1 I hope that both lawsuits blow up the progressives dream of socialism.

2 I think all the waivers granted are going to through a really nice wrench in the works.

3 So at the constitutional convention, lets have an amendment to the constitution that outlaws stare decisis. The constitution means what it says, not what some stupid judge says it means. That would have stopped LOOOOTS of stupid progressive shit over the decades.

4 I'm heading out to the Ocean to get some photos taken. Any questions on anything call Slim in Reseda at Klondike 5750.

5 "Severing." I like the sound of that. MWAhahahahahahaha!

6 Reversing the misuse of the Commerce Clause will help kill the Federal Godzilla. If the Supremes chicken out, the People will have to do it.

7 According to Roll Call Randy Barnett's "Repeal Amendment" is going hit the House within the next few weeks.  Rob Bishop of UT wants to throw it out in the lame duck to see where everyone stands on.  Then I'm sure he'll trot it out again next year.

Here's what it says:

“Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

8 Don't repeal and replace,  just effing repeal it.  If you gotta have a slogan with two R's then Repeal and Repeal again.

9 Just wait til 2014 when the real fun ensues. Posted by: runningrn at November 22, 2010 10:54 AM (qY2Vc) What happens in 2014?

10 Medicaid's main problem now is that no longer can the states set their own minimum benefits - the new federal law trumps that. so they simply cannot, as states, say "huh, we're not paying for FERTILITY TREATMENTS for welfare moms with nine kids" -- !!! or similar ridiculous things Medicaid is a TRAVESTY! We spend so much time arguing over Medicare - how about we start with Medicaid instead? Supposed to be for catastrophic care ONLY! Should not be given out to ILLEGALS! ooh it burns me up!

11 What happens in 2014?

Posted by: joncelli© at November 22, 2010 11:00 AM (RD7QR)

Obamacare  goes fully into effect.

12

Recent ruling on Sarbanes Oxley, the SCOTUS invalidated a provision without voiding the law and there was no severance clause. I have little to no hope for any success via the courts.

And considering we are -4 in the Senate with potential issues in MA, NV and ME in 2012 and more if the puritans fuck up some more races, its along haul via legislation. We cold need as many as 6 seats just to get to 51 and that still assumes a Senate full of people like Murky and Collins.

So repeal and replace it must be. Wishful thinking isnt going to work. The system is too broken and the roll back will be too messy and complicated after 2012 and certainly after 2014 to just void the legislation.

13 So repeal and replace it must be. Wishful thinking isnt going to work. The system is too broken and the roll back will be too messy and complicated after 2012 and certainly after 2014 to just void the legislation. Posted by: Swamp_Yankee at November 22, 2010 11:02 AM (3DIBw) All of which assumes that a GOP president is elected in 2012.

14 What happens in 2014? Posted by: joncelli© at November 22, 2010 11:00 AM (RD7QR) Obamacare goes fully into effect. Posted by: Holger at November 22, 2010 11:01 AM (V9Q+f) Yeah but the Worlds ending in 2012, so what?

15

The language of the US Constitution is neither archaic nor abstract; in fact, it's rather plain and direct.  How is it that the words and intent are so easily misunderstood, and by (implicitly highly-educated) judges?

Just how much public pressure does it take to get the House of Representatives to start hauling Federal judges before a committee to start answering questions about their decisions and methods for reaching those decisions?

The Ninth Circuit seems ripe for such an action. It underperforms all other Ciruits by a sinificant margin.

Taking 5 or 6 gavels from the Ninth should send a message.  Inviting Sotomayor and Kagan to testify should make the new reality clear to all.

16 i realize that it's technically part of the constitution, but what with regard to the preamble and the general welfare clause specifically, i don't see as it's really even part of the constitution as such so much as just the abstract or purpose of the constitution.

17 Oh, for fuck's sake.

I think Congress should subject themselves to the same shit they've prescribed for the rest of us, but this is just ignorant shit. There's no actual medical care in the HCR[sic] bill...just a whole bunch of bureaucracy, and a lot of it race-based.

