bobo, the populace would be loving Mooch so much, she would be coronated in 2016. Unfortunately for her plans, no amount of fabulous publicity and gushing could turn the tide, Mooch is graceless, none too bright, and unlikable and it always shows...way too many times, the camera unwittingly finds her beside or behind Bobo glaring and frowing. The Obama children have not been an asset either since it takes a very skilled and lucky photographer to catch them appearing adorable instead of scowling fidgets.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 08:29 PM (kXoT0)

439

GREG ABBOTT ON LEVIN NOW.

Listen and get some edjumakayshin.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:30 PM (zLP1L)

440 So BLM and Islam are in it together to kill Cops and Military? Shit anyone who knows Portsmouth VA and where Scott Annex is knows I am surrounded. Maybe i should call for the Marines to escort me to the Hospital tomorrow?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 08, 2016 08:30 PM (78pq2)

441 @429

JJ the mail and kid would kick her ass as well

And I don't care for him in the least

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 08:30 PM (voOPb)

442 If SCOTUS issues a ruling, it's because somebody had a dispute that led to that case to begin with.

So the states overrule the ruling. Cool. Now who solves the dispute?

Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 08:26 PM (QWY55)
Goes back to the status quo ante.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 08, 2016 08:30 PM (uZNvH)

443 This is the last best chance for peaceful change the country has left, and it behooves all who wish for a peaceful revolution to support it.

Seriously. Not making snark.

Last Best Chance.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at January 08, 2016 08:24 PM (kKHcp)

Yes it is, but as some of us tried to argue recently on the ONT, it's not going to happen.

Look how long it has taken to get one, and look at all the stuff that's happened in the interim???!!! Events are happening in warp dive now. A CoS has taken too long.

There is no peaceful solution.

Posted by: Blano at January 08, 2016 08:30 PM (P+A3Q)

444 If the States override, the dispute is solved right then and there.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:27 PM (zLP1L)

It isn't. It's left open without a resolution.

Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 08:30 PM (QWY55)

445 422
This is the last best chance for peaceful change the country has left,
and it behooves all who wish for a peaceful revolution to support it.

Seriously. Not making snark.

Last Best Chance.

Agreed.

Posted by: Alamo at January 08, 2016 08:31 PM (aVNi6)

446 JJ

due respect, but . we've done this go round many times. No thanks.

Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at January 08, 2016 08:32 PM (Cq0oW)

447 444 It isn't. It's left open without a resolution.
Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 08:30 PM (QWY55)

No, because it prevents a court decision from becoming the law of the land instead of applying perhaps to just one case.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:32 PM (zLP1L)

448 Grampa JImbo I think you're right no fed DA will touch her, but I'm thinking lots of Clinton cash is off the books

Posted by: Skip at January 08, 2016 08:32 PM (3ZgzE)

449 446 JJ

due respect, but . we've done this go round many times. No thanks.
Posted by: Bigby's Knuckle Sandwich at January 08, 2016 08:32 PM (Cq0oW)

And I'm trying to make a nascent head cold go away. So, genucht. Di-a-nu.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:33 PM (zLP1L)

450 a lot of our problems would have been solved by our guys appointing people to the Supreme Court over the last few decades who actually were conservatives.

This is true.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 08:33 PM (s5o+q)

451 So the states overrule the ruling. Cool. Now who solves the dispute?

Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 08:26 PM (QWY55)

Goes back to the status quo ante.
Posted by: chemjeff at January 08, 2016 08:30 PM (uZNvH)

So two states had a dispute between themselves, one of their citizens, businesses, or the feds. The ruling solving this dispute is nixed. So, how is the dispute solved?

Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 08:34 PM (QWY55)

452 No Bork no peace.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 08, 2016 08:35 PM (FkBIv)

453 An amendment I'd like to see added...

2/3 of states in agreement may initiate impeachment proceedings against any Federal officer, elected or appointed.

Posted by: Cato the Rebel Without a Party at January 08, 2016 08:35 PM (HalrA)

454 Michelle should be the thing they show you when you get one of those 4 hour boners. Simple. Effective. De-Bonered.

Posted by: Weasel at January 08, 2016 08:35 PM (e3bId)

455 450 a lot of our problems would have been solved by our guys appointing people to the Supreme Court over the last few decades who actually were conservatives.

This is true.
Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 08:33 PM (s5o+q)

But they didn't, did they. And it must be stripped of the power of 9 people essentially to permanently controlling the lives of 320 million.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:35 PM (zLP1L)

456 Howzabout this?

"Amendment 30:

"All Congressional districts within the States will be square, when rendered upon a map. "Square" is defined as a figure of four sides, each of equal length, each joined to the others by a 90 degree angle. Exceptions are permitted when one or more of the district's borders is defined by a State line; but all district lines within the state must abide by this rule. Population distribution within the State is ignored."

Just playing with ideas

Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 08:35 PM (mSKnV)

457 Grampa JImbo I think you're right no fed DA will touch her, but I'm thinking lots of Clinton cash is off the books
Posted by: Skip at January 08, 2016 08:32 PM (3ZgzE)

Yes, there's tens of millions in "friendly money" just waiting to be told to whom they should give it. The only way the Clinton influence ends is when Bill/Hill finally leave this mortal coil.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 08:36 PM (kXoT0)

458
Okay, Levin teased Abbott and where the hell is he?!

Now I'm pissed.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:37 PM (zLP1L)

459 So two states had a dispute between themselves, one
of their citizens, businesses, or the feds. The ruling solving this
dispute is nixed. So, how is the dispute solved?

Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 08:34 PM (QWY55)
It goes back to whatever the previous level of appellate court decided.
In the case of Alice v. Bob, if the trial court ruled for Alice, the appellate court reversed and ruled for Bob, but SCOTUS reversed again and ruled for Alice, if the states nullify the SCOTUS decision, it goes back to the appellate's court decision for Bob.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 08, 2016 08:37 PM (uZNvH)

460 Actually I think old hillary is in serious trouble...Yes she had thousands of classified info on her email...but now they have proof she told her aids to strip the classified and secret classifications off the Emails before forwarding them. THAT is a big fuckin deal and NOT easily danced around...I think you will have the FBI giving them the case to prosecute and the DOJ hedging or refusing and we will have a constitutional crisis.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 08, 2016 08:37 PM (78pq2)

461 457 The only way the Clinton influence ends is when Bill/Hill finally leave this mortal coil.
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 08:36 PM (kXoT0

Not soon enough.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:37 PM (zLP1L)

462 Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 08:35 PM (mSKnV)

I'd go with that districts must be either square, or defined by natural or political boundaries. City limits, county lines, state lines, rivers, canyons, and such would be usable for defining districts, but no more of this random gerrymandering shit.

Posted by: Cato the Rebel Without a Party at January 08, 2016 08:38 PM (HalrA)

463 There is no peaceful solution.
Posted by: Blano at January 08, 2016 08:30 PM (P+A3Q)

Then perhaps it needs to be tried anyways, so that those of the Christian persuasion can go to their deaths knowing they did all they could before things go sporty.

You don't want those regrets of not having tried.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at January 08, 2016 08:38 PM (kKHcp)

464 459 Posted by: chemjeff at January 08, 2016 08:37 PM (uZNvH)

Well said. And Julia Roberts, Anthony Gennady or Ruth Baader-Meinhoff can't make that individual case apply to everyone in the country.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:39 PM (zLP1L)

465 So heres a prediction: if Clinton gets indicted, Michelle Obama gets the Obama teams nod for the nomination.

-
I wonder how Cankles and BJ would react to the possibility of Mooch being the first Vagina-American president instead of Hilldog. Could get bloody.

Posted by: The Great White Snark at January 08, 2016 08:39 PM (Nwg0u)

466 Posted by: Cato the Rebel Without a Party at January 08, 2016 08:38 PM (HalrA)

That was the intent... Kill gerrymandering

Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 08:39 PM (mSKnV)

467 Michelle should be the thing they show you when you get one of those 4 hour boners. Simple. Effective. De-Bonered.
Posted by: Weasel at January 08, 2016 08:35 PM (e3bId)

Flash cards

1st Card Mooch frowning
2nd Card Lena D naked
3rd Card Debbie Washerwoman Schlitz doing anything
4th Card Chelsea grinning
5th Card Hillary looked demented.

You still got a boner, then you're due for Thorazine and a nice comfy padded room.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 08:39 PM (kXoT0)

468 "We should really do something."

"Let it burn."

"No, really, maybe we should make an effort to save this thing."

"The progressives will just hijack any effort we make, so it wouldn't be worth the risk."

"Well, we should really do something."

"The blood of tyrants and all that."

"Yeah. The quote includes the blood of patriots, too you know. Blood's hard to get out of the carpet."

"Let it burn, then."

"Er. Mesothelioma risk?"

"Ha! Got you!"

"Wanna go watch Logan's Run again?"

"Yeah, sure, okay."

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 08:39 PM (s5o+q)

469
Minor but psychologically important rule. Members of SCOTUS shall no longer wear black robes. Just civvies.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:40 PM (zLP1L)

470 You don't want those regrets of not having tried.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at January 08, 2016 08:38 PM (kKHcp)

I agree. And there is always the possibility that we could be pleasantly surprised, or that this action would goad the other side into forcing the issue. We lose nothing by the attempt, only time, and that's not too precious a commodity yet.

Posted by: Cato the Rebel Without a Party at January 08, 2016 08:40 PM (HalrA)

471 466 That was the intent... Kill gerrymandering
Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 08:39 PM (mSKnV)

Kill it dead.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:41 PM (zLP1L)

472 Has everyone else seen the #PennsylvaniaUnderAttack hashtag out there? No? Seriously, make the comparison to the actual shooting in PA over the nonevent in Oregon as often as possible. Using the words "sedition" and "treason" as often as possible, since those are the words I saw most often attached to #OregonUnderAttack. Also, pointing out that one of them involves an actual attack. And oh, the shooter did less time in jail than the ranchers over a previous assault.

Hashtag wars might seem stupid, especially when used in lieu of actual fighting during actual wars, but in politics it's a must now. The fence sitters and political newbies need to see the comparison made explicit to see how ridiculous the other side is.

Posted by: The Governor at January 08, 2016 08:41 PM (ODqY5)

473 No, because it prevents a court decision from becoming the law of the land instead of applying perhaps to just one case.

If it's still left to that one case, though, doesn't it effectively become the law of the land (because if the court gets a similar case, it'll rule the same way)? You either nix all of it or none of it.

Here, I'll try to offer something--what might make sense to create some superior body over the Supreme Court. Using Abbot's example, you could have each state appointing its own judge. However, I don't see how you could possibly get all those judges to agree on consistent and usable rulings.

What would be more feasible is allowing state to remove a SCOTUS justice by a 3/4 vote. I doubt that'd happen in practice, though.

Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 08:41 PM (QWY55)

474 Howzabout this?

"Amendment 30:

"All Congressional districts within the States will be square, when rendered upon a map. "Square" is defined as a figure of four sides, each of equal length, each joined to the others by a 90 degree angle. Exceptions are permitted when one or more of the district's borders is defined by a State line; but all district lines within the state must abide by this rule. Population distribution within the State is ignored."

Just playing with ideas
Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 08:35 PM (mSKnV)

Some kind of anti-gerrymandering thing is needed, yes.

Not necessarily square, but geographically compact, so that the border lines of congressional districts in each state are of a minimum total aggregate length.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 08:42 PM (s5o+q)

475
In the midst of all the discussion let's not forget that change must begin at the most basic level--LOCALLY.

It all flows from this. We can alter the course, by each of us working at it.

Get involved in whatever way you can, no matter the seeming insignificance of your effort.

Think of this as OUR "long march through the institutions", just as the left has done.

It WILL work over time, simply because we are Americans,an as such are denied the option of failure.

And when it is accomplished, you will find that all it took is a return to governance according to our blueprint--the Constitution.

Posted by: irongrampa at January 08, 2016 08:42 PM (jeCnD)

476
Look at what has been done to the Constitution so far. It's all but gone.

Article V at worst will, G-d forbid, go nowhere.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:42 PM (zLP1L)

477 Well I am tired and have 3 long days ahead..Later all

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 08, 2016 08:43 PM (78pq2)

478 If you haven't Google Milo Moire yet, you're missing something. From that Breitbart photo, I recognized a "professional". She was, uh, well groomed, and seemed adroit at adopting the right poses to show off her assets.

