-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
For the 14th time.
Author: Raine
Date: 07/28/2011 14:26:10
There are many people quoting a portion of the 14th Amendment as a way for the POTUS to circumvent the GOP-created Debt Ceiling crisis, specifically this portion: I'm not convinced that this idea is legal. It's easy to pick one or 2 sentences to bolster an opinion from the Constitution. That doesn't make it a bad thing, but I believe it is important to go beyond one or 2 sentences.
This is the entire section 4 of the 14th: Before I continue, I want to make it clear that I am not by any means shape or form, a constitutional scholar.
Nowhere does section 4 give the President of the United States the unilateral authority to raise the debt ceiling. As a matter of fact, in Section 5 of the same amendment, it states: That burden is on Congress to ensure the debt is or is not paid. Article I Section 8 states the following: and perhaps equally important, Section 7 states: Let's get back to Section 4, of the 14th. According to this blogger (who states she studied constitutional law) : In other words: this was born of the post Civil War reconstruction. Think Progress is suggesting that the President should invoke the 14th, citing the many legislators who agree as well. The very last paragraph had me tilting my head. They linked to this NYT editorial. The problem is, these scholars are not suggesting the use of the 14th Amendment at all. I actually think it may be far more unsettling: The problem is this, it all comes back to Congress and more specifically, the House of Representatives. It appears to me at first blush that these NYT columnists are suggesting that the President use executive orders to deal with this issue, specifically the Emergency Powers Act updated September 18, 2001 in the wake of the attacks on our nation. It justified giving MORE power to the office of President. I don't think I am comfortable with that idea. This act is still hotly contested as to it's constitutional legality, and I am not quite sold that the President can use a national crisis for something that appears to be written for dealing with an international crisis. It's rather scary suggestion, in my opinion.
Wiki tells us, with regard to the Debt Ceiling that It all comes back to Congress and the responsibilities given to them by the Constitution of the United States. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment says that Congress has the responsibility, and the Public Debt Act reinforces it, seemingly by clarifying the definition of what exactly public debt is in more modern means. It is far different than post-war reconstruction days, as was the intent originally of the 14th which also includes the Citizenship Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Due Process Clause. The Public Debt clause at the time was to prevent the federal government from getting sued by slave owners who believed they LOST property.
If the President risks invoking the 14th, he could possibly set himself up for impeachment. It simply doesn't appear that it gives him the power to do so. I'm not sure the same can be said for the Emergency Powers Act. I do not know if he can sign an executive order lest he usurp the powers of another branch of government. That has always been legally ambiguous.
So, I really don't know what's possible at this point. I do know this: if the GOP led House is willing to take this country to the brink of financial ruin, they would easily jump at a chance to impeach. If you don't believe that, then you haven't been paying attention.
This is not a legal opinion, I'm just pondering things.
Signed,
Your non-scholarly -- in the way of the Constitution and legalities -- blogger.
and 
Raine
PS: I want to thank Scoopster for giving us a blog stub this morning. While I have combined the blogs, I want to bring over his wonderful graphic from the Stub:
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
This is the entire section 4 of the 14th:
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Nowhere does section 4 give the President of the United States the unilateral authority to raise the debt ceiling. As a matter of fact, in Section 5 of the same amendment, it states:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
The 14th amendment has never been applied in this context by any president so there is no precedent and no jurisprudence analyzing what specific authority Section 4 of the XIV amendment confers on the president with regards to the public debt. ...snip...
The 14th amendment was added post Civil War or as some southerners prefer, the War of Northern Aggression. The intent at the time was to declare that the US was not going to pay any debts incurred by the Confederacy, which had borrowed money from England and France to help in its secession efforts. So Section 4 confirmed that all U.S. public debt authorized by Congress was legitimate and declared that neither the U.S. nor any state would be responsible for paying any debts incurred by the Confederacy for the war or the loss of slaves. The Confederacy considered slaves to be property and made some noises about reimbursement for the loss of their property.
President Obama is currently throwing cold water on the idea that the Constitution will save America from the impending default crisis, but this view has some high-profile dissenters. Right-wing legal scholars Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule made the argument that Obama can invoke the constitutional option in a New York Times op-ed published last week. Earlier this month, former President Bill Clinton said that if he was in Obama’s place, he would use the 14th amendment himself to raise the ceiling.
Our argument is not based on some obscure provision of the 14th amendment, but on the necessities of state, and on the president’s role as the ultimate guardian of the constitutional order, charged with taking care that the laws be faithfully executed.
When Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, he said that it was necessary to violate one law, lest all the laws but one fall into ruin. So too here: the president may need to violate the debt ceiling to prevent a catastrophe — whether a default on the debt or an enormous reduction in federal spending, which would throw the country back into recession. ...snip...
The 14th Amendment is a red herring, however; even if its debt provision did not exist, the president would derive authority from his paramount duty to ward off serious threats to the constitutional and economic system.
Mr. Obama needs to make clear that he will act unilaterally to raise the debt ceiling if Congress does not cooperate;
Federal law provides a variety of powers for the President to use in response to crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances threatening the nation. Moreover, they are not limited to military or war situations. Some of these authorities, deriving from the Constitution or statutory law, are continuously available to the President with little or no qualification. Others—statutory delegations from Congress—exist on a standby basis and remain dormant until the President formally declares a national emergency. These delegations or grants of power authorize the President to meet the problems of governing effectively in times of crisis. Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens. Furthermore, Congress may modify, rescind, or render dormant such delegated emergency authority.
Wiki tells us, with regard to the Debt Ceiling that
The modern debt limit, in which an aggregate limit was applied to nearly all federal debt, was substantially established by Public Debt Acts passed in 1939 and 1941. The Treasury has been authorized by Congress to issue such debt as was needed to fund government operations (as authorized by each federal budget) as long as the total debt (excepting some small special classes) does not exceed a stated ceiling. Since 1979, the House of Representatives by rule has automatically raised the debt ceiling when passing a budget, except when the House votes to waive or repeal this rule.
If the President risks invoking the 14th, he could possibly set himself up for impeachment. It simply doesn't appear that it gives him the power to do so. I'm not sure the same can be said for the Emergency Powers Act. I do not know if he can sign an executive order lest he usurp the powers of another branch of government. That has always been legally ambiguous.
It is quite common for US Presidents to issue executive orders that instruct federal agencies to promulgate administrative regulations in order to circumvent the legislative process in the US Congress altogether, though, as alluded to above, this can violate the US Constitution in a number of ways. US Presidents are quite aware that US congressional politics can defeat or otherwise prevent the passage of legislation presidents deem politically important.