18 My prediction; 5-4 in favor of Obamacare. Kennedy will be madder at Scalia on that day than the wise Latina.

19 Who cares about State's rights. It's not like we have a power grabbing Fascist-Marxist in the White House - right?

20 I thought severability is assumed even if there is no severability clause explicitly included.  No?

But.. I read in those cases, severability would depend on whether the rest of the law would still be able to function as designed without the severed section.  Clearly, in this case, the mandate is not severable as without it the whole house of cards falls apart.

21

I would say fix this shit with the "elastic clauses" at the next Constitutional Convention.

Too bad there's never going to be another one.

I listen to Mike Church and other Article V enthusiasts, and I think for a second. Let's say we get the several states mad enough to convene and A5 convention. Let's say we get those same several states, 2/3rds for the sake of argument, to ratify that new Constitution. That will effectively launch a new Federal government.

Who the fuck thinks, with all the cops on their side, that they'll actually let an Article V happen? I'd bet the Feds would try to lock up the ratifying governors on an antiterrorism charge. The military would divide against itself, the courts would paralyze. Most of the courts, Federal employees themselves, would find nothing wrong in unlimited application of Federal power. Speed freaks manning the pharmacy.

No government goes away peacefully. There is either violence or the overwhelming threat thereof. So I don't think there will ever be a peaceful overhaul and reduction of Federal authority.

 

22 preamble and the general welfare clause specifically

The preamble has zero to do with the Constitution. It was written by the "committee on style" after the actual constitution was drafted by the framers. It was NEVER even reviewed by the framers at the convention.

The liberal love to quote it for all their socialist BS but like everything else the liberals like, it is a lie.

23 24 I thought severability is assumed even if there is no severability clause explicitly included.  No?

Nowadays, yes.  The Courts severed part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, even though SarBox didn't have an explicit severability clause. 

24 Enter the Judiciary. The true rulers of the Republic. And on the payroll of the Tides Foundation, I might add. This is where Tea Party's strength will disappear.

25 20 i realize that it's technically part of the constitution, but what with regard to the preamble and the general welfare clause specifically, i don't see as it's really even part of the constitution as such so much as just the abstract or purpose of the constitution.

Matt, don't fall into penumbra trap about the Constitution Preamble.  The libs love to torture and contort the Preamble in order to make any of their socialist schemes "Constitutional".  The Constitution's legal text starts after the Preamble, period. 

26 SGT Dan, the real fight will be a series of Federal court challenges to the construction, rules of order, etc. of the Article 5 convention.

27 Not real enthusiastic about a new constitutional convention. Usually it's the left that gets ahold of things like this and we could end up worse off. Think 2nd amendment to start. Better to keep fighting this with the constitution we have now and getting our side elected. It may be harder, but the easy way doesn't always go as planned.

28 Yeah but the Worlds ending in 2012, so what? I heard May 2011. Posted by: runningrn at November 22, 2010 11:12 AM (qY2Vc) There are days when I think the sooner the better. Those are usually the days when I have run out of Scotch

29 I'm down with a second convention. Free housing and cheap gas should be a right!!!

30

Sarah Palin opening offices in Iowa.

 

shit..

31 32 Yeah but the Worlds ending in 2012, so what?

I heard May 2011.

Posted by: runningrn at November 22, 2010 11:12 AM (qY2Vc)

There are days when I think the sooner the better. Those are usually the days when I have run out of Scotch

Me too.  Embrace it, as in the end, there will be only chaos.

/Why May 2011?

32

nevergiveup

(woman on phone to boyfriend) "You're going to drown in a vat of whiskey"

(W.C. Fields) "Drown in a vat of whiskey? Oh Death, where is thy sting?"

33 Me too. Embrace it, as in the end, there will be only chaos. /Why May 2011? Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at November 22, 2010 11:37 AM (9hSKh) Because the Weinberg Bar Mitzva had already booked April 2011

34 To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes

'Regulate' in 1787 was synonymous with 'regular' which was intended to make trade either fair or free. Subsequent case precedents have incorrectly led to a license to micromanage. Article I, Section 8 must be the rallying cry and point of education for the public.

35 34 Sarah Palin opening offices in Iowa. shit.. Posted by: Ben at November 22, 2010 11:36 AM (wuv1c) Yup. We're going to have to have a knock-down-drag-out debate on Sarah when Ace gets back from vacation.

36 Color me irritated that our Sebelius-replacement governor (whose name I don't even know) has pretended that we're not a red state and been silent on the whole deal. But incoming governor Brownback has already stated his intentions on FOX about suing the Obamanation. Yay Sam!