She's getting a lot of publicity from her little protest, which I'm sure had nothing to do with it, of course.

But do check out her work.

Posted by: publius (not Breitbart publius) at January 08, 2016 08:43 PM (dvuhZ)

479 What would be more feasible is allowing state to
remove a SCOTUS justice by a 3/4 vote. I doubt that'd happen in
practice, though.

Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 08:41 PM (QWY55)

That would be covered under the amendment I proposed above, where the States could initiate impeachment proceedings on any Federal official, elected or appointed, with a 2/3 vote. You'd need cause to remove them (such as flagrantly violating the Constitution or the classic High Crimes Misdemeanors), not just political BS, but I think it ought to be an option.

Posted by: Cato the Rebel Without a Party at January 08, 2016 08:43 PM (HalrA)

480 Minor but psychologically important rule. Members of SCOTUS shall no longer wear black robes. Just civvies.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:40 PM (zLP1L)

Televise the whole damn thing start to finish, none of this people standing around waiting for drawings and transcripts. Mystery and Mystique of the Supremes, my pretty pink @ss.

We are not electing a Pope.

Mandatory retirement age as well. Ruthie is senile.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 08:44 PM (kXoT0)

481 Our female to male ratio is not favorable. I think we should invade Cologne and seek to infiltrate the women's underwear. They won't notice a smurf in there.

Posted by: Papa Smurf at January 08, 2016 08:44 PM (5luh1)

482 An Art. V convention will just be more failure theatre.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at January 08, 2016 08:44 PM (1ijHg)

483 Increase the House to 5000 members (yeah yeah, it would look like the Imperial Senate) who serve without Federal Pay. Let the states pay them, or not pay them, as they see fit.

With 5000 members, the representation would be a lot closer to what the Founders envisioned, and there would be too many to bribe.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 08:44 PM (Q44iK)

484 I've heard on radio talk shows reporters following Hildabeast emails that the FB I is still seriously looking into the case. But it's going to be the injustice department which is the weak link.

Posted by: Skip at January 08, 2016 08:44 PM (3ZgzE)

485 It goes back to whatever the previous level of appellate court decided.
In the case of Alice v. Bob, if the trial court ruled for Alice, the appellate court reversed and ruled for Bob, but SCOTUS reversed again and ruled for Alice, if the states nullify the SCOTUS decision, it goes back to the appellate's court decision for Bob.
Posted by: chemjeff at January 08, 2016 08:37 PM (uZNvH)

1. I really don't think that improves the situation much over the problems we have the Supreme Court (c.f., Ninth Circuit), but...

2. When we have two appellate courts that disagree, then what?

Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 08:44 PM (QWY55)

486 Come quick! Papa Smurf is smurfing Smurfette.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at January 08, 2016 08:45 PM (1ijHg)

487 I didn't see the amendment calling for camps for the leftist 5th columnist traitorous scum. Where are we gonna put the camps?
Some place really cold and boring would be really neato.

Posted by: Josef Stalinsmith at January 08, 2016 08:45 PM (/zyqF)

488 1. I really don't think that improves the situation much over the problems we have the Supreme Court (c.f., Ninth Circuit), but...

2. When we have two appellate courts that disagree, then what?
Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 08:44 PM (QWY55)

The decision from the highest level court before SCOTUS is the decision that stands and only applies to the parties involved and NOT the entire country.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:46 PM (zLP1L)

489 2. When we have two appellate courts that disagree, then what?
Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 08:44 PM (QWY55)

Two Appellate Courts go in . . .

Only One Leaves!!!

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 08:46 PM (s5o+q)

490 It's also way past time for Civil Rights laws to have anything to do with the way States conduct elections. Voter ID laws are not racist, nor are they an unnecessary burden. No one died for your right to cash a check or get a library card, but, they damn sure did for your right to vote.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 08:46 PM (kXoT0)

491 Posted by: Cato the Rebel Without a Party at January 08, 2016 08:40 PM (HalrA)

Time differs in preciousness from person to person.
As for the country, time is getting to be of the essence.
Actually, time is just about up.

I haven't been tablepounding the Liberty Amendments, it takes a lot of momentum and a few big names. It may be starting.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at January 08, 2016 08:47 PM (kKHcp)

492 I don't agree with all of these... the rest make the state too strong... though additional checks on the supremes have their sure appeal... I'd make the threshold higher if we're to go that way because appealing the supreme court could have the effect of an amendment itself.

I'd say the first four or five sound about right.

Posted by: Former Mass. Resident at January 08, 2016 08:47 PM (/lYhj)

493 467 Holy crap - any boner surviving that gauntlet deserves to be in the boner museum.

Posted by: Weasel at January 08, 2016 08:47 PM (e3bId)

494 I didn't see the amendment calling for camps for the leftist 5th columnist traitorous scum. Where are we gonna put the camps?
Some place really cold and boring would be really neato.
Posted by: Josef Stalinsmith at January 08, 2016 08:45 PM (/zyqF)

There was an article today that they were thinking of putting Syrian refugees at the Grand Forks Air Force Base.

Grand Forks gets ridiculously cold about this time of year.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 08:47 PM (s5o+q)

495 Silly morons. We don't live in a land of laws anymore.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at January 08, 2016 08:47 PM (1ijHg)

496
What the hell??? No Greg Abbott????

Fucking Levin, you hurt me bro.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:47 PM (zLP1L)

497 467 Holy crap - any boner surviving that gauntlet deserves to be in the boner museum.
Posted by: Weasel at January 08, 2016 08:47 PM (e3bId)

I try.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 08:48 PM (kXoT0)

498 She was dead right, and yet was mocked mercilessly.

Maxine Waters (D-viant CA) can claim the CIA created crack but no one forced Lemonjello or Turdelle to buy it and smoke it.

Personal responsibility. How does it work?
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:11 PM (zLP1L)

I'm mocking her, too.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 08:48 PM (AkOaV)

499 469

Minor but psychologically important rule. Members of SCOTUS shall no longer wear black robes. Just civvies.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:40 PM (zLP1L)

"We've got to take this case to SCOTUS! And I'll even argue it!""You do know Justice Ginsburg wears a bikini in court, correct?""Is it to late to settle?"

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 08:48 PM (4ErVI)

500 Damn formatting

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 08:49 PM (4ErVI)

501 Yes Sherry at 490, I always wondered why it's racist to require a little ID card, but not racist to require a computer with an internet connection to sign up for Obama-care.

Posted by: Josef Stalinsmith at January 08, 2016 08:49 PM (/zyqF)

502
Do away with the entire 9th Circuit and the one that's in DC (5th?).

Not needed and dangerous to liberty.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:49 PM (zLP1L)

503 482
An Art. V convention will just be more failure theatre.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at January 08, 2016 08:44 PM (1ijHg)

That's possible. But what do we lose by trying? It doesn't take the other options off the table. It's just a hail mary pass going for the touchdown instead of taking the field goal that'll make it go into overtime.

Posted by: Cato the Rebel Without a Party at January 08, 2016 08:49 PM (HalrA)

504 Minor but psychologically important rule. Members of SCOTUS shall no longer wear black robes. Just civvies.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:40 PM (zLP1L)

"Amendment 31:

"The Supreme Court of the United States is hereby prohibited from wearing black robes. Robes worn shall be seasonal, as defined below:
Lent: Green and purple, with a necklace of beads;
Easter: Pink, embroidered with rabbits;
Early July: A festive but respectful Stars and Stripes pattern;
October: Orange and black. Female Justices may wear a pointed hat, if they so desire;
November: Orange and black remains, but all Justices may wear Puritan style hats;
December: Red, with white fur collar and cuffs.
At all other times, robes will be white."

Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 08:49 PM (mSKnV)

505 The decision from the highest level court before SCOTUS is the decision that stands and only applies to the parties involved and NOT the entire country.

That is how it sets precedent, though.

If you have two other parties that have the same dispute, it will eventually wind up there, and the SCOTUS will rule the same way as it did previously. Voila, it sets the law, whether it should or not.

Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 08:50 PM (QWY55)

506 Good old libtard Polly. Ratting out her husband.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at January 08, 2016 08:50 PM (1ijHg)

507 498 I'm mocking her, too.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 08:48 PM (AkOaV)

I'm sure you mean Maxine, right?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:50 PM (zLP1L)

508 We could follow Cologne and put a few thousand "Syrians " on the Washington mall on the 4th of july

Posted by: Skip at January 08, 2016 08:50 PM (3ZgzE)

509 This is a better solution than armed revolt. And that is where we are headed.

Posted by: San Franpsycho at January 08, 2016 08:51 PM (EZebt)

510 Yes Sherry at 490, I always wondered why it's racist to require a little ID card, but not racist to require a computer with an internet connection to sign up for Obama-care.
Posted by: Josef Stalinsmith at January 08, 2016 08:49 PM (/zyqF)

Funny thing when Shakaykay or Juanita want the government to pay for this or that, they have all the required documents ready to go in triplicate.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 08:51 PM (kXoT0)

511 492
I don't agree with all of these... the rest make the state too strong...
though additional checks on the supremes have their sure appeal... I'd
make the threshold higher if we're to go that way because appealing the
supreme court could have the effect of an amendment itself.

I'd say the first four or five sound about right.

Posted by: Former Mass. Resident at January 08, 2016 08:47 PM (/lYhj)

We've been overbalanced to the Federal side for far too long. A little overcorrection is much better than not correcting enough.

Posted by: Cato the Rebel Without a Party at January 08, 2016 08:51 PM (HalrA)

512 OK tell me how the feds can do this and not indict Hillary.

http://tinyurl.com/gufd9sm

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 08, 2016 08:51 PM (jJRIy)

513 Greg, stand up and let them see you! Oh, God love you, you can't!

Posted by: Joe Biden, State Convention Delegate for the Great State of Delaware at January 08, 2016 08:51 PM (/f6Nd)

514 The decision from the highest level court before
SCOTUS is the decision that stands and only applies to the parties
involved and NOT the entire country.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:46 PM (zLP1L)
Well AD has a point, sometimes SCOTUS will collect a bunch of disagreeing appellate court decisions together and then try to resolve them all in one fell swoop. That is what happened with the gay marriage ruling.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 08, 2016 08:51 PM (uZNvH)

515 End the direct elections of Senators. Right there power would be returned to the states.

Posted by: Iblis at January 08, 2016 08:51 PM (rP2JJ)

516 You still got a boner, then you're due for Thorazine and a nice comfy padded room.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 08:39 PM (kXoT0)
I'd hit it.

Posted by: Billy Jeff at January 08, 2016 08:51 PM (cmE8J)

517 505 If you have two other parties that have the same dispute, it will eventually wind up there, and the SCOTUS will rule the same way as it did previously. Voila, it sets the law, whether it should or not.
Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 08:50 PM (QWY55)

If the states throw out a decision the people hate, then how does it set precedent in the entire nation, not just the jurisdiction where it was tried before SCOTUS?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:52 PM (zLP1L)

518 @480 Sherry

You know the rules, pics of that little pink a$$

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 08:52 PM (voOPb)

519 509
This is a better solution than armed revolt. And that is where we are headed.

Posted by: San Franpsycho at January 08, 2016 08:51 PM (EZebt)

Amen to that. At the very least, it's a credible enough option that it deserves to be tried. It's not like we can't do the other thing later if it doesn't work...

Posted by: Cato the Rebel Without a Party at January 08, 2016 08:52 PM (HalrA)

520 AD,

You could always give the SCOTUS another crack at it and if the screw it up again the states can keep reversing them until they get it right.

Posted by: the guy that moves pianos for a living... at January 08, 2016 08:52 PM (tEDMc)

521 @512 Nip

Vagina?

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 08:53 PM (voOPb)

522 Maxine Waters (D-viant CA) can claim the CIA created crack but no one forced Lemonjello or Turdelle to buy it and smoke it.