So, I really don't know what's possible at this point. I do know this: if the GOP led House is willing to take this country to the brink of financial ruin, they would easily jump at a chance to impeach. If you don't believe that, then you haven't been paying attention.
This is not a legal opinion, I'm just pondering things.
Signed,
Your non-scholarly -- in the way of the Constitution and legalities -- blogger.
and Raine
PS: I want to thank Scoopster for giving us a blog stub this morning. While I have combined the blogs, I want to bring over his wonderful graphic from the Stub:
Comments:
Order comments Newest to Oldest Refresh Comments
Comment by 
Raine on 07/28/2011 13:20:06
Raine on 07/28/2011 13:20:06
I did. I just lost my entire damn blog. F*CK
Comment by 
wickedpam on 07/28/2011 13:20:07
wickedpam on 07/28/2011 13:20:07
Morning 
Trailer for Margin Call - looks really intense, based on the Wall Street crash. Might go on my go see list
Margin Call trailer
Trailer for Margin Call - looks really intense, based on the Wall Street crash. Might go on my go see list
Margin Call trailer
Comment by 
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 13:20:09
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 13:20:09
Morning. Things are little shaky today. Crap happens. :shurg:
Comment by 
Scoopster on 07/28/2011 13:20:19
Scoopster on 07/28/2011 13:20:19
Hmm.. not displaying how I'd expected. Oh well I'll change it.
Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 13:21:02
Lemme try it again. Gdmnitall
Raine on 07/28/2011 13:21:02
Lemme try it again. Gdmnitall
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 13:21:36
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 13:21:36
Comment by Scoopster on 07/28/2011 13:21:58
Scoopster on 07/28/2011 13:21:58
Quote by Raine:
Lemme try it again. Gdmnitall
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 13:24:32
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 13:24:32
Comment by Scoopster on 07/28/2011 13:25:08
Scoopster on 07/28/2011 13:25:08
Say did you guys see the pics from the ginormnous teabagger rally yesterday at the Capitol?
(Yes, the news crews outpopulated the actual teabaggers)
(Yes, the news crews outpopulated the actual teabaggers)
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 13:31:01
Yet they hold enormous sway over the Republicancult party
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 13:31:01
Quote by Scoopster:
Say did you guys see the pics from the ginormnous teabagger rally yesterday at the Capitol?
(Yes, the news crews outpopulated the actual teabaggers)
Yet they hold enormous sway over the Republican
Comment by wickedpam on 07/28/2011 13:31:19
wickedpam on 07/28/2011 13:31:19
Saw those pix, all I could think of was the poor person who had to set up that stage. Those things are not light nor are they easy to deal with.
Comment by Scoopster on 07/28/2011 13:36:35
Scoopster on 07/28/2011 13:36:35
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 13:37:35
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 13:37:35
Here is another question to ponder. What would happen to the Teabaggers if the hated "lamestream" media stopped covering their shenanigans? yeah guys in cute tricorner hates make for good images, but what if, just what news outlets covered them on a sober, objective Walter Cronkite kinda way? Don't you think they would just look like the absurdly ill-informed, backwards a-holes they really are?
Comment by Scoopster on 07/28/2011 13:38:15
Scoopster on 07/28/2011 13:38:15
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 13:50:32
LIKE!
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 13:50:32
LIKE!
Comment by wickedpam on 07/28/2011 13:54:32
wickedpam on 07/28/2011 13:54:32
If these "callers" are going to keep calling they need to change the script.
Comment by wickedpam on 07/28/2011 13:56:30
Always good to be prepared
BTW - good Poltical thriller and zombie book - Feed by Mira Grant. Highly recommend
wickedpam on 07/28/2011 13:56:30
Quote by Mondobubba:
LIKE!
Always good to be prepared
BTW - good Poltical thriller and zombie book - Feed by Mira Grant. Highly recommend
Comment by Scoopster on 07/28/2011 14:01:26
Scoopster on 07/28/2011 14:01:26
While the faux deficit crisis screws continue to turn, Republicans continue to neglect funding the FAA.
A interesting note on this story.. besides putting thousands of FAA employees and contracted construction workers working on improving airports nationwide temporarily OUT OF A JOB, millions of dollars in fees normally assessed by the FAA are not being collected, shifting more money away from government needs and increasing the deficit while corporations reap the rewards.
A interesting note on this story.. besides putting thousands of FAA employees and contracted construction workers working on improving airports nationwide temporarily OUT OF A JOB, millions of dollars in fees normally assessed by the FAA are not being collected, shifting more money away from government needs and increasing the deficit while corporations reap the rewards.
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 14:02:28
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 14:02:28
Why I find Alternet exasperating.
The author says "Patton" was directed by Stanley Kubrick. Oh? Really? Nice try, wrong. This is basic fact checking. If you can't get this right, what else are screwing up?
The author says "Patton" was directed by Stanley Kubrick. Oh? Really? Nice try, wrong. This is basic fact checking. If you can't get this right, what else are screwing up?
Comment by 
BobR on 07/28/2011 14:02:48
BobR on 07/28/2011 14:02:48
Report from the author: the blog is being recreated and will be appearing soon.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled... um... stuff.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled... um... stuff.
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 14:13:52
Hey the stuff is interesting!
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 14:13:52
Quote by BobR:
Report from the author: the blog is being recreated and will be appearing soon.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled... um... stuff.
Hey the stuff is interesting!
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 14:32:16
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 14:32:16
Nice blog! Thanks for amplifying your comment to yesterday's blog post that you did last evening.
One wonky point. The current reason we have this congress raising the debt limit comes from the 1974 budget reform act. Again one of these things I learned about when I was a young polisci major many years ago.
One wonky point. The current reason we have this congress raising the debt limit comes from the 1974 budget reform act. Again one of these things I learned about when I was a young polisci major many years ago.
Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 14:42:06
well, I got about as wonky as I could, I was of the understanding that the Debt ceiling was further defined by the act that you mention, however the Debt Ceiling has been around for much longer than that.
Raine on 07/28/2011 14:42:06
Quote by Mondobubba:
Nice blog! Thanks for amplifying your comment to yesterday's blog post that you did last evening.
One wonky point. The current reason we have this congress raising the debt limit comes from the 1974 budget reform act. Again one of these things I learned about when I was a young polisci major many years ago.
Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 14:44:11
Raine on 07/28/2011 14:44:11
Blog up! Sorry about the delay everyone. Bobber will edit it for me when he gets back to his computer.
Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 14:50:38
Raine on 07/28/2011 14:50:38
Scoop, I made sure I kept that most awesome image in das blog. Thank you again.