Personal responsibility. How does it work?
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:11 PM (zLP1L)

Agreed. I don't smoke because I never put a cigarette in my mouth for the first time. Addiction is way too easy.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 08:53 PM (kXoT0)

523 If you want to get money out of politics, get politics out of money.

The only reason we have a problem is the government has too much power .... get it back to the enumerated powers and a lot of the problem will just disappear.

Posted by: sock_rat_eez at January 08, 2016 08:53 PM (S0bOl)

524 Good old libtard Polly. Ratting out her husband.
Posted by: Grampa Jimbo

She snitched on Mortimer and me too.

Posted by: Charlie McCarthy at January 08, 2016 08:54 PM (FkBIv)

525 386
There are a nontrivial number of people on the left who aver that the voting age should be lowered to 14.

Posted by: torquewrench at January 08, 2016 08:15 PM (noWW6)

I think some countries have lowered the voting age to 16. I don't know which ones, but I seem to recall reading about it.

You know who that benefits? Socialists, because immature children are obsessed with "fairness" without having any idea what it means in real life.

Posted by: rickl at January 08, 2016 08:55 PM (sdi6R)

526 505 If you have two other parties that have the same dispute, it will eventually wind up there, and the SCOTUS will rule the same way as it did previously. Voila, it sets the law, whether it should or not.
Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 08:50 PM (QWY55)

WAIT:

Actually it doesn't apply anywhere. If a case was lost all the way to SCOTUS and they reversed the lower courts, if the SCOTUS decision is thrown out the States are upholding the lower courts' rulings.

QED.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:55 PM (zLP1L)

527 The only reason we have a problem is the government has too much power .... get it back to the enumerated powers and a lot of the problem will just disappear.
Posted by: sock_rat_eez at January 08, 2016 08:53 PM (S0bOl)

See?
There you go, Easy Peasy.

How?

Posted by: OneEyedJack at January 08, 2016 08:55 PM (kKHcp)

528 As for the pretty German artist standing there naked rebuking the Syrian yutes, I hope for her sake, they do not make a point of raping her to death and leaving her naked corpse prominently displayed.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 08:55 PM (kXoT0)

529 I saw Lemonjello and Turdelle open for the Pointer Sisters back in '87.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 08:55 PM (4ErVI)

530 Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 08:49 PM (mSKnV)

You forgot

Clown noses will be worn at all formal hearings and for all photographs!

Posted by: Hrothgar at January 08, 2016 08:56 PM (ftVQq)

531
If the States had the ability to reverse the Obamacare ruling, it would have been in the ash heap of history at least 2 years ago, if not sooner.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:56 PM (zLP1L)

532 What's German for "skank"?

Posted by: freaked at January 08, 2016 08:57 PM (BO/km)

533 I saw Lemonjello and Turdelle open for the Pointer Sisters back in '87.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 08:55 PM (4ErVI)

Had a work friend whose sister is a teacher back East and he swears she had a student named Shithead whose mother insisted the name be pronounced

ShhhTheede

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 08:58 PM (kXoT0)

534 Got here late and I am loathe to join the fight because last time I did, a certain BurtTC accused me of trolling for the Convention of States.

But here goes anyway:

To those of you who believe the convention is worthless and/or dangerous, PLEASE, go to the Convention of States website. There is a "Learn" tab which includes "Responses to Opposition" in the drop down box.

Of course you could also read Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments, for a more detailed explanation, but the website is a good place to start.

99.9% of the morons here love this country and like me are sick at the thought of what has become of it. I believe we are at a true tipping point and I am very scared for my kids and (someday) grandkids.

The Convention is the best idea we've got. What is the alternative?

Posted by: IrishEi at January 08, 2016 08:58 PM (E6RIJ)

535 527 See?
There you go, Easy Peasy.

How?
Posted by: OneEyedJack at January 08, 2016 08:55 PM (kKHcp)

You make a good point. The Framers recognized that at some point we would not "keep" the republic and did all they could to put a safety net in the Constitution.

The problem is, they were men of honor. They could NOT have anticipate the devolution of the human character in so short a time.

And THAT is a problem, Article V or not.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:58 PM (zLP1L)

536 If the states throw out a decision the people hate, then how does it set precedent in the entire nation, not just the jurisdiction where it was tried before SCOTUS?

It wouldn't if you threw the ruling out entirely. But you need to throw it out entirely. Given the nature of the cases they handle (federal law, disputes between states), if it still stands at all, it will apply to everybody, until the makeup of the Court changes (and you get a different set of justices that'll rule differently).

Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 08:58 PM (QWY55)

537 I got to blogs late in the game. I first came across ace in December 2012. The very first thread was about the impending fiscal cliff. Ace dropped the F bomb and said let it burn. I shared the sentiment. I still do at times. I also would like to see this great country survive.

I don't see how we continue to be a great country without some major surgery. We need more than bandaids and aspirin

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 08:59 PM (voOPb)

538 End the direct elections of Senators. Right there power would be returned to the states.
Posted by: Iblis at January 08, 2016 08:51 PM (rP2JJ)

Yup. 17th Amendment effectively killed federalism.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 08:59 PM (s5o+q)

539 I'm sure you mean Maxine, right?
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:50 PM (zLP1L)

I guess it works both ways, but no I primarily meant Nancy Reagan.

"just say no" is a meaningless platitude.

And tying federal highway funding to a 21 year old drinking age is slimy as fuck and should never have happened.

It's a state issue.

So is drug use.

Not a federal gubmint issue.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 08:59 PM (AkOaV)

540 Philly cop shooter's mom now saying her son is mentally ill from football concussions.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 08, 2016 08:59 PM (FkBIv)

541 533 Had a work friend whose sister is a teacher back East and he swears she had a student named Shithead whose mother insisted the name be pronounced

ShhhTheede
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 08:58 PM (kXoT0)

Momma taught in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. Among her students were the Anderson twins: Scrub and Scum, and a brother and sister named Male and Female, Pronounced Molly and Fee-Molly.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 09:00 PM (zLP1L)

542 540 Philly cop shooter's mom now saying her son is mentally ill from football concussions.
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 08, 2016 08:59 PM (FkBIv)

he dinduit, he a good boy.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:00 PM (AkOaV)

543 It's a state issue.
So is drug use.
Not a federal gubmint issue.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes

Why not a city issue?

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 08, 2016 09:00 PM (FkBIv)

544 I think we need to further establish another amendment. State photo IDs (and drivers licenses, which function as such) must contain an indication of whether or not a person is a US Citizen, and those IDs must be presented at polling places in order to vote.

No more "motor voter" shit that allows illegals to vote, no more of this "no ID" shit that allows people to vote 8 times. One person, one vote. The "margin of fraud" problem we're having is probably the reason why BHO got a second term. We'd probably be talking about President Romney as a total RINO squish otherwise.

Posted by: Cato the Rebel Without a Party at January 08, 2016 09:01 PM (HalrA)

545 The problem is, they were men of honor. They could NOT have anticipate the devolution of the human character in so short a time.

And THAT is a problem, Article V or not.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:58 PM (zLP1L)

Had they anticipated that a Free Press would be completely co-opted, then they could've done better on that. During Colonial times, the printers and writers were obsessed with the truth, now, they are obsessed with the size of Kimmy and Beyonce asses.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:01 PM (kXoT0)

546 Why not a city issue?
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 08, 2016 09:00 PM (FkBIv)

well, it could be.

As the 10th amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, sure. Could be a city issue if the state so decides.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:01 PM (AkOaV)

547 521
@512 Nip

Vagina?

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 08:53 PM (voOPb)

Well, Broadwell has one too, and from the looks of her, her's probably still works.

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 08, 2016 09:02 PM (jJRIy)

548 Actually it doesn't apply anywhere. If a case was lost all the way to SCOTUS and they reversed the lower courts, if the SCOTUS decision is thrown out the States are upholding the lower courts' rulings.

Yep, that's what I was responding to Chemjeff about earlier. The problem with that is that you're then relying on those lower courts to be more noble, less political, and less intrusive than the Supreme Court. If they aren't, it gets us nowhere. And I just don't think you can rely on that. You're merely trading the problems of one court for another.

And you'd still have the problem of lower courts disagree on what the law is and somebody needing to resolve it.

Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 09:02 PM (QWY55)

549 They could NOT have anticipate the devolution of the human character in so short a time.

Did they not study history?

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 08, 2016 09:02 PM (FkBIv)

550 539 Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 08:59 PM (AkOaV)

So in your estimation, the individual lacks a soul, character and the ability to think and reason.

I assume you don't go drinking cologne or do whippets? Mrs. Reagan may not have been your cup of tea, but she was dead balls on.

Either that or you are a racist for assuming that black people are somehow inferior and cannot reason for themselves so will do anything and everything that other races won't, because we can reason and they can't? Is that it?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 09:02 PM (zLP1L)

551 As for the pretty German artist standing there naked rebuking the Syrian yutes, I hope for her sake, they do not make a point of raping her to death and leaving her naked corpse prominently displayed.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 08:55 PM (kXoT0)

That's the trouble with Western protesters: They do this stuff because they believe, deep down, that the police and the people around them will stop anything *really* bad happening. If they didn't think so, they wouldn't do it.

Where do you not see this stuff? Iran. Saudi. Why? 'Cause they'll fucking kill you if you do it.

The police-- THE POLICE, who are the ones who are supposed to be stopping this stuff-- are covering it up any lying about it. They are no longer protecting the populace from criminals; therefore she should not rely on them to keep her safe. She may learn this the hard way.

Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 09:03 PM (mSKnV)

552 So, sure. Could be a city issue if the state so decides.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:01 PM (AkOaV)

But cities (incorporated cities, anyway) are entities created by states.

Somewhat like corporations, in fact.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 09:03 PM (s5o+q)

553 545 The problem is, they were men of honor. They could NOT have anticipate the devolution of the human character in so short a time.

And THAT is a problem, Article V or not.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 08:58 PM (zLP1L)

Had they anticipated that a Free Press would be completely co-opted, then they could've done better on that. During Colonial times, the printers and writers were obsessed with the truth, now, they are obsessed with the size of Kimmy and Beyonce asses.
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:01 PM (kXoT0)

And that is why in theory we have Articles 9 and 10, because they could not have anticipated every human condition and frailty. It was supposed to cover anything left out.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 09:03 PM (zLP1L)

554 @539

Would state laws concerning drug use have any direct or indirect effect on drug cartels, etc?,not being snarky just trying to see if that makes sense

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 09:03 PM (voOPb)

555 Well, Broadwell has one too, and from the looks of her, her's probably still works.
Posted by: Nip Sip

Broadwell probably doesn't have a cadre of sycophants and a hard drive filled with FBI files.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 08, 2016 09:04 PM (FkBIv)

556 And you'd still have the problem of lower courts disagree on what the law is and somebody needing to resolve it.
Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 09:02 PM (QWY55)

No, the court system has no say over what is constitutional and what is not. They just resolve disputes.

The court system gave themselves the power of judicial review in marbury v madison.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:04 PM (AkOaV)

557 As to lower courts, do you go to the trouble of researching judges at election time? I do. I then pass that information onto everyone I know. Judges tend to not lose elections because people don't know them and the damage(s) they've done.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:05 PM (kXoT0)

558 Did they not study history?
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 08, 2016 09:02 PM (FkBIv)

Or the Old Testament.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 09:05 PM (s5o+q)

559 542
540 Philly cop shooter's mom now saying her son is mentally ill from football concussions.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 08, 2016 08:59 PM (FkBIv)

Well to be a Muhammadan, you do have to be mentally ill and an aspiring rapper!

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 08, 2016 09:05 PM (jJRIy)

560 Y'all just let me know when the shooting starts. I'll be at the range.

Posted by: Weasel at January 08, 2016 09:05 PM (e3bId)

561 So in your estimation, the individual lacks a soul, character and the ability to think and reason.

I assume you don't go drinking cologne or do whippets? Mrs. Reagan may not have been your cup of tea, but she was dead balls on.

Either that or you are a racist for assuming that black people are somehow inferior and cannot reason for themselves so will do anything and everything that other races won't, because we can reason and they can't? Is that it?
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 09:02 PM (zLP1L)

Uh, well I do happen to do nitrous whippets pretty regularly while I sniff model glue out of dirty socks. But that's neither here nor there.

I'm saying addiction is not an issue of "just say no."

It's a silly platitude.

People have ALWAYS had an inclination towards vices. No government or silly platitude is going to change that.

There are a multitude of reasons for substance abuse, none of which the federal government or the wife of the president are equipped to deal with.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:06 PM (AkOaV)

562 Yes, yes... Laws- that's what we're lacking! Great idea!

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama at January 08, 2016 09:06 PM (WYAcL)

563 554 @539

Would state laws concerning drug use have any direct or indirect effect on drug cartels, etc?,not being snarky just trying to see if that makes sense
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 09:03 PM (voOPb)

Drug usage is a societal issue. But at what point do we draw the line? Pot, Pills, Coke, Heroin? We have to have law and order and a civil society. Drugs will and has eroded that as we have seen. What are the conditions that cause people to turn to them?

In the inner city, I'd say it's 50 + years of the Great Society and the Sexual Hippie Leftist Revolution that did it.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 09:06 PM (zLP1L)

564 also, does drinking cologne really get you fucked up? Maybe I should try mixing that with my purple drank.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:06 PM (AkOaV)

565 AD,

You could always give the SCOTUS another crack at it and if the screw it up again the states can keep reversing them until they get it right.

You could. I just think they wouldn't change their rulings much. And if you kept going back and forth on what the law is (or if you had one state disagreeing with another), you have a whole new set of problems--trying to do business when you aren't sure what the law is that you're supposed to follow. I'd like to have a clear answer for that. I'll admit I don't.

Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 09:07 PM (QWY55)

566 The fundamental problem is this: For the last 30 years, the NEA has made sure that no student learned the responsibilities of citizenship.

We are well and truly fucked.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at January 08, 2016 09:07 PM (1ijHg)

567 Drug usage is a societal issue. But at what point do we draw the line? Pot, Pills, Coke, Heroin? We have to have law and order and a civil society. Drugs will and has eroded that as we have seen. What are the conditions that cause people to turn to them?

In the inner city, I'd say it's 50 + years of the Great Society and the Sexual Hippie Leftist Revolution that did it.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 09:06 PM (zLP1L)

It's not the substances that are the problem. Just like it's not guns that are the problem.

It's cultural. Which government cannot fix.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:07 PM (AkOaV)

568 460 Actually I think old hillary is in serious trouble...

If so, it's trouble of a cosmic variety beyond the reach of mankind. I'm afraid I don't see any indictment coming.

Posted by: rrpjr at January 08, 2016 09:07 PM (s/yC1)

569 And that is why in theory we have Articles 9 and 10, because they could not have anticipated every human condition and frailty. It was supposed to cover anything left out.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 09:03 PM (zLP1L)

And why there was an argument about whether or not the Bill of Rights was a good idea in the first place. Many founders thought that any rights not explicitly delineated in the Constitution would be denigrated, diminished, or denied.

But even they didn't think that the rights that were right there in the freakin' text would be freakin' ignored by the federal government.

The most pessimistic of the founders were, ironically, excessively optimistic.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 09:08 PM (s5o+q)

570 During Colonial times, the printers and writers were
obsessed with the truth, now, they are obsessed with the size of Kimmy
and Beyonce asses.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:01 PM (kXoT0)

Weellll...
They were pretty scummy back then. And vicious. The political press was extraordinarily vicious. The Sally Hemmings story was broken by a political journalist who hated Jefferson back in 1800 or so.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 09:08 PM (4ErVI)

571 She may learn this the hard way.
Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 09:03 PM (mSKnV)

Agreed. She has challenged scum who have never been challenged by a woman in their lives. Any woman in their experience who was not completely craven, cowed, and captive was quickly murdered usually by her Father/Brother/Uncles/Grandfather/Cousins to keep themselves from being hurt.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:08 PM (kXoT0)

572 Best Governor and best post of 2016!

Posted by: eleven at January 08, 2016 09:08 PM (qUNWi)

573 WTF is Humira?

Sounds like it cures all things Hipster girls get when they turn 30?

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 08, 2016 09:08 PM (jJRIy)

574 The court system gave themselves the power of judicial review in marbury v madison.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:04 PM (AkOaV)

Yep, they did. But take that away and you need someone else to resolve disputes. Before we do that, that needs to be fleshed out.

Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 09:09 PM (QWY55)

575 Y'all just let me know when the shooting starts. I'll be at the range.
Posted by: Weasel at January 08, 2016 09:05 PM (e3bId)

Don't be wasting ammo.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 09:09 PM (s5o+q)

576 @539

Would state laws concerning drug use have any direct or indirect effect on drug cartels, etc?,not being snarky just trying to see if that makes sense
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 09:03 PM (voOPb)

I'd say they'd have about as much effect as federal law has.

You know, opiates and "marihuana' have been illegal for decades and decades (almost a century for pot), which is why they're both impossible to find on the streets and why drug cartels don't exist.

Obviously, I'm being sarcastic.

Government cannot stop the free flow of goods between willing selling or buyer, no matter what the laws say, as all gun owners argue to exhaustion.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:09 PM (AkOaV)

577 Weellll...
They were pretty scummy back then. And vicious. The political press was extraordinarily vicious. The Sally Hemmings story was broken by a political journalist who hated Jefferson back in 1800 or so.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 08, 2016 09:08 PM (4ErVI)

There has always been a Yellow Muckraking Press, there has never, until now been a completely co-opted press. Our press is now no better than Russia's.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:09 PM (kXoT0)

578 561 I'm saying addiction is not an issue of "just say no."

It's a silly platitude.

People have ALWAYS had an inclination towards vices. No government or silly platitude is going to change that.

There are a multitude of reasons for substance abuse, none of which the federal government or the wife of the president are equipped to deal with.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:06 PM (AkOaV)

But it's not a silly platitude. At one point, the drug user made the conscious decision to go down a path that got him/her hooked.

No matter how shitty one's life may be, ultimately he alone is responsible and so saying "no" is the first step. It's the hardest but unless and until you do it, you'll be lapping up your own vomit in the gutter like Chuck Negron.

The other part of that equation are the race hustlers who blame whitey and slavery and capitalism for some crackhead's addiction.

And it goes further to individual liberty or having your life controlled by others.

That's the point.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 09:10 PM (zLP1L)

579 Whippet good.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 08, 2016 09:10 PM (FkBIv)

580 Yep, they did. But take that away and you need someone else to resolve disputes. Before we do that, that needs to be fleshed out.
Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 09:09 PM (QWY55)

No, we don't.

Congress writes the laws concerning their enumerated powers.

States write their laws concerning non-enumerated powers.

Courts interpret the law. You can appeal up to state or federal SCOTUS, then you're out of appeals.

If a law is stupidly ambiguous, it's on congress (or the state legislature) to fix it.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:10 PM (AkOaV)

581 573 WTF is Humira?

Sounds like it cures all things Hipster girls get when they turn 30?

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 08, 2016 09:08 PM (jJRIy)

.....

It's the end result of Huma getting her twisted in parts unknown.

Posted by: Molly k. at January 08, 2016 09:11 PM (4aaDj)

582 So. the SCOTUS kind of usurped itself some power.

It's Deja Vu all over again.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at January 08, 2016 09:11 PM (1ijHg)

583
"Just Say No" gives the individual the power. When you blame others, you are allowing yourself to remain enslaved to the Leftists.

That's why it's such a powerful and true message.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 09:11 PM (zLP1L)

584
Where are we gonna put the camps?
Some place really cold and boring would be really neato.

Isle Royale, MI. It is one of the least visited national parks anyway.

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars (TM) at January 08, 2016 09:12 PM (BK3ZS)

585 Government cannot stop the free flow of goods between willing selling or buyer, no matter what the laws say, as all gun owners argue to exhaustion.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:09 PM (AkOaV)

That's what I don't get about the Australian Solution libs out there. It didn't work with booze, it doesn't work with drugs, what makes you think it'll work with firearms?

Of course, what it's actually about is gathering more power to the state

Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 09:12 PM (mSKnV)

586 You don't want those regrets of not having tried.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at January 08, 2016 08:38 PM (kKHcp)

As I said to MWNP, you're welcome to try. I'm arming up fur the inevitable failure, if it even gets that far, which it won't.

Posted by: Blano at January 08, 2016 09:12 PM (heN73)

587 oh shit one of those nights I see. Tongue was suppose to be there........

Posted by: Molly k. at January 08, 2016 09:12 PM (4aaDj)

588 Smithsonian Channel (for those who get it) is re-running its show on Trump's 757 jet.

Wonder if they'll get dinged for it being an in-kind donation.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 09:12 PM (s5o+q)

589 And it goes further to individual liberty or having your life controlled by others.

That's the point.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 09:10 PM (zLP1L)

No it doesn't. If we all own our own lives, and are sovereign people on this planet, outside the control of a king... well, it's no ones business what we do with our own bodies.

If we make bad decisions, fine.

But tell some addict "hey man just say no!" and they'll roll their eyes. It's not that easy. Yes, it's their fault they are where they are. They know that. But saying "just say no" is ... stupid.

And this is coming from a former(ish) tobacco addict. I didn't give a shit what anyone said about nicotine and tobacco when I was 16 and started smoking. "just say no" was something I would have (and did) roll my eyes at.

I don't need people reminding me it was my fault I became addicted to cigarettes. I knew it. And it was my decision to break that addiction.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:13 PM (AkOaV)

590
I mean, every time I walk past some homeless panhandler with a sign begging for money, I say - and loud enough to hear as I pass by - "What series of incredibly poor choices did YOU make that led YOU here?"

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 09:13 PM (zLP1L)

591 The fundamental problem is this: For the last 30 years, the NEA has made sure that no student learned the responsibilities of citizenship.

We are well and truly fucked.

Yep, this is the problem the left gets into with guns, where they think if they just toss in the right law, it'll solve everything.

In a democracy, you get the government you deserve. There's stuff you can do at the edges, but our biggest problem, our toughest problem to deal with, comes down to that.

Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 09:13 PM (QWY55)

592 Harry if you were alive during Reagans presidency you were a wee child. My guess is you are about 28 or 29. The scourge of Coke & Crack was going on. Wars on drugs? Sure. Crack is not an innocent inanimate object as a gun as you mentioned earlier

1st ladies always have had a cause to push. Nancy Reagans just say no was and is good advice. She wasn't going to the dept of education for healthy meals all Michelle. She wasn't busy writing up the Clinton health care plan.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 09:13 PM (voOPb)

593 oh shit one of those nights I see. Tongue was suppose to be there........

I'm intrigued.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 09:13 PM (Q44iK)

594 So, does a legislature composed of democratically elected members, have the authority to pass legislation?

SCOTUS: Depends.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at January 08, 2016 09:13 PM (1ijHg)

595 Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:08 PM (kXoT0)

They also condition them from childhood. Children watch the adults and, with no one to contradict them, adapt their behaviors.

Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 09:14 PM (mSKnV)

596 "Just Say No" gives the individual the power. When you blame others, you are allowing yourself to remain enslaved to the Leftists.

That's why it's such a powerful and true message.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 09:11 PM (zLP1L)

I don't think we necessarily disagree on the underlying idea -- that substance use is an individuals decision -- I'm just saying the stupid federal "just say no" campaign was, well, stupid

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:14 PM (AkOaV)

597 I invite everyone to go to Bing. They are looping the cutest video of a weasel popping up here and there in deep snow.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:14 PM (kXoT0)

598 589 Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:13 PM (AkOaV)

But see, I assume you went somewhere to get help for your tobacco addiction? Or if you didn't then so be it.

But "Just Say No" also means "Don't be an asshole and get started in the first place." Difficult considering the leftwing droogs and thugs rule the slums with an iron fist and are beholden to the Democrat Party.

"Just Say No" is more than an immediate address to a specific addiction. It's a clarion call to take responsibility for oneself and break free of the enslavement.

Unfortunately, Nancy Reagan never had a chance or wasn't able to expound on this. As time goes by, the more I am convinced that she was so right in so many ways.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 09:16 PM (zLP1L)

599 I don't like Kelly's short hair, but I'd still do her.

Cause I a giver. and dreamer.