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 14:53:39
Oh no doubt about the debt ceiling. If I remember correctly prior to the BRA, The Treasury just upped the debt limit as needed. There has been some discussion that I've seen about returning to this model. It takes the politics out of raising the limit.
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 14:53:39
Quote by Raine:well, I got about as wonky as I could, I was of the understanding that the Debt ceiling was further defined by the act that you mention, however the Debt Ceiling has been around for much longer than that.Quote by Mondobubba:
Nice blog! Thanks for amplifying your comment to yesterday's blog post that you did last evening.
One wonky point. The current reason we have this congress raising the debt limit comes from the 1974 budget reform act. Again one of these things I learned about when I was a young polisci major many years ago.
Oh no doubt about the debt ceiling. If I remember correctly prior to the BRA, The Treasury just upped the debt limit as needed. There has been some discussion that I've seen about returning to this model. It takes the politics out of raising the limit.
Comment by Scoopster on 07/28/2011 14:54:59
You're very welcome! It kinda fits the whole theme we've been working with recently..
Scoopster on 07/28/2011 14:54:59
Quote by Raine:
Scoop, I made sure I kept that most awesome image in das blog. Thank you again.
You're very welcome! It kinda fits the whole theme we've been working with recently..
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 14:57:12
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 14:57:12
On a pop culture note, the Modanna directed movie about Edward VII and Wallis Simpson is opening at The Venice Film Festival. :eyeroll:
Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 15:09:19
Link?
You never know, it could be good! Right? RIGHT ?
Raine on 07/28/2011 15:09:19
Quote by Mondobubba:
On a pop culture note, the Modanna directed movie about Edward VII and Wallis Simpson is opening at The Venice Film Festival. :eyeroll:
You never know, it could be good! Right? RIGHT ?
Comment by wickedpam on 07/28/2011 15:12:50
wickedpam on 07/28/2011 15:12:50
OMG - Boehner counters calls to congress with sign my petition "Team Boehner" 
Now he thinks he's a sparkly vampire
Now he thinks he's a sparkly vampire
Comment by Scoopster on 07/28/2011 15:14:09
Oh gawd do we really want to see that photoshop job?
Scoopster on 07/28/2011 15:14:09
Quote by wickedpam:
OMG - Boehner counters calls to congress with sign my petition "Team Boehner"
Now he thinks he's a sparkly vampire
Oh gawd do we really want to see that photoshop job?
Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 15:15:43
Raine on 07/28/2011 15:15:43
Mondo, I was looking for info on this movie, and Did you mean Edward VIII I ask becuse I came across this:
Even those only vaguely familiar with British history know who Simpson is. She was the American divorcee who King Edward VIII fell for so hard that he chose to abdicate the throne in order to marry her. The story has always been painted with a high gloss of romance, though many have whispered the push for Edward to abdicate had more to do with England being alarmed by some of Edward and Wallis' German friends. Simpson was a controversial woman in her day, and remains a historical figure of a lot of rumor and speculation, which is probably why Madonna is interested in her.
Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 15:18:30
Raine on 07/28/2011 15:18:30
I love that John McCain pulled out the inexperience card.
Comment by wickedpam on 07/28/2011 15:19:24
It would have to be orange and sparkly - like sequined disco pants
wickedpam on 07/28/2011 15:19:24
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by wickedpam:
OMG - Boehner counters calls to congress with sign my petition "Team Boehner"
Now he thinks he's a sparkly vampire
Oh gawd do we really want to see that photoshop job?
It would have to be orange and sparkly - like sequined disco pants
Comment by Scoopster on 07/28/2011 15:21:39
Scoopster on 07/28/2011 15:21:39
AMAZING article in The Atlantic about Obama's style of governing.
Explains a lot about why he does things the way he does, and why so many misinterpret him as a centrist when he's really just a non-ideologue.
Explains a lot about why he does things the way he does, and why so many misinterpret him as a centrist when he's really just a non-ideologue.
Comment by BobR on 07/28/2011 15:22:14
BobR on 07/28/2011 15:22:14
Good job on the blog, my 
... wonky, yet easy to follow.
... wonky, yet easy to follow.
Comment by BobR on 07/28/2011 15:23:11
vampire? Has he been biting Oompa Loompas again?
BobR on 07/28/2011 15:23:11
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Scoopster:Quote by wickedpam:
OMG - Boehner counters calls to congress with sign my petition "Team Boehner"
Now he thinks he's a sparkly vampire
Oh gawd do we really want to see that photoshop job?
It would have to be orange and sparkly - like sequined disco pants
vampire? Has he been biting Oompa Loompas again?
Comment by wickedpam on 07/28/2011 15:25:08
Its a Twilight fandom reference with the team crap
wickedpam on 07/28/2011 15:25:08
Quote by BobR:Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Scoopster:Quote by wickedpam:
OMG - Boehner counters calls to congress with sign my petition "Team Boehner"
Now he thinks he's a sparkly vampire
Oh gawd do we really want to see that photoshop job?
It would have to be orange and sparkly - like sequined disco pants
vampire? Has he been biting Oompa Loompas again?
Its a Twilight fandom reference with the team crap
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 15:25:28
Yes, I did. My bad!
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 15:25:28
Quote by Raine:
Mondo, I was looking for info on this movie, and Did you mean Edward VIII I ask becuse I came across this:
Even those only vaguely familiar with British history know who Simpson is. She was the American divorcee who King Edward VIII fell for so hard that he chose to abdicate the throne in order to marry her. The story has always been painted with a high gloss of romance, though many have whispered the push for Edward to abdicate had more to do with England being alarmed by some of Edward and Wallis' German friends. Simpson was a controversial woman in her day, and remains a historical figure of a lot of rumor and speculation, which is probably why Madonna is interested in her.
Yes, I did. My bad!
Comment by Scoopster on 07/28/2011 15:27:16
I have to agree.. Raine, you've brought me around to different line of thinking on this one. The wording on 14th Amendment Section 4 is too obscure to be totally certain that the President can derive authority from it, and with several other references elsewhere in the Constitution to Congressional power related to budgetary & debt matters it really would not be worth starting a fight that might result in not only impeachment but also another "strict constructionist" Supreme Court precedent.
Scoopster on 07/28/2011 15:27:16
Quote by BobR:
Good job on the blog, my
I have to agree.. Raine, you've brought me around to different line of thinking on this one. The wording on 14th Amendment Section 4 is too obscure to be totally certain that the President can derive authority from it, and with several other references elsewhere in the Constitution to Congressional power related to budgetary & debt matters it really would not be worth starting a fight that might result in not only impeachment but also another "strict constructionist" Supreme Court precedent.