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 08, 2016 09:17 PM (jJRIy)

600 If a law is stupidly ambiguous, it's on congress (or the state legislature) to fix it.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:10 PM (AkOaV)

Now that's an interesting idea--I just find it hard to believe it'd work in practice.

And you'd still have states and feds arguing over their powers, no matter how clear or ambiguous the Constitution is on something.

Posted by: AD at January 08, 2016 09:17 PM (QWY55)

601 596 t think we necessarily disagree on the underlying idea -- that substance use is an individuals decision -- I'm just saying the stupid federal "just say no" campaign was, well, stupid
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:14 PM (AkOaV)

Well, there is that. Too bad films like "Breaking Bad" and "Trainspotting" and "Compton" glorify this crap.

Amazing how our media is such a powerful weapon and is used for such evil purposes.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 09:18 PM (zLP1L)

602 AD,

During the FL recount SCOTUS voided a ruling from FL state supreme court and sent it back to them with a note basically saying "you guys really fucked this up." The FL court got the message and reversed themselves. I think it would work in a similar way with the states and SCOTUS--at least initially. I suppose at some point they would reach an impasse on an issue and the congress would have to step in and provide direction to the lower courts.

Posted by: the guy that moves pianos for a living... at January 08, 2016 09:18 PM (tEDMc)

603 They also condition them from childhood. Children watch the adults and, with no one to contradict them, adapt their behaviors.
Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 09:14 PM (mSKnV)

Yes, and they have bred for docile females. I don't want to be excoriated for saying that, but, it's true, islam wants "warrior" men and doormat women.

Yes, it's sad when the neighbors a few street over put the headdresses on their daughters. Formerly, those little girls skipped past on their way home from the school bus, once the headdress goes on, they clutch their books to their little chests, and trudge home looking only at the ground directly in front of their feet.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:19 PM (kXoT0)

604 594 SCOTUS: Depends.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at January 08, 2016 09:13 PM (1ijHg)

STATES: Overruled. We do, bitches. Now go get our shine box.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 09:19 PM (zLP1L)

605 Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:13 PM (AkOaV)

The 'just say no' program wasn't targeted to addicts. It was a preemptive program.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at January 08, 2016 09:20 PM (MNgU2)

606
Perp: I did it in the name of the Prophet! I am committed to Islam and ISIS!

Mayor: "This had nothing to do with Islam."

Media: "Any idea what the motive was?"

Mayor: "Nope, not a clue."

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at January 08, 2016 09:20 PM (Z58Xa)

607 Nip, thanks for your charitable character

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 09:21 PM (voOPb)

608 I invite everyone to go to Bing. They are looping the cutest video of a weasel popping up here and there in deep snow.
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:14 PM (kXoT0)

What's a weasel?

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 09:21 PM (s5o+q)

609
Damn. My fever is returning. Shot of brandy and some apple cider vinegar and then to bed.

Goodnight kids.

Very spirited debate, reason #4457 why AOSHQ is "Award-Winning."

Keep it IS-real.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 09:21 PM (zLP1L)

610 Nite JJ get well

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 09:22 PM (voOPb)

611 592 Harry if you were alive during Reagans presidency you were a wee child. My guess is you are about 28 or 29. The scourge of Coke & Crack was going on. Wars on drugs? Sure. Crack is not an innocent inanimate object as a gun as you mentioned earlier

1st ladies always have had a cause to push. Nancy Reagans just say no was and is good advice. She wasn't going to the dept of education for healthy meals all Michelle. She wasn't busy writing up the Clinton health care plan.
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 09:13 PM (voOPb)

You are correct, Reagans years were before my time.

I was born in the last year of his presidency.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:22 PM (AkOaV)

612
Thanks, dude. Even my eyes feel warm. Ugh.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 09:23 PM (zLP1L)

613 MH.. well give me an hour and I be ready for anything! ha ha

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 08, 2016 09:23 PM (jJRIy)

614 >>>tell some addict "hey man just say no!" and they'll roll their eyes. It's not that easy. Yes, it's their fault they are where they are. They know that. But saying "just say no" is ... stupid.

Harry, her message wasn't aimed at addicts. It was aimed at children. And in that context it made perfect sense.

Posted by: Lea at January 08, 2016 09:23 PM (vmMMi)

615 #608

Just in case you are serious.

A small, slender, carnivorous mammal related to, but generally smaller than, the stoat.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:23 PM (kXoT0)

616 About time, agree with all the proposed amendments listed.

"Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds."

Some accountability would be good for a change. Currently they have nothing to lose with their tyrannical power grabs.

Posted by: venus velvet at January 08, 2016 09:23 PM (g94P/)

617 Well, there is that. Too bad films like "Breaking Bad" and "Trainspotting" and "Compton" glorify this crap.

Amazing how our media is such a powerful weapon and is used for such evil purposes.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 09:18 PM (zLP1L)

I'm now swayed by Breaking Bad.

I'm swayed by addicts I know who are constantly in and out of jail and who, even if they got clean, really have no chance of ever fixing their lives since they now have a serious rap sheet due to an addiction.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:24 PM (AkOaV)

618 I was born in the last year of his presidency.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:22 PM (AkOaV)

Wow. I thought I was the designated Lawn Leaver here. Guess not

Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 09:24 PM (mSKnV)

619 Weasel popping up

In snow covered white meadow

Like April blossom

Posted by: eleven at January 08, 2016 09:24 PM (qUNWi)

620 I totally disagree with "Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law."

I'd rather go with "any Federal law produced by the prancing shitweasels in Congress and signed by the egomaniacal executive shall have no force unless at least three justices of the SCOTUS concede that, at first blush, it might be Constitutional."

Posted by: cthulhu at January 08, 2016 09:24 PM (EzgxV)

621 Just in case you are serious.

A small, slender, carnivorous mammal related to, but generally smaller than, the stoat.
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:23 PM (kXoT0)

Naw, attempting a callback/variation on a meme joke thingie. Went thunk. I probably should be drinking by now.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 09:24 PM (s5o+q)

622 Nip, you the man.

OT but ia malady I'm not going to Green Bay this weekend. Too long a drive, too damn cold too watch the Packers lose.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 09:24 PM (voOPb)

623 Amazing how our media is such a powerful weapon and is used for such evil purposes.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 09:18 PM (zLP1L)

...........

Isn't that the truth. I look back at a speech I gave as a jr in high school. No kids, no man etc... I was going to go into journalism and change the world. Things changed and I ended up a nurse. I would like to think had I took that patch that I would have made a difference. I know for a fact there is nothing that would have turned me into a liberal.

Posted by: Molly k. at January 08, 2016 09:25 PM (4aaDj)

624 I must run for President because there will be many cognitive challenges in these difficult times and there are no other candidates that can equal my claims as regards to cognitive challenges.

We need someone with different abilities to solve our problems, as a nation, and I proudly put myself forth as someone who is differently abled enough to overcome these obstacles. Thank you.

Posted by: Joe Biden at January 08, 2016 09:25 PM (5luh1)

625 Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:23 PM (kXoT0)

What's a stoat?

Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 09:25 PM (mSKnV)

626 #608

They also make beautiful coats, as in, mink. I have one and combined with sheer black stockings and stilettos, it's a hard combination to resist.

AMHIK

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:25 PM (kXoT0)

627
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 09:16 PM (zLP1L)

No, I just stopped smoking. Read ace's "quit smoking" ebook recommendation. Helped a little I guess. But just kind of cold turkeyed it. Drank lots of coffee, was in a bad mood for a few days.

It sucked. But I survived.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:25 PM (AkOaV)

628 597 We're pretty cute.

Posted by: Weasel at January 08, 2016 09:26 PM (e3bId)

629 Breaking Bad didn't exactly glorify that crap. It made clear that Walter White was Lucifer fallen from heaven by his own pride.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at January 08, 2016 09:26 PM (6FqZa)

630 Wow. I thought I was the designated Lawn Leaver here. Guess not
Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 09:24 PM (mSKnV)

yeah, yeah, I know. I have to remove myself from everyones collective lawns.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:26 PM (AkOaV)

631 Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:23 PM (kXoT0)

What's a stoat?
Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 09:25 PM (mSKnV)

Thanks, man, I needed that almost as much as I need a drink.

Whisky tonight, I think. I have a cold.

Posted by: filbert at January 08, 2016 09:26 PM (s5o+q)

632 Horde question, since I don't watch TV.

Is the natural gas leak in Kallyfornia getting any air time on the propaganda networks? Or is it just another thing being ignored in honor of President Pissypants?

Posted by: Blano at January 08, 2016 09:26 PM (heN73)

633 Molly, as a nurse you did more good than any politician aiming to "make the world a better place" ever did.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at January 08, 2016 09:27 PM (6FqZa)

634 I'm taking a break to decompress from "One flew over the cuckoo's nest", and come in here and read this.

I don't know which is crazier.

Posted by: Chinwendu Whitecrest at January 08, 2016 09:27 PM (FXOa+)

635 America Today:

Progressives are used to behaving like irrational, bitter bitch-wives who are used to having their unrighteous way. Conservatives are like long-suffering, patient, kindly husbands on the verge of reverting to their almost-forgotten caveman ways by dragging their bitches by the hair.

Posted by: Andy in FL at January 08, 2016 09:27 PM (9mfzD)

636 567
It's not the substances that are the problem. Just like it's not guns that are the problem.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:07 PM (AkOaV)

Ding ding ding.

I was a liberal back in the day, and supported drug legalization in the 70s, while I was all gung-ho for gun control.

You know when I started moving towards conservatism? It was when I suddenly realized that a "War on Guns" would be as bad if not worse than the "War on Drugs", since it would turn perfectly decent people into criminals.

Posted by: rickl at January 08, 2016 09:27 PM (sdi6R)

637 625 a stoat is like a weasel.

Posted by: Weasel at January 08, 2016 09:28 PM (e3bId)

638 Get off my....

N/M...he gone.

Posted by: eleven at January 08, 2016 09:28 PM (qUNWi)

639 AMHIK

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:25 PM (kXoT0)

GOD DAMN IT WHY DO I LIVE IN A CITY OF 150000 CAJUN REDNECKS ASSHOLES WITH ZERO DATEABLE CHICKS AND ALL THE AWESOME PEOPLE ARE ON MY LAPTOP

*slaps self*

...Sorry.

Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 09:29 PM (mSKnV)

640 You know when I started moving towards conservatism? It was when I suddenly realized that a "War on Guns" would be as bad if not worse than the "War on Drugs", since it would turn perfectly decent people into criminals.
Posted by: rickl at January 08, 2016 09:27 PM (sdi6R)

Yeah. Drugs suck. I would advise everyone to avoid them.

That being said -- they exist. They cannot be uninvented. People will and do use them. Some will become addicted. They should be pitied, but not treated as criminals.

Frankly I think all drugs should be "legalized" and it would solve a lot of problems while leaving the addiction rate where it is.

But that's just me, I know that's a very unpopular opinion.

But in a free society, people should be free to make their own (hopefully good, but sometimes bad) decisions. And we as friends and neighbors should do what we can to encourage smart decisions.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:30 PM (AkOaV)

641 Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 09:29 PM (mSKnV)

Lake Charles , Lafayette?

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at January 08, 2016 09:31 PM (MNgU2)

642 rickl, I was always pro-pot and pro-gun; I figured that the former would be too stoned and lazy to use the latter much :^x

I have to admit, this was before the era of kronik weed being toked several times daily by psychotics like Lanza.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at January 08, 2016 09:31 PM (6FqZa)

643 MisHum it's a good thing you're not going to Green Bay, as they're playing in DC this weekend.

So there's that.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at January 08, 2016 09:31 PM (kKHcp)

644 I've never been a big fan of this. Like many others on here I doubt anything with teeth would pass. But we should push for this with all our might. Why?

Because the Founders sought every peaceful remedy they could before shooting tyrants. We should as well. Wearing the cloak of righteousness will be a fine thing in our third civil war.

Posted by: Achilles at January 08, 2016 09:32 PM (MiGRM)

645 592
1st ladies always have had a cause to push.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 09:13 PM (voOPb)

It was Eleanor Roosevelt who started that bullshit.

Posted by: rickl at January 08, 2016 09:32 PM (sdi6R)

646 Amen one eyed jack

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 09:33 PM (voOPb)

647 Posted by: Max Rockatansky at January 08, 2016 09:31 PM (MNgU2)

LOL is overused, but that actually made me laugh. That obvious, huh... Lafayette

Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 09:33 PM (mSKnV)

648 642 rickl, I was always pro-pot and pro-gun; I figured that the former would be too stoned and lazy to use the latter much :^x

I have to admit, this was before the era of kronik weed being toked several times daily by psychotics like Lanza.
Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at January 08, 2016 09:31 PM (6FqZa)

Oh, please.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:34 PM (AkOaV)

649 I've gone full beeve.

Posted by: Ready For Hillary!!11!! at January 08, 2016 09:35 PM (Dwehj)

650 Re women and Muzzie men:

I think I remember reading something, about some technique the CIA or whoever the hell was interrogating these jihadists used. Barky and his pussies probably stopped it.

Anyway, it was a Muzzie man just can't handle a hot woman with authority over him. I mean they go nuts. They apparently got woman to play sort of a dominatrix type role. Not the full leather and whips, but they'd get a woman to put the cleavage out and up, legs and ass too, and put on a sort of dominance display for the Muzzie, ordering him around, and making clear the hot, sexually provocative woman was in charge.

Apparently that just drove them nuts, they couldn't take it.

Posted by: publius (not Breitbart publius) at January 08, 2016 09:35 PM (dvuhZ)

651 I think every addict before they became an addict knew that possessing / buying illegal drugs was a criminal action. I agree that a rehab program for users is better than prison but it is criminal.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at January 08, 2016 09:35 PM (MNgU2)

652 a stoat is like a weasel.

or a mink.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 09:36 PM (Q44iK)

653 I've gone full beeve.
Posted by: Ready For Hillary!!11!! at January 08, 2016 09:35 PM (Dwehj)

And we've got Flash Card #6, The Death Card.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:36 PM (kXoT0)

654 #652 Do you even read my posts?

Just kidding

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:36 PM (kXoT0)

655 One of my ancestors was known as The Stoat for his prodigious output of wee folk.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 09:37 PM (Q44iK)

656 "MisHum it's a good thing you're not going to Green Bay, as they're playing in DC this weekend. "

Well, he's got you there, MH.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at January 08, 2016 09:38 PM (z91zs)

657 Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 09:33 PM (mSKnV)

Well I am a McNeese gragiet.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at January 08, 2016 09:38 PM (MNgU2)

658 Greg Abbott is going to be a great President someday.

Posted by: Section9 at January 08, 2016 09:39 PM (77/YD)

659 651 I think every addict before they became an addict knew that possessing / buying illegal drugs was a criminal action. I agree that a rehab program for users is better than prison but it is criminal.
Posted by: Max Rockatansky at January 08, 2016 09:35 PM (MNgU2)

As Mark Steyn likes to point out (and the inverse is also true),

"Back in the Trudeaupian golden age, you may recall, the great man's barnstorming transformation of Canada was momentarily halted by a storm about barns. It emerged that some overzealous officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had burned down barns belonging to Quebec separatists. The press was briefly exercised over this, but M. Trudeau gave one of his famous shrugs and airily remarked that, if people were so upset by the Mounties burning down barns illegally, perhaps he'd make the burning of barns by the Mounties legal. As the great George Jonas commented:

"It seemed not to occur to him that it isn't wrong to burn down barns because it's illegal, but it's illegal to burn down barns because it's wrong. Like other statist politicians, Mr. Trudeau seemed to think his ability to set out for his country what is legal and illegal also entitled him to set out for his citizens what is right and wrong. He either didn't see, or resented, that right and wrong are only reflected by the laws, not determined by them."

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:39 PM (AkOaV)

660 A psychotic on pot will kill you on a busy street corner with a rusty butter knife and the hate of a thousand demons.

So will a stone sober psychotic, because they are Bugfuck Nuts!

Posted by: OneEyedJack at January 08, 2016 09:39 PM (kKHcp)

661 >>> they'd get a woman to put the cleavage out and up, legs and ass too

Dangle a Star of David in that cleavage for extra torture.

Posted by: fluffy at January 08, 2016 09:39 PM (AfsKp)

662

I'd like to see some effort at limiting the extent of Federal Court decisions.

The lawfare suit, aimed at overturning Prop. 8 in California should have been limited to affecting California. Even after the SCOTUS delivered its verdict, no other states should have been affected.

Perhaps follow-on suits could have spread the scope, but it would have given lawyers, who had no intention of throwing the case, a chance to weigh in.

While waiting for the Peruta decision, I note that the (political) inverse is not true.

Heller and/or Washington, as well as the long accepted principle that States cannot over-ride Federal Law (and certainly not the US Constitution) should have made Peruta. But no.

I'd also like to see language on recalling US Senators (I think this question has not been definitively answered) and Federal Judges. I'd like to see Reinhard (The Most-Overturned Fool in The Judiciary) and the other 9th Circuit idiot (the one who asked why carrying guns unloaded was not acceptable) tossed off the bench.

Posted by: Arbalest at January 08, 2016 09:40 PM (FlRtG)

663 I agree on drug legalization. The Drug War, like Prohibition before it, opened the doors for massive government intrusion into private life. Okrent's "Last Call" describes this in great detail re Prohibition

OTOH, there should not be a red cent of taxpayer money spent on junkies' problems. They can dry out in a cell if they cross the line to feed the dragon

Posted by: Grad School Fool at January 08, 2016 09:40 PM (A9KzJ)

664 The guy on Bearing Arms video calls that shot a timer swich

Posted by: Skip at January 08, 2016 09:41 PM (3ZgzE)

665 OT but ia malady I'm not going to Green Bay this weekend. Too long a drive, too damn cold too watch the Packers lose.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 09:24 PM (voOPb)

Hold your nose and cheer for the Vikings, we don't want Seattle in Charlotte.

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 08, 2016 09:41 PM (jJRIy)

666 In other words, Max, drugs are "illegal" because a politician says it is.

There is nothing inherently "wrong" with using drugs. There is not some natural law against using drugs. And so saying "it's illegal, thus they are to blame" is a circular argument.

because alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, (or guns) could just as easily be deemed "illegal" and it wouldnt make the ownership or use thereof "wrong"

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:41 PM (AkOaV)

667 To note the obvious, the powers of the federal government are already explicitly limited by the Constitution.
Passing an amendment that says "we really mean it" will be taken no more seriously than the 10th Amendment. Unless and until we start hanging these worthless SOBs for treason.

Posted by: Luke at January 08, 2016 09:41 PM (1JNGW)

668 Well, 'rons

Until they change those pesky laws, sell heroin & your adz is going so deep in the slams they'll have to pump in sunshine.

Posted by: mnwxyz at January 08, 2016 09:41 PM (NiHAc)

669 OTOH, there should not be a red cent of taxpayer money spent on junkies' problems. They can dry out in a cell if they cross the line to feed the dragon
Posted by: Grad School Fool at January 08, 2016 09:40 PM (A9KzJ)

Sure, agreed.

No government money spent on locking up drug users. No government money spent on "rehabilitating" drug users (many of whom are not interested in rehabilitating themselves).

Done deal.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:42 PM (AkOaV)

670 I might be back for ONT, but I am out of here for now.

keep it in the road

Posted by: Nip Sip at January 08, 2016 09:42 PM (jJRIy)

671 @660

True. So very true

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 09:43 PM (voOPb)

672 660 A psychotic on pot will kill you on a busy street corner with a rusty butter knife and the hate of a thousand demons.

So will a stone sober psychotic, because they are Bugfuck Nuts!
Posted by: OneEyedJack at January 08, 2016 09:39 PM (kKHcp)

Uhhhh... pot does not make people violence.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:43 PM (AkOaV)

673 Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:39 PM (AkOaV)

Buying and using drugs doesn't burn just one barn. It eventually burns down the entire society.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at January 08, 2016 09:43 PM (MNgU2)

674 Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.

I thought that was already covered in the Tenth Amendment.

Posted by: Emmie is Cruzin' at January 08, 2016 09:43 PM (ffVbD)

675 Buying and using drugs doesn't burn just one barn. It eventually burns down the entire society.
Posted by: Max Rockatansky at January 08, 2016 09:43 PM (MNgU2)

same logic that says "guns are used in violence. thus guns lead to violence. thus society is better off if guns are illegal."

(or alcohol, tobacco, overweight people, etc. etc. etc.)

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:44 PM (AkOaV)

676 In other words, Max, drugs are "illegal" because a politician says it is.

Because the community says it is. Perhaps they don't want to put up with it and they see that as the only option. Now the community may be "wrong", but that's the curse of self-government.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 09:44 PM (Q44iK)

677 The worse thing about drugs, sometimes alcohol is a person hooked on it might do anything to get more. And the getting more gets in the way of innocent people.

Posted by: Skip at January 08, 2016 09:45 PM (3ZgzE)

678 This reefer madness shit has to stop, guys.

It's silly.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:45 PM (AkOaV)

679 677 The worse thing about drugs, sometimes alcohol is a person hooked on it might do anything to get more. And the getting more gets in the way of innocent people.
Posted by: Skip at January 08, 2016 09:45 PM (3ZgzE)

Fine. Then send them to jail for the crime they commit against other people and their property.

Not for using a substance.

And, again, MOST crimes related to drugs are more related to their legal status than anything else. The millions of caffeine addicts in this country are not knocking up liquor stores to pay for their next Starbucks fix.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:46 PM (AkOaV)

680 I thought that was already covered in the Tenth Amendment.

Yes, but it's been slowly judged out of existence. Adding it again (hopefully with stronger wording) would reset the clock. The state will, of course, creep it's power back up, but that's going to be the case with any good amendments. The fight doesn't ever end.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at January 08, 2016 09:46 PM (2lndx)

681 663 I agree on drug legalization. The Drug War, like Prohibition before it, opened the doors for massive government intrusion into private life. Okrent's "Last Call" describes this in great detail re Prohibition

OTOH, there should not be a red cent of taxpayer money spent on junkies' problems. They can dry out in a cell if they cross the line to feed the dragon
Posted by: Grad School Fool at January 08, 2016 09:40 PM (A9KzJ)

At least Prohibition was done properly, with a Constitutional amendment. The drug warriors never bothered with that, and simply passed laws instead.

I can't find any provision in the Constitution for the federal government to outlaw drugs simply by passing laws.

Posted by: rickl at January 08, 2016 09:46 PM (sdi6R)

682 Uhhhh... pot does not make people violence.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:43 PM (AkOaV)

It may however make them miss subtle sarcasm. And make grammatical mistakes!

Posted by: OneEyedJack at January 08, 2016 09:47 PM (kKHcp)

683 This reefer madness shit has to stop, guys.

Take it up with your representatives.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 09:47 PM (Q44iK)

684 From what I hear, a bleeding heart liberal program for addicts and abusers would be far cheaper than the current War on Drugs.

In nature, Darwin will take care of it. You know, self-destructive behavior gets weeded out. That's too harsh for a lot of people though, you know, letting some addict die in a pool of his own vomit. That's what Mother Nature would do, of course.

Posted by: publius (not Breitbart publius) at January 08, 2016 09:47 PM (dvuhZ)

685 Because the community says it is. Perhaps they don't want to put up with it and they see that as the only option. Now the community may be "wrong", but that's the curse of self-government.
Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 09:44 PM (Q44iK)

No, thats the curse of a statist totalitarian government unconstrained by a constitution.

Since "keeping weed (but allowing alcohol and tobacco) out of the hands of the peasants" is not enumerated in the constitution.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:47 PM (AkOaV)

686 mebbe I need that sarc tag.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at January 08, 2016 09:47 PM (kKHcp)

687 At least Prohibition was done properly, with a Constitutional amendment. The drug warriors never bothered with that, and simply passed laws instead.

This is so, and a very valid complaint.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 09:48 PM (Q44iK)

688 It may however make them miss subtle sarcasm. And make grammatical mistakes!
Posted by: OneEyedJack at January 08, 2016 09:47 PM (kKHcp)

yes, yes.