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 15:27:41
There is some speculatation that Wallis was Edward VIII's Mistress if you catch my drift.
Let's not forget that whole pro-fascist thing...just sayin...
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 15:27:41
Quote by Raine:
Mondo, I was looking for info on this movie, and Did you mean Edward VIII I ask becuse I came across this:
Even those only vaguely familiar with British history know who Simpson is. She was the American divorcee who King Edward VIII fell for so hard that he chose to abdicate the throne in order to marry her. The story has always been painted with a high gloss of romance, though many have whispered the push for Edward to abdicate had more to do with England being alarmed by some of Edward and Wallis' German friends. Simpson was a controversial woman in her day, and remains a historical figure of a lot of rumor and speculation, which is probably why Madonna is interested in her.
There is some speculatation that Wallis was Edward VIII's Mistress if you catch my drift.
Let's not forget that whole pro-fascist thing...just sayin...
Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 15:36:30
I almost brought SCOTUS into this, That is an entirely bigger can of worms. I've yet to see someone present a valid -- and legal reasoning -- that the 14th is something the POTUS can use.
I have tried. I don't feel comfortable writing things that appear so absolute without seeing the legal opinions of others that think this is valid. So, I will appreciate people dissenting. Just saying we should do so isn't good enough for me. I'm still looking for a constitutional basis for the POTUS to go this route.
So, far, I just don't see it.
Raine on 07/28/2011 15:36:30
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by BobR:
Good job on the blog, my
I have to agree.. Raine, you've brought me around to different line of thinking on this one. The wording on 14th Amendment Section 4 is too obscure to be totally certain that the President can derive authority from it, and with several other references elsewhere in the Constitution to Congressional power related to budgetary & debt matters it really would not be worth starting a fight that might result in not only impeachment but also another "strict constructionist" Supreme Court precedent.
I have tried. I don't feel comfortable writing things that appear so absolute without seeing the legal opinions of others that think this is valid. So, I will appreciate people dissenting. Just saying we should do so isn't good enough for me. I'm still looking for a constitutional basis for the POTUS to go this route.
So, far, I just don't see it.
Comment by 
Will in Chicago on 07/28/2011 15:42:39
Will in Chicago on 07/28/2011 15:42:39
Good morning, bloggers!!
I am not sure what solution will work for the debt ceiling crisis. If there is no solution, my hope is that the GOP will be blamed for it. I was amazed by John McCain's comments, and I can only imagine how he, Richard Lugar and the elder statesmen of the GOP are looking at their younger colleagues. It may be somewhat similar to how Doctor Frankenstein viewed his monster when he realized that his creation must be destroyed.
I am not sure what solution will work for the debt ceiling crisis. If there is no solution, my hope is that the GOP will be blamed for it. I was amazed by John McCain's comments, and I can only imagine how he, Richard Lugar and the elder statesmen of the GOP are looking at their younger colleagues. It may be somewhat similar to how Doctor Frankenstein viewed his monster when he realized that his creation must be destroyed.
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 16:02:22
The last two paragraphs of Gene Lyon's Salon article today have an interesting take on this.
"A budget default would give the White House unprecedented, arguably illegal power to pick and choose which laws it would obey. Then there's the 14th Amendment, stating that "the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned."
Hence the president would be on solid grounds, constitutional scholars argue, simply to raise the National Debt limit by executive order and dare Congress to do something about it. Sure, right-wing cultists would go even crazier, screaming about tyranny and threatening impeachment.
I'd like to see them try."
The whole thing is worth a read about the RepublicanCult Party
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 16:02:22
Quote by Raine:I almost brought SCOTUS into this, That is an entirely bigger can of worms. I've yet to see someone present a valid -- and legal reasoning -- that the 14th is something the POTUS can use.Quote by Scoopster:Quote by BobR:
Good job on the blog, my
I have to agree.. Raine, you've brought me around to different line of thinking on this one. The wording on 14th Amendment Section 4 is too obscure to be totally certain that the President can derive authority from it, and with several other references elsewhere in the Constitution to Congressional power related to budgetary & debt matters it really would not be worth starting a fight that might result in not only impeachment but also another "strict constructionist" Supreme Court precedent.
I have tried. I don't feel comfortable writing things that appear so absolute without seeing the legal opinions of others that think this is valid. So, I will appreciate people dissenting. Just saying we should do so isn't good enough for me. I'm still looking for a constitutional basis for the POTUS to go this route.
So, far, I just don't see it.
The last two paragraphs of Gene Lyon's Salon article today have an interesting take on this.
"A budget default would give the White House unprecedented, arguably illegal power to pick and choose which laws it would obey. Then there's the 14th Amendment, stating that "the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned."
Hence the president would be on solid grounds, constitutional scholars argue, simply to raise the National Debt limit by executive order and dare Congress to do something about it. Sure, right-wing cultists would go even crazier, screaming about tyranny and threatening impeachment.
I'd like to see them try."
The whole thing is worth a read about the Republican
Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 16:10:23
Raine on 07/28/2011 16:10:23
BTW, Enjoy Albert Haynesworth, New England... He very well make Manny look small time.
I am not a Redkins' fan, but that guy was a mess.
I am not a Redkins' fan, but that guy was a mess.
Comment by BobR on 07/28/2011 16:13:15
BobR on 07/28/2011 16:13:15
Comment by wickedpam on 07/28/2011 16:14:53
but I'm going to miss local radio making fun of him
wickedpam on 07/28/2011 16:14:53
Quote by Raine:
BTW, Enjoy Albert Haynesworth, New England... He very well make Manny look small time.
I am not a Redkins' fan, but that guy was a mess.
but I'm going to miss local radio making fun of him
Comment by 
livingonli on 07/28/2011 16:28:17
Feels like when I complained about the one article about politics and comic books where the author said that Black Panther was a member of the Justice League when he was a member of the Avengers. Someone is mixing up those Marvel and DC properties which any comic book geek will tell you not to do.
livingonli on 07/28/2011 16:28:17
Quote by Mondobubba:
Why I find Alternet exasperating.
The author says "Patton" was directed by Stanley Kubrick. Oh? Really? Nice try, wrong. This is basic fact checking. If you can't get this right, what else are screwing up?
Feels like when I complained about the one article about politics and comic books where the author said that Black Panther was a member of the Justice League when he was a member of the Avengers. Someone is mixing up those Marvel and DC properties which any comic book geek will tell you not to do.
Comment by livingonli on 07/28/2011 16:33:18
There did seem to be a lot of people in Britain who would have had no problem aligning with Hitler, but then Hitler's racial hierarchy did put Brits, Germans, and Northern Europeans at the top of his racial pecking order.
livingonli on 07/28/2011 16:33:18
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by Raine:
Mondo, I was looking for info on this movie, and Did you mean Edward VIII I ask becuse I came across this:
Even those only vaguely familiar with British history know who Simpson is. She was the American divorcee who King Edward VIII fell for so hard that he chose to abdicate the throne in order to marry her. The story has always been painted with a high gloss of romance, though many have whispered the push for Edward to abdicate had more to do with England being alarmed by some of Edward and Wallis' German friends. Simpson was a controversial woman in her day, and remains a historical figure of a lot of rumor and speculation, which is probably why Madonna is interested in her.
There is some speculatation that Wallis was Edward VIII's Mistress if you catch my drift.
Let's not forget that whole pro-fascist thing...just sayin...
There did seem to be a lot of people in Britain who would have had no problem aligning with Hitler, but then Hitler's racial hierarchy did put Brits, Germans, and Northern Europeans at the top of his racial pecking order.
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 16:38:03
What you are not a fan of the fine hair care products from Redkin? :confused look:
I slay myself. I know you meant Redskins
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 16:38:03
Quote by Raine:
BTW, Enjoy Albert Haynesworth, New England... He very well make Manny look small time.
I am not a Redkins' fan, but that guy was a mess.
What you are not a fan of the fine hair care products from Redkin? :confused look:
I slay myself. I know you meant Redskins
Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 16:38:06
The author doesn't mention the Scholars to which he is speaking of, but if it's the ones I mentioned in the blog, I would have to say this is still a dangerous proposition. I may very well mean using the Emergency powers act as a reason to sign an executive order.
It's still arguably illegal. I don;t see how a President is on solid legal ground with no precedent. It's specially so with the make up of SCOTUS as it is today. Executive orders are legally ambiguous. They have been overturned on 2 occasions. 1) When truman desegregated schools and 2) When Clinton tried to prevent the Government from contracting with Companies that were actively trying to break unions. As I said in the blog, the executive order rule ambiguous. With the make up of our government right now, I would not really count on it.
I appears to me that this article is saying they did, so the POTUS can too, I don't know if I agree with that. I know I certainly don't agree that he seems to think the 14th is a viable course of action. You see, the paragraph before these last two are things that Congress is supposed to do. If the author is using that as a reason for suggesting what he is suggesting, it is a weak argument.
Wanting to see it happen is far different than what can be or is to be construed as legal. It all goes back to why I don't know what the POTUS can do.
Raine on 07/28/2011 16:38:06
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by Raine:I almost brought SCOTUS into this, That is an entirely bigger can of worms. I've yet to see someone present a valid -- and legal reasoning -- that the 14th is something the POTUS can use.Quote by Scoopster:Quote by BobR:
Good job on the blog, my
I have to agree.. Raine, you've brought me around to different line of thinking on this one. The wording on 14th Amendment Section 4 is too obscure to be totally certain that the President can derive authority from it, and with several other references elsewhere in the Constitution to Congressional power related to budgetary & debt matters it really would not be worth starting a fight that might result in not only impeachment but also another "strict constructionist" Supreme Court precedent.
I have tried. I don't feel comfortable writing things that appear so absolute without seeing the legal opinions of others that think this is valid. So, I will appreciate people dissenting. Just saying we should do so isn't good enough for me. I'm still looking for a constitutional basis for the POTUS to go this route.
So, far, I just don't see it.
The last two paragraphs of Gene Lyon's Salon article today have an interesting take on this.
"A budget default would give the White House unprecedented, arguably illegal power to pick and choose which laws it would obey. Then there's the 14th Amendment, stating that "the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned."
Hence the president would be on solid grounds, constitutional scholars argue, simply to raise the National Debt limit by executive order and dare Congress to do something about it. Sure, right-wing cultists would go even crazier, screaming about tyranny and threatening impeachment.
I'd like to see them try."
The whole thing is worth a read about the RepublicanCultParty
It's still arguably illegal. I don;t see how a President is on solid legal ground with no precedent. It's specially so with the make up of SCOTUS as it is today. Executive orders are legally ambiguous. They have been overturned on 2 occasions. 1) When truman desegregated schools and 2) When Clinton tried to prevent the Government from contracting with Companies that were actively trying to break unions. As I said in the blog, the executive order rule ambiguous. With the make up of our government right now, I would not really count on it.
I appears to me that this article is saying they did, so the POTUS can too, I don't know if I agree with that. I know I certainly don't agree that he seems to think the 14th is a viable course of action. You see, the paragraph before these last two are things that Congress is supposed to do. If the author is using that as a reason for suggesting what he is suggesting, it is a weak argument.
Wanting to see it happen is far different than what can be or is to be construed as legal. It all goes back to why I don't know what the POTUS can do.
Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 16:40:04
Me too! What a damn hot mess he is!
Raine on 07/28/2011 16:40:04
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:
BTW, Enjoy Albert Haynesworth, New England... He very well make Manny look small time.
I am not a Redskins' fan, but that guy was a mess.
but I'm going to miss local radio making fun of him
Comment by 
trojanrabbit on 07/28/2011 16:41:06
trojanrabbit on 07/28/2011 16:41:06
NJ Governor Chrisite taken to hospital after having difficulty breathing.
Yup, enjoy your government provided Health care. And I'm sure you don't have to worry about where your next paycheck is coming from.
I could be a lot snarkier but then I'd hate myself even more than I already do.
Yup, enjoy your government provided Health care. And I'm sure you don't have to worry about where your next paycheck is coming from.
I could be a lot snarkier but then I'd hate myself even more than I already do.
Comment by trojanrabbit on 07/28/2011 16:45:09
So are Haynesworth and Wilfork going to get into a competition to see who can lay out the dirtiest hit?
I'm torn here, I really didn't give a crap if there was football this year. But I know how much Kraft put into getting this deal done while going through the death of his wife, he really does love the game. The players know that as well.
trojanrabbit on 07/28/2011 16:45:09
Quote by Raine:Me too! What a damn hot mess he is!Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:
BTW, Enjoy Albert Haynesworth, New England... He very well make Manny look small time.
I am not a Redskins' fan, but that guy was a mess.
but I'm going to miss local radio making fun of him
So are Haynesworth and Wilfork going to get into a competition to see who can lay out the dirtiest hit?