Wasn't sure where you were going with that.

And I own the grammatical error. :-D

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:48 PM (AkOaV)

689 The only solid reason I can think of for keeping drugs illegal is that it builds a database of who the property crimes offenders will be in a given area. Dopers don't keep jobs; they steal and commit fraud to feed their habits, and having them on probation makes it easy to keep tabs on them (and to detain / search them under a lower standard). Whether that's worth the trade-off of sticking people with felony records is another question.

Posted by: PabloD at January 08, 2016 09:48 PM (5CsS+)

690 Stoats are distinguishable by their British accent.

Posted by: Hazel at January 08, 2016 09:48 PM (Z58Xa)

691 686 mebbe I need that sarc tag.
Posted by: OneEyedJack at January 08, 2016 09:47 PM (kKHcp)

I was 50/50 on whether or not you were being sarcastic. Tried to keep my comment appropriate whichever way you meant it.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:49 PM (AkOaV)

692 Since "keeping weed (but allowing alcohol and tobacco) out of the hands of the peasants" is not enumerated in the constitution.

Would it be okay in your mind if it were just a state law?

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 09:49 PM (Q44iK)

693 Mmm. Should I chop 'em off now. So tempting. All I can think of.

Posted by: Caitlyn Jenner at January 08, 2016 09:49 PM (5luh1)

694 I hat stoats and pangolins.

WTF is up with pangolins?

Posted by: eleven at January 08, 2016 09:50 PM (qUNWi)

695 Posted by: Caitlyn Jenner

The balls on that dame!

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 09:50 PM (Q44iK)

696 If you want to see what you're up against with the War On Drugs, just listen to Bill O'Reilly go off on one of his tirades against John Stossel or Gutfeld.

Selling drugs is a *violent crime*, you see. That merits force from the state. Also, register your guns, and if you think that will lead to confiscation, "That's your problem."

Posted by: publius (not Breitbart publius) at January 08, 2016 09:50 PM (dvuhZ)

697 689 The only solid reason I can think of for keeping drugs illegal is that it builds a database of who the property crimes offenders will be in a given area. Dopers don't keep jobs; they steal and commit fraud to feed their habits, and having them on probation makes it easy to keep tabs on them (and to detain / search them under a lower standard). Whether that's worth the trade-off of sticking people with felony records is another question.
Posted by: PabloD at January 08, 2016 09:48 PM (5CsS+)

It's not. And it's not true.

I used to smoke pot. Quit about 3 years ago.

Always had a good job. Never bothered anyone. Never got arrested for it.

Have many friends who still smoke pot daily. Many with good jobs.

I have highly successful friends who use opiates (pills), which is something I'm very against. Some who use cocaine. Some who use shrooms, LSD, ecstasy, etc.

All of whom who have good jobs, wake up every morning and go to work.

I don't necessarily agree with their decisions. But at the same time, if they get pulled over for a busted taillight or whatever on their way home from work and the cops find a baggy with cocaine residue, I don't think they should get charged with and convicted of a felony. Which is current law.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:51 PM (AkOaV)

698 Drug use in of itself does not ruin society.

There is a bottoming out process for the abuse of any substance (booze, food, whatever). That is a private matter.

What does destroy a society?
Wasting LE resources on potheads junkies
The culture of corruption that mala prohibita enforcement breeds in LE agencies
A disregard for the law when intrusive laws are put onto the books
The destruction of liberty that must attend enforcement of such laws
The growth complex (Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy) that is fed by such laws.

This ties back into a convention. The point of a convention is to reduce the power of government in our lives.

Posted by: Grad School Fool at January 08, 2016 09:52 PM (A9KzJ)

699 Bill O'Rielly is one high functioning retard.

Posted by: eleven at January 08, 2016 09:52 PM (qUNWi)

700 Would it be okay in your mind if it were just a state law?
Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 09:49 PM (Q44iK)

I would be much more okay with it if that's how the people of my state voted.

But I would vote against it and any rep for it.

But the fact that it's a federal law really grinds my gears.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:53 PM (AkOaV)

701 Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:44 PM (AkOaV)

As long as you think there is no difference between drugs and the other minor vices you listed we don't have an agreed stipulation to continue a debate.

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at January 08, 2016 09:53 PM (MNgU2)

702 658
Greg Abbott is going to be a great President someday.

Posted by: Section9 at January 08, 2016 09:39 PM (77/YD)

Of the Republic of Texas?

Posted by: davidt at January 08, 2016 09:53 PM (8aOqE)

703 So I'm not first?

What's going on Morons, I've worked my azz off today and can't read 700 posts here. Help...a summary, those always good

Posted by: Farmer at January 08, 2016 09:53 PM (o/90i)

704 An Amendment to disband and ban all public sector unions. Or at least ones for federal workers.

I think this alone would go far in fixing the country.

Posted by: Sam at January 08, 2016 09:53 PM (sO6CM)

705 Yeah, and what did Prohibition, Constitutional amendment and all, give us?

The Mafia, The Kennedys. A more intrusive and violent FBI. etcetera etcetera

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:53 PM (kXoT0)

706 If I were a god, and I could undiscover all drugs (including booze, caffeine, and alcohol), I would do so in a second.

But dealing with the reality that they exist, i don't see how criminalizing them makes the situation any better.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:54 PM (AkOaV)

707 In nature, Darwin will take care of it. You know, self-destructive behavior gets weeded out. That's too harsh for a lot of people though, you know, letting some addict die in a pool of his own vomit. That's what Mother Nature would do, of course.

Posted by: publius (not Breitbart publius) at January 08, 2016 09:47 PM (dvuhZ)

I used to drink. A lot. Now I don't. I don't because one day I looked at my life up to that point and was so embarrassed I wanted to blow my brains out.

Someone who is hooked on that shit will never stop until they feel the need to. You can lock them up for years, offer them alternatives, treatment, counseling, whatever-- Until they WANT to stop, they never will.

Criminalize the stuff they do on it. There's no moral hazard attached to the physical act of ingesting a substance. Eventually, they'll quit... Or die. Either works for me.

Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 09:54 PM (mSKnV)

708 I just did a quick check and sure enough, marijuana is illegal in Alabama by state law, so even if the Feds relented, it would still be illegal here.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 09:54 PM (rwI+c)

709 Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:51 PM (AkOaV)

Why did you quit smoking pot?

Posted by: Max Rockatansky at January 08, 2016 09:55 PM (MNgU2)

710 Late to the party on this one, and so it may have already been mentioned, but there should be 1 more thing added to that list: Term Limits. 3 terms for representatives, 2 for Senators. It is the career politician that is killing us.

Posted by: DaveKinNC at January 08, 2016 09:55 PM (/NgNT)

711 Harry, after 15 years of working in criminal law, on both sides of the fence, I can tell you that 99.9 percent of identity theft, burglary, embezzlement, etc is committed by drug users. Not all dope users are criminal, but - for all practical purposes - all property crime offenders are dopers. Meth and opiates drive most of that; pot not so much, but I'm honestly shocked when I encounter a thief who isn't also a user.

Posted by: PabloD at January 08, 2016 09:55 PM (5CsS+)

712 See, this whole Libertarian "let's legalize all drugs" thing brings out the worst in both the small l libertarian and the stauncher-than-thou capital C conservatives.

The only issue that results in more name calling is the Troubles of the mid 19th century.

If I have to fall anywhere on the issue, I can only say that the "War on Some Drugs" has done more damage to American Liberty, and cost more money, than any amount of lives interdicting those drugs ever saved.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at January 08, 2016 09:55 PM (kKHcp)

713 Eventually, they'll quit... Or die. Either works for me.
Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 09:54 PM (mSKnV)

Unfortunately a lot of innocents get hurt along the way. If only it were a quick clean death like that basketball guy who died the first time he snorted coke.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:55 PM (kXoT0)

714 As long as you think there is no difference between drugs and the other minor vices you listed we don't have an agreed stipulation to continue a debate.
Posted by: Max Rockatansky at January 08, 2016 09:53 PM (MNgU2)

How do you define drugs?

Is marijuana a drug? it's certainly less mind altering then alcohol. Certainly less addicting then nicotine.

How about ecstasy? Same is true.

How about shrooms? Same is true.

Cocaine? About as addicting as nicotine, way less mind altering than alcohol.

How about opiates? Commonly prescribed, probably the most addictive drug out there, but less mind altering then even caffeine.

What's a "drug" to you and whats not?

Oxycontin is a legal drug. Probably one of the most addicting drugs known to man. Stronger than any street heroin. Way more addictive.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:56 PM (AkOaV)

715 Is melatonin a drug? If so I need tx. About reading to pop a few

Posted by: Molly k. at January 08, 2016 09:56 PM (4aaDj)

716 Real full-blown addiction really is very close to a physical disease. Watch the show Intervention some time. It is really sad.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 08, 2016 09:56 PM (uZNvH)

717 Fortunately personal possession is only a misdemeanor, but in this state that's potential a year-less-a-day in county.

I'm still planning on getting high again when I retire.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 09:56 PM (rwI+c)

718 While we're all dreaming - how bouts a "no voting if you didn't pay taxes in the last year" law.

If you have skin in the game - you vote.

If you live off the government, you can't - because you'd just vote yourself a raise at the expense of others.

Posted by: Jade Sea at January 08, 2016 09:57 PM (O108X)

719 I've gone full beeve.

Posted by: Ready For Hillary!!11!! at January 08, 2016 09:35 PM (Dwehj)

That's a nice looking beeve, Mrs. Clinton!

Posted by: Eddie Haskell at January 08, 2016 09:57 PM (JO9+V)

720 or ready. Ugh

Posted by: Molly k. at January 08, 2016 09:57 PM (4aaDj)

721 but I'm honestly shocked when I encounter a thief who isn't also a user.
Posted by: PabloD at January 08, 2016 09:55 PM (5CsS+)

Same thing for whores, they usually get turned out to support a habit, theirs and their pimps.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:57 PM (kXoT0)

722 WTF is up with pangolins?
Posted by: eleven at January 08, 2016 09:50 PM (qUNWi)

No one is really sure. And that is why they keep moving them from order to order. They used to be in edenta, IIRC

Posted by: Kindltot at January 08, 2016 09:57 PM (q2o38)

723 711 Harry, after 15 years of working in criminal law, on both sides of the fence, I can tell you that 99.9 percent of identity theft, burglary, embezzlement, etc is committed by drug users. Not all dope users are criminal, but - for all practical purposes - all property crime offenders are dopers. Meth and opiates drive most of that; pot not so much, but I'm honestly shocked when I encounter a thief who isn't also a user.
Posted by: PabloD at January 08, 2016 09:55 PM (5CsS+)

Is it a causation or a correlation?

Is someone who smokes cigarettes more likely to shoot heroin?

Or is the reverse true?

Same with crimes.

But even if we accept your premise -- are they committing crimes to afford ridiculous street prices? Would they still need to commit crimes if the drugs were cheaper, legal, and easier to find / afford?

I mean... come on

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 09:58 PM (AkOaV)

724 Speaking of the drug ecstasy, there is research underway that shows strong promise of a cure for PTSD with just a few doses of ecstasy.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:59 PM (kXoT0)

725 Would they still need to commit crimes if the drugs were cheaper, legal, and easier to find / afford?
-----------------
Ow. Bit of a nasty straw man there.

That rationalization could apply to anything.

Posted by: Hazel at January 08, 2016 10:00 PM (Z58Xa)

726 Speaking of drugs and the legalization thereof, did anyone catch the interview on 60 Minutes a few weeks ago with Obama's new "Drug Czar"? Can't remember the guys name, but he spoke out quite a bit about wanting to de-stigmatize drug users, and get them classified as having a disease rather than of committing a crime. Up until they asked him about marijuana. Then he said that legalizing it was wrong, that it had no good uses and that it just makes people stupider.