I'm torn here, I really didn't give a crap if there was football this year. But I know how much Kraft put into getting this deal done while going through the death of his wife, he really does love the game. The players know that as well.
Comment by Scoopster on 07/28/2011 16:45:47
Imma keep my mouth shut on this one..
Scoopster on 07/28/2011 16:45:47
Quote by trojanrabbit:
NJ Governor Chrisite taken to hospital after having difficulty breathing.
Yup, enjoy your government provided Health care. And I'm sure you don't have to worry about where your next paycheck is coming from.
I could be a lot snarkier but then I'd hate myself even more than I already do.
Imma keep my mouth shut on this one..
Comment by Scoopster on 07/28/2011 16:47:08
Don't worry even if he doesn't pull it together the WEEIdiots will still bust his chops.
Scoopster on 07/28/2011 16:47:08
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:
BTW, Enjoy Albert Haynesworth, New England... He very well make Manny look small time.
I am not a Redskins' fan, but that guy was a mess.
but I'm going to miss local radio making fun of him
Don't worry even if he doesn't pull it together the WEEIdiots will still bust his chops.
Comment by BobR on 07/28/2011 16:48:04
Lock up your white women!
BobR on 07/28/2011 16:48:04
Quote by Raine:Me too! What a damn hot mess he is!Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:
BTW, Enjoy Albert Haynesworth, New England... He very well make Manny look small time.
I am not a Redskins' fan, but that guy was a mess.
but I'm going to miss local radio making fun of him
Lock up your white women!
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 16:48:42
When they can't get simple fact checking like that right, it calls into question the accuracy of all their reporting.
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 16:48:42
Quote by livingonli:Quote by Mondobubba:
Why I find Alternet exasperating.
The author says "Patton" was directed by Stanley Kubrick. Oh? Really? Nice try, wrong. This is basic fact checking. If you can't get this right, what else are screwing up?
Feels like when I complained about the one article about politics and comic books where the author said that Black Panther was a member of the Justice League when he was a member of the Avengers. Someone is mixing up those Marvel and DC properties which any comic book geek will tell you not to do.
When they can't get simple fact checking like that right, it calls into question the accuracy of all their reporting.
Comment by BobR on 07/28/2011 16:49:41
(lest you think I was just being an asshole...)
BobR on 07/28/2011 16:49:41
Quote by BobR:Quote by Raine:Me too! What a damn hot mess he is!Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:
BTW, Enjoy Albert Haynesworth, New England... He very well make Manny look small time.
I am not a Redskins' fan, but that guy was a mess.
but I'm going to miss local radio making fun of him
Lock up your white women!
(lest you think I was just being an asshole...)
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 17:07:38
Maybe his government provided healthcare will cover his badly needed gastric bypass.
You see Will, I will be snarky for you. Clearly Chris Christie is a guy who doesn't turn down a cheesesteak.
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 17:07:38
Quote by trojanrabbit:
NJ Governor Chrisite taken to hospital after having difficulty breathing.
Yup, enjoy your government provided Health care. And I'm sure you don't have to worry about where your next paycheck is coming from.
I could be a lot snarkier but then I'd hate myself even more than I already do.
Maybe his government provided healthcare will cover his badly needed gastric bypass.
You see Will, I will be snarky for you. Clearly Chris Christie is a guy who doesn't turn down a cheesesteak.
Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 17:15:21
I'm reluctant to say this, but that is but a blogger. Where Alternet is going wrong is that they are not vetting very well who posts on their page. It's hurting their credibility.
It's one thing to present debate as opinion, but entirely another if someone writes something that is not fact checked by the editors of a website. They aggregate many opinions, they should be responsible for either fact checking or revealing the authors credentials. It's being a blogger that is bad, I just believe that you need to try to research and get your facts right.
Even opinions should be based on fact. Maybe this was just a mistake. I can understand that a few times here and there, but AlterNet, as of late, has had a problem with upping the hyperbole. ( Elizabeth Warren not getting the nomination was my most recent experience)
I know that we are a small site, but I hope we are responsible about such things. It's one of the reasons why I have lost a lot of respect for FDL as well.
Raine on 07/28/2011 17:15:21
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by livingonli:Quote by Mondobubba:
Why I find Alternet exasperating.
The author says "Patton" was directed by Stanley Kubrick. Oh? Really? Nice try, wrong. This is basic fact checking. If you can't get this right, what else are screwing up?
Feels like when I complained about the one article about politics and comic books where the author said that Black Panther was a member of the Justice League when he was a member of the Avengers. Someone is mixing up those Marvel and DC properties which any comic book geek will tell you not to do.
When they can't get simple fact checking like that right, it calls into question the accuracy of all their reporting.
I'm reluctant to say this, but that is but a blogger. Where Alternet is going wrong is that they are not vetting very well who posts on their page. It's hurting their credibility.
It's one thing to present debate as opinion, but entirely another if someone writes something that is not fact checked by the editors of a website. They aggregate many opinions, they should be responsible for either fact checking or revealing the authors credentials. It's being a blogger that is bad, I just believe that you need to try to research and get your facts right.
Even opinions should be based on fact. Maybe this was just a mistake. I can understand that a few times here and there, but AlterNet, as of late, has had a problem with upping the hyperbole. ( Elizabeth Warren not getting the nomination was my most recent experience)
I know that we are a small site, but I hope we are responsible about such things. It's one of the reasons why I have lost a lot of respect for FDL as well.
Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 17:18:15
The media seems more concerned about reporting how well he is doing health-wise than all the disastrous things he is doing TO the state. Good, he's ok. How many people aren't because of his cuts to the poor?
This is a bit of a Marie Antoinette moment, you know, as in 'let them eat cake...'
Raine on 07/28/2011 17:18:15
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by trojanrabbit:
NJ Governor Chrisite taken to hospital after having difficulty breathing.
Yup, enjoy your government provided Health care. And I'm sure you don't have to worry about where your next paycheck is coming from.
I could be a lot snarkier but then I'd hate myself even more than I already do.
Maybe his government provided healthcare will cover his badly needed gastric bypass.
You see Will, I will be snarky for you. Clearly Chris Christie is a guy who doesn't turn down a cheesesteak.
This is a bit of a Marie Antoinette moment, you know, as in 'let them eat cake...'
Comment by 
TriSec on 07/28/2011 17:28:06
TriSec on 07/28/2011 17:28:06
Greetings, comrades.
Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 18:07:14
Raine on 07/28/2011 18:07:14
Oh wow. Watch this Video. Bobber, as a 4F tenured Science geek, I think you will appreciate this.