Posted by: DaveKinNC at January 08, 2016 10:00 PM (/NgNT)

727 ONT nood

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 08, 2016 10:00 PM (voOPb)

728 Posted by: DaveKinNC at January 08, 2016 10:00 PM (/NgNT)

A coke and pill man, I guess

Posted by: Secundus at January 08, 2016 10:01 PM (mSKnV)

729 724 Speaking of the drug ecstasy, there is research underway that shows strong promise of a cure for PTSD with just a few doses of ecstasy.

..........

I have a VA pt who want's me to lobby with him to legalize medical mj. Claims he saw a show where one hit of the bong would cure him for the day. Suppose he meant ecstacy? I questioned him quite hard about a hit of marijuana.

Posted by: Molly k. at January 08, 2016 10:02 PM (4aaDj)

730 704 An Amendment to disband and ban all public sector unions. Or at least ones for federal workers.

I think this alone would go far in fixing the country.
Posted by: Sam at January 08, 2016 09:53 PM (sO6CM)

Since JFK allowed public unions with an executive order, I think they can be banned by executive order. No amendment necessary.

Posted by: rickl at January 08, 2016 10:02 PM (sdi6R)

731 Yes, drug use is associated with criminal acts. The reverse is not true; what % of the population uses drugs compared to the % that commits crime? (excepting, of course, the use of drugs as a crime)

criminality and drug use are both correlated with low self-control markers. drug ( and alcohol) use both exacerbate self-control issues.

but not all drug users have low self-control

Posted by: Grad School Fool at January 08, 2016 10:03 PM (A9KzJ)

732 Speaking of the drug ecstasy, there is research underway that shows strong promise of a cure for PTSD with just a few doses of ecstasy.
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now franchising Lulu Snackbars at January 08, 2016 09:59 PM (kXoT0)

I don't think it's quite as easy as just taking some X and that's that.
The article I read said that it has to be combined with therapy, in that the PSTD sufferer has to be confronting the conditions which set off his/her reaction. Then the X acts to block the onset of panic. or sumpin sumpin. I'm no expert.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at January 08, 2016 10:04 PM (kKHcp)

733 I have a VA pt who want's me to lobby with him to legalize medical mj. Claims he saw a show where one hit of the bong would cure him for the day. Suppose he meant ecstacy? I questioned him quite hard about a hit of marijuana.
Posted by: Molly k. at January 08, 2016 10:02 PM (4aaDj)

Pot has a lot of similar medicinal uses to opiates. But is way less addictive.

It won't cure anything, but it can mask symptoms.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 10:04 PM (AkOaV)

734 732
I don't think it's quite as easy as just taking some X and that's that.
The article I read said that it has to be combined with therapy, in that the PSTD sufferer has to be confronting the conditions which set off his/her reaction. Then the X acts to block the onset of panic. or sumpin sumpin. I'm no expert.
Posted by: OneEyedJack at January 08, 2016 10:04 PM (kKHcp)

LSD was used in a controlled clinical setting back in the 1950s, and apparently showed some promise in curing alcoholism.

Posted by: rickl at January 08, 2016 10:06 PM (sdi6R)

735 Harry, I don't know where you live, but in my neck of the woods drugs couldn't get cheaper unless they were free. And as for availability, they're everywhere. To contextualize, I live in a town of 80k on the west coast, and we're swimming in a sea of readily available meth, coke, heroin, and any pill you'd care to pop.

Posted by: PabloD at January 08, 2016 10:07 PM (5CsS+)

736 FWIW, I grew up in a 'Dry' county. It actually still is but I don't live there anymore.

Posted by: Grump928(C) says Free Soothie!, with purchase of commenter of equal or greater value at January 08, 2016 10:08 PM (rwI+c)

737 Ow. Bit of a nasty straw man there.

That rationalization could apply to anything.
Posted by: Hazel at January 08, 2016 10:00 PM (Z58Xa)

I'm not sure how that's a strawman.

Black markets of anything tend to rise prices and risky behavior associated with use, including violence.

See: alcohol prohibition

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 10:08 PM (AkOaV)

738 735 Harry, I don't know where you live, but in my neck of the woods drugs couldn't get cheaper unless they were free. And as for availability, they're everywhere. To contextualize, I live in a town of 80k on the west coast, and we're swimming in a sea of readily available meth, coke, heroin, and any pill you'd care to pop.
Posted by: PabloD at January 08, 2016 10:07 PM (5CsS+)

Sure. But baked in to the price is the fact that they're illegal.

$50 for an 8th of weed seems cheap -- until you realize you're talking about a weed that you could grow in your backyard easily for free.

Coke is expensive. Heroin is cheep (ish) -- about $10 a hit. But even that is expensive for an addict.

Pills are very expensive.

I can't speak to meth.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at January 08, 2016 10:10 PM (AkOaV)

739 We're presently living the experience of a run-away convention where cronies and radicals are crafting all the constitutional amendments. Realistically, we're serfs of the federal government and we have no constitution. What's there to loose? Are we in love with our dhimmitude and too afraid to throw off this yoke, to restore the voice of the people?

Posted by: Yankee_Doodler at January 08, 2016 10:14 PM (lpHpD)

740 Cue "Robot", from "Lost In Space": WARNING! WARNING!

Don't think a Constitutional Convention won't be hijacked, by one side or the other. Use the tools you have. If GOP Inc. is the problem, remove them from the equation. Vote for Trump or Cruz. It's a simple choice.

Posted by: Born Free at January 08, 2016 10:21 PM (uGTin)

741 "Prohibit administrative agencies--and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them--from creating federal law."

Congress just pooped in its pants. They love having someone to blame. What if they had to actually make and repeal laws?

Posted by: Pj at January 08, 2016 10:39 PM (cHuNI)

742 It takes a 38 state majority to pass any legislation. There is no "danger" of a bad amendment because it would never pass if it even got the chance to be voted on.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 08, 2016 06:30 PM (zLP1L)
================
You might want to check out the 18th and 21st Amendments

Posted by: LCMS Rulz! at January 08, 2016 10:47 PM (O4NI/)

743 52 Prohibit administrative agencies--and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them--from creating federal law.

This one sounds good but in practice it wouldn't work. Rules that apply statutory law to a myriad of specific situations are something that can't practically be included in legislation. There is a legitimate role for regulation-making by executive agencies. The problems happen when agencies subvert the intent of the legislation by using regs to implement political agendas.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at January 08, 2016 06:30 PM (8ZskC)
======================

"No rule, regulation, or decree shall have any force of law whatsoever until and unless enacted by the Legislature in the course of its duties."

Or some such. Congress already farms out writing the bills it will vote on, so make them vote on the results of that. In its entirety. All those ObamaCare regs that Sebelius wrote - no force or impact until Congress formally enacts them. Keep legislation with the Legislature.

Oh, and sunset the whole damn Code of Federal Regulations in, say, five years. Nothing is in place until Congress formally enacts it.

Posted by: LCMS Rulz! at January 08, 2016 10:54 PM (O4NI/)

744 "overturn Supreme Court decisions?" By 2/3 of the states??? Pathetique. The republic is already lost if that's a serious constitutional proposal. Why not just get rid of the other two branches already and quit pretending we want to rule ourselves.
How about we learn to live according to the current constitution before we decide to officially acquiesce to the judicial supremacists and make the Court the final authority (pending a 2/3 (!!??!) override of their supreme power) on everything in a new one?
I'm out.

Posted by: Tax Haven Bound at January 08, 2016 10:55 PM (TqbUH)

745 The problem I have with an Article V convention, even if it IS limited to a specific agenda, is that I can't think of 50 people nowadays to whom I'd trust the re-direction of the course of the Ship of State.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Texas is run differently than a lot of States are For one, Texas has so much crammed into its State Constitution that it has become impossible to do any governance without amending the Constitution. Accordingly, it has become relatively easy to amend it: every election has a list of amendments for us to vote on. It has become government by referendum - and Abbot reflects that. As a transplant down here it's very visible to me, but the native Texans don't notice it.

Posted by: LCMS Rulz! at January 08, 2016 11:04 PM (O4NI/)

746 Abbott/Ace - 2016!

Posted by: Zohydro at January 08, 2016 11:58 PM (5csB/)

747 This idea scares the hell out of me. It is a Pandora box. If we start changing the Constitution, when do we stop? Libtards want hate speech in there, do you trust the current Republicunts to not totally screw this up? We would end up much worse off than we are now!!!

Posted by: I love prunes at January 09, 2016 12:27 AM (4Z0vT)

748 Repeal the 17th!

Posted by: Aristomenes at January 09, 2016 01:01 AM (bSCIM)

749 That gay marriage decision really urinated me off and I don't even care about that issue so much. If the government wants to issue a government marriage license to gays, then more power to them.

BUT THAT IS NOT FOR SOME JUDGE TO DECIDE! That is for the people to decide by consensus.

Never in 8,000 years of human history has there ever been such a thing as gay marriage, yet nine unelected jerks in robes can create something like this out of thin air?

It's long past time that their wings were clipped. If nothing else, it will scare them into understanding the boundaries.

Posted by: Danny K. at January 09, 2016 02:30 AM (I7VmG)

750 How does it make sense to have one constitutional amendment requiring a super-majority of justices to invalidate laws passed by Congress that ignore the other constitutional amendments proposed? If Congress passes a budget law that is not balanced - do you still want to have to get two of the four liberal justices, and Kennedy to have to vote to invalidate it? Same goes for the proposed limits on Congress and the bureaucracy.

The seventh item is already in the Constitution.

Posted by: Kurt at January 09, 2016 05:03 AM (M0RBp)

751 The seventh item is already in the Constitution.

Posted by: Kurt at January 09, 2016 05:03 AM (M0RBp)

It's not just "in" the Constitution, it IS the Constitution.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at January 09, 2016 05:27 AM (zc3Db)

752 Ace, I'm with you and Gov. Abbott. Let's do this and bring on every bit of the proposed legislation. It's long past time to rein in our unelected rulers in the SCOTUS and bring the Feds to heel. Failing to do so is going to be the destruction of this nation because one Hell of a lot of us have had MORE than all they want of this out-of-control Federal Government.

Posted by: mac at January 09, 2016 06:30 AM (ilMXv)

753 Left or right, Pubbie or Dem, when you believe that you know what is best for other people, you become that which you claim to hate.

To paraphrase Jefferson, if the other guy isn't breaking your leg or stealing from you, leave him alone.

Many of you fully embrace federalism, while decrying its excesses...and those excesses define what federalism is all about: control. iow, the anti federalists were quite correct - w/o them, there wouldn't have been a bill of rights.

e.g. many among you are quite proud that you have 'earned' a government license to own a weapon...when natural law is the only 'permission' you ever needed.

You embrace gov regulation and licensing of your private lives (marriage) in the name of your religion, (which is also regulated by gov 5101(c)3, which regulates everything your religion does, then you claim that you have religious freedom). Then, in the name of your religion, you wish to deny other people the sames 'rights' and 'privileges' you have abrogated to yourselves ...under gov regulation and control of your private lives.

Admittedly, gays wishing to have the gov regulate their private lives is simple insanity, imo.

In short, the only freedom that either left or right believes in, is the freedom to use gov to control the lives of others.

The insanity will continue, of course. Humans are weird like that. We keep choosing sociopaths and psychopaths as leaders, and then we wonder why things are always such a mess.

Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at January 09, 2016 08:18 AM (KJZeR)

754 Returning the Senate to the states instead of direct election would go a long way toward preserving the republic.

Posted by: deathweezel at January 09, 2016 11:11 AM (CKg94)

755 My fear is that liberals and progressives would somehow take over such a convention and use it to pass their own twisted proposals.

Posted by: dvorasymanov at January 09, 2016 12:07 PM (bz0gL)

756 Texas guy thinks that 75% of the States are going to line up behind ANYTHING

Posted by: bubba at January 09, 2016 06:11 PM (W6z+Y)

757 It should only take 3 justices not 7 to invalidate a federal law. If 3 justices think it's unconstitutional, then they should send it back and fix the problems. I'll go with the 6 or 7 judge majority to strike a state law.

It's not like we are suffering because too many laws are struck down at the federal level.

Posted by: Kazinski at January 10, 2016 05:18 AM (6U3z7)

Processing 0.13, elapsed 0.1417 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.044 seconds, 765 records returned.
Page size 423 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.