Via Black liberal Boomer Blog (aka my friend Pam)
Via Black liberal Boomer Blog (aka my friend Pam)
Comment by wickedpam on 07/28/2011 18:09:12
wickedpam on 07/28/2011 18:09:12
Travel note 
- gonna we absent tomorrow - we will be driving over the mountain and threw the woods to Charles Town, WV ;D - yay mini vaca!
- gonna we absent tomorrow - we will be driving over the mountain and threw the woods to Charles Town, WV ;D - yay mini vaca!
Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 18:14:23
Raine on 07/28/2011 18:14:23
Nice! Have fun Mala!
Comment by wickedpam on 07/28/2011 18:17:59
I shall - though I always expect to come back broke, we do enjoy the break
wickedpam on 07/28/2011 18:17:59
Quote by Raine:
Nice! Have fun Mala!
I shall - though I always expect to come back broke, we do enjoy the break
Comment by wickedpam on 07/28/2011 18:22:19
yummmm cupcakes
wickedpam on 07/28/2011 18:22:19
Quote by Raine:
Oh wow. Watch this Video. Bobber, as a 4F tenured Science geek, I think you will appreciate this.
Via Black liberal Boomer Blog (aka my friend Pam)
yummmm cupcakes
Comment by Scoopster on 07/28/2011 18:36:00
Scoopster on 07/28/2011 18:36:00
Oh the irony.. IKEA outsources jobs from Sweden to Virginia b/c of union; workers in VA vote to unionize.
Take THAT right to work laws!
Take THAT right to work laws!
Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 18:37:18
Raine on 07/28/2011 18:37:18
This article has more opinion on the topic if the day. Once again. I see a lot of *ifs*
I propose that this was NOT why Section 4 was put in place. If his thesis is correct, it would have clarified it in the 14th amendment. HE also says: The first part is correct, the latter has no legal precedent to back that up.
None. Anytime time someone says 'this does/does not mean" is simply interpreting law as they want in order to fit the debate they are defending.
This idea that 'if the president acts unilaterly' is 'justified' really makes me nervous. This author agrees that using the 14th is risking impeachment. Just because we have a majority in the Senate is not a good enough reason to risk it. I do not feel comfortable with this.
** Edited to add the link.
At this point, the president should ask Congress to ratify his actions by raising the debt ceiling. If they do not, he can continue the process until they do. His actions might set a precedent: Knowing that the president will invoke Section 4, congressional threats of using the debt ceiling to extract political concessions will become a defunct strategy in the future.
In fact, this was one reason why Section 4 was put into the Constitution in the first place.
An angry Congress may respond by impeaching the president. However, if the president's actions end the government shutdown, stabilize the markets and prevent an economic catastrophe, this reduces the chances that he will be impeached by the House. (After all, he saved the country.) Perhaps more important, the chances that he will be convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, which has a Democratic majority, are virtually zero.
The public may regard an impeachment trial as a waste of time, since the ultimate result is clear. In addition, the president will point to the shutdown and the impeachment when he runs against his political opponents in the 2012 election, arguing that they did nothing to save the country from calamity while he has risked impeachment to protect the republic.
Section 5 gives Congress the power to enforce the 14th Amendment's provisions. This does not mean, however, that these provisions do not apply to the president; otherwise, he could violate the 14th Amendment at will.
None. Anytime time someone says 'this does/does not mean" is simply interpreting law as they want in order to fit the debate they are defending.
This idea that 'if the president acts unilaterly' is 'justified' really makes me nervous. This author agrees that using the 14th is risking impeachment. Just because we have a majority in the Senate is not a good enough reason to risk it. I do not feel comfortable with this.
** Edited to add the link.
Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 18:38:25
Raine on 07/28/2011 18:38:25
Quote by wickedpam:
yummmm cupcakes
Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 18:44:28
Raine on 07/28/2011 18:44:28
Quote by Scoopster:
Oh the irony.. IKEA outsources jobs from Sweden to Virginia b/c of union; workers in VA vote to unionize.
Take THAT right to work laws!
Comment by TriSec on 07/28/2011 18:52:33
TriSec on 07/28/2011 18:52:33
Pffft.
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 18:53:48
I think you've hit the nail on the head, Raine. As an aggregator, Alternet doesn't do a very good job of vetting and editing the content they put under their own name. They really need to do a better job of that.
As for the Elizabeth Warren thing; oh hell yeah there was a rediculous over reaction all over the professional left about her not getting to be the nominee. She was too politically radioactive.
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 18:53:48
Quote by Raine:Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by livingonli:Quote by Mondobubba:
Why I find Alternet exasperating.
The author says "Patton" was directed by Stanley Kubrick. Oh? Really? Nice try, wrong. This is basic fact checking. If you can't get this right, what else are screwing up?
Feels like when I complained about the one article about politics and comic books where the author said that Black Panther was a member of the Justice League when he was a member of the Avengers. Someone is mixing up those Marvel and DC properties which any comic book geek will tell you not to do.
When they can't get simple fact checking like that right, it calls into question the accuracy of all their reporting.
I'm reluctant to say this, but that is but a blogger. Where Alternet is going wrong is that they are not vetting very well who posts on their page. It's hurting their credibility.
It's one thing to present debate as opinion, but entirely another if someone writes something that is not fact checked by the editors of a website. They aggregate many opinions, they should be responsible for either fact checking or revealing the authors credentials. It's being a blogger that is bad, I just believe that you need to try to research and get your facts right.
Even opinions should be based on fact. Maybe this was just a mistake. I can understand that a few times here and there, but AlterNet, as of late, has had a problem with upping the hyperbole. ( Elizabeth Warren not getting the nomination was my most recent experience)
I know that we are a small site, but I hope we are responsible about such things. It's one of the reasons why I have lost a lot of respect for FDL as well.
I think you've hit the nail on the head, Raine. As an aggregator, Alternet doesn't do a very good job of vetting and editing the content they put under their own name. They really need to do a better job of that.
As for the Elizabeth Warren thing; oh hell yeah there was a rediculous over reaction all over the professional left about her not getting to be the nominee. She was too politically radioactive.
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 18:55:11
Going to that really depressing "casino" at the horse track?
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 18:55:11
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:
Nice! Have fun Mala!
I shall - though I always expect to come back broke, we do enjoy the break
Going to that really depressing "casino" at the horse track?
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 18:56:32
Yay! I can by Swedish crap again!
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 18:56:32
Quote by Scoopster:
Oh the irony.. IKEA outsources jobs from Sweden to Virginia b/c of union; workers in VA vote to unionize.
Take THAT right to work laws!
Yay! I can by Swedish crap again!
Comment by TriSec on 07/28/2011 19:26:36
TriSec on 07/28/2011 19:26:36
Comment by Pillar_Strength on 07/28/2011 19:43:38
You're exactly where I am at on the 14th amendment, Raine. You try explaining it to the nitwits, and it goes in one ear and out the other. 
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 19:52:56
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 19:52:56
Comment by livingonli on 07/28/2011 19:59:03
I could add a few comments about the pending privatization of Nassau County's bus lines. If there are cutbacks, it probably would include the bus lines nearby which I had to use (but didn't always have access to) during the period when I was without a car.
livingonli on 07/28/2011 19:59:03
Quote by Scoopster:
Off to bitch about public transit cutbacks..
I could add a few comments about the pending privatization of Nassau County's bus lines. If there are cutbacks, it probably would include the bus lines nearby which I had to use (but didn't always have access to) during the period when I was without a car.
Comment by Scoopster on 07/28/2011 20:00:57
Scoopster on 07/28/2011 20:00:57
Back from the public meeting.. Walked in, saw all the people there who came to speak out like I did....
and locked up with stagefright..
and locked up with stagefright..
Comment by wickedpam on 07/28/2011 20:20:35
not sure I call it depressing - they's spiffed it up - but ya we are hitting the slots and avoiding the table games
wickedpam on 07/28/2011 20:20:35
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:
Nice! Have fun Mala!
I shall - though I always expect to come back broke, we do enjoy the break
Going to that really depressing "casino" at the horse track?
not sure I call it depressing - they's spiffed it up - but ya we are hitting the slots and avoiding the table games
Comment by wickedpam on 07/28/2011 20:23:23
I love that the were able to unionzie but how did they do it in a right to work state?
wickedpam on 07/28/2011 20:23:23
Quote by Raine:Quote by Scoopster:
Oh the irony.. IKEA outsources jobs from Sweden to Virginia b/c of union; workers in VA vote to unionize.
Take THAT right to work laws!
I love that the were able to unionzie but how did they do it in a right to work state?
Comment by wickedpam on 07/28/2011 20:24:08
now I want to watch cupcake wars
wickedpam on 07/28/2011 20:24:08
Quote by Raine:Quote by wickedpam:
yummmm cupcakes
now I want to watch cupcake wars
Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 20:26:23
Aww. 
I hate when that happens.
Raine on 07/28/2011 20:26:23
Quote by Scoopster:
Back from the public meeting.. Walked in, saw all the people there who came to speak out like I did....
and locked up with stagefright..
I hate when that happens.
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 20:29:03
Meghan, Mary and I went there not long after it opened. What I found depressing were all the seniors in there gambling away the pension checks.
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 20:29:03
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:
Nice! Have fun Mala!
I shall - though I always expect to come back broke, we do enjoy the break
Going to that really depressing "casino" at the horse track?
not sure I call it depressing - they's spiffed it up - but ya we are hitting the slots and avoiding the table games
Meghan, Mary and I went there not long after it opened. What I found depressing were all the seniors in there gambling away the pension checks.
Comment by wickedpam on 07/28/2011 20:47:59
oh that parts still depressing but there's a lot of young guns there crowding the tables now - and trust me some of those seniors will knock you out of the way if you blocking a machine they want
we know our limit, don't go past it
wickedpam on 07/28/2011 20:47:59
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:
Nice! Have fun Mala!
I shall - though I always expect to come back broke, we do enjoy the break
Going to that really depressing "casino" at the horse track?
not sure I call it depressing - they's spiffed it up - but ya we are hitting the slots and avoiding the table games
Meghan, Mary and I went there not long after it opened. What I found depressing were all the seniors in there gambling away the pension checks.
oh that parts still depressing but there's a lot of young guns there crowding the tables now - and trust me some of those seniors will knock you out of the way if you blocking a machine they want
we know our limit, don't go past it
Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 21:08:18
Raine on 07/28/2011 21:08:18
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 21:47:50
Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 21:47:50
Speaking of the 14th Amendment, it was ratified on this date in 1868.
Comment by TriSec on 07/29/2011 00:49:56
TriSec on 07/29/2011 00:49:56
News from the Air Wing:
Yankee 406 - Heavy back from the shop...."The Maddowan" will take to the skies again!
Yankee 406 - Heavy back from the shop...."The Maddowan" will take to the skies again!
Comment by Raine on 07/29/2011 02:24:45
We drove past the Capitol Building around 9:45, I noticed the lights were still on in the dome, meaning they are still in session---
So it turns out, Boner is STILL looking for votes for a bill that will NOT pass in the senate.
Raine on 07/29/2011 02:24:45
Quote by Raine:
Boner couldn't get the votes. Postponed indefinitely.
So it turns out, Boner is STILL looking for votes for a bill that will NOT pass in the senate.
Comment by Raine on 07/29/2011 02:25:27
NICE!
Raine on 07/29/2011 02:25:27
Quote by TriSec:
News from the Air Wing:
Yankee 406 - Heavy back from the shop...."The Maddowan" will take to the skies again!
Comment by Raine on 07/29/2011 02:26:52
Well that is indeed a strange coincidence.
The Homebrew club meeting tonite was fantabulous.
Raine on 07/29/2011 02:26:52
Quote by Mondobubba:
Speaking of the 14th Amendment, it was ratified on this date in 1868.
Well that is indeed a strange coincidence.
The Homebrew club meeting tonite was fantabulous.
Comment by wickedpam on 07/29/2011 02:43:42
bet its going to be a 3am vote while everyone is asleep
wickedpam on 07/29/2011 02:43:42
Quote by Raine:We drove past the Capitol Building around 9:45, I noticed the lights were still on in the dome, meaning they are still in session---Quote by Raine:
Boner couldn't get the votes. Postponed indefinitely.
So it turns out, Boner is STILL looking for votes for a bill that will NOT pass in the senate.
bet its going to be a 3am vote while everyone is asleep
Comment by Raine on 07/29/2011 02:48:14
Word just came thru that there is no vote after all.
These guys are useless. They make the Senate look fuctional.
(Have fun this weekend, Mala!)
Raine on 07/29/2011 02:48:14
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:We drove past the Capitol Building around 9:45, I noticed the lights were still on in the dome, meaning they are still in session---Quote by Raine:
Boner couldn't get the votes. Postponed indefinitely.
So it turns out, Boner is STILL looking for votes for a bill that will NOT pass in the senate.
bet its going to be a 3am vote while everyone is asleep
These guys are useless. They make the Senate look fuctional.
(Have fun this weekend, Mala!)