Our local rino/lib rag just editorialized about mofo Sam letting that free gov'ment money just slip away. Yay Sam!

37

Since Obamacare, as written, does not include a severability clause, any element of the law deemed to be unconstitutional, will render the whole of Obamacare unconstitutional.

Don't think this is correct.  I believe they go to severability analysis whether or not the statute so provides.

 

38 We're going to have to have a knock-down-drag-out debate on Sarah when Ace gets back from vacation. Posted by: joncelli© at November 22, 2010 11:40 AM (RD7QR) Can we wait till after the New Year when I'm sober. Well OK semi-sober

39 The Commerce Clause issue will be a challenge in deciding Obamacare because it would require the court to disregard stare decisis, the practice of honoring previous rulings without convincing reason to revisit them.

Not true.  I agree with you about the need for a strict reading of the Commerce Clause (i.e., as pre-Schecter); however, even given some case law erosion of Constitutional doctrine as it read prior to the Court-packing threat, there is still no precedent for the individual mandate.  None.

Obama's having thumbed his nose at the Court won't help him either.  He will lose this 5-4.

40 Sarah Palin opening offices in Iowa.

shit..

New rule, whoever wins the Iowa primary is disqualified.

41

ben

 

who would you like to see be the candidate?  anyone but sarah? because i think the voter's have pretty much said.....no more of the old boys club...it's time for new blood and rino's you are history

42 New rule, whoever wins the Iowa primary is disqualified. Posted by: John Galt at November 22, 2010 11:44 AM (F/4zf) I like that rule.

43 You know the problem with the legal profession? It's full of lawyers.

44 who would you like to see be the candidate? anyone but sarah? because i think the voter's have pretty much said.....no more of the old boys club...it's time for new blood and rino's you are history Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 22, 2010 11:45 AM (Cm66w) I am just worried in a Palin: Obama contest, since we have not completely destroyed the MSM it still could be a referendum on her and Obama could still get re-elected and we just can't risk that. I like her, but deep down i am not sure she is electable.

45 sorry, ot.

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=19205

The guy who video taped the little boy getting the strip search last was intimidated by the TSA, who tried to get him to delete the video.  TSA then shadowed him to his plane.  TSA has now started to confiscate cameras of those caught shooting the pat downs.

Lovely. Tyranny by any other name.

46

shit..

Posted by: Ben at November 22, 2010 11:36 AM

Did anyone think she wouldn't run?

I'm thinking those thousands of howling fanboyz have corrupted her judgment.

Leaving ideology aside briefly, our experience with Osama Obama should have proven that an unqualified, empty-resume president, even a "historic" one, can be nothing but an unmitigated disaster.

I can't count TV time, books and opinions posted on Facebook as "experience" when looking for a leader, any more than I'm impressed by one interrupted term as a governor.

It's a lose-lose situation, in which we're boned either way. Palin has the basics, but needs to temper them with real accomplishment. If she's elected at her current level of competency, we'll have another wasted four years on our hands.

47 OK on the new rule with the exception - if you can win Iowa while pledging to eliminate the ethanol subsidy - your my man/women/intelligent gerbil whatever.

48 Anyone who has a reality show should be disqualified from the office of President.

49

OK on the new rule with the exception - if you can win Iowa while pledging to eliminate the ethanol subsidy - your my man/women/intelligent gerbil whatever.

Exhbit Number kajillion that the process for nominating a President is screwy beyond redemption.

Iowa and New Hanmpshire?

50 Good news! The fate of the Republic is in the hands of Federal judges. We won a lot of judgeships a few Tuesdays ago, right?

51 I like her, but deep down i am not sure she is electable.

You know, the more I hear people criticize Palin, for one reason or another, the more she reminds me of Reagan at this stage of Carter's presidency.

Just, exactly, who is "electable"?  They've all got warts - many major (Romney - MassCare; Huck - pardons, etc. etc.)

The one thing Palin has is a remarkable set of values:  socially and fiscally conservative.  And they ring true with everyday people. 

She's for real.

52

We're going to have to have a knock-down-drag-out debate on Sarah when Ace gets back from vacation.
Posted by: joncelli© at November 22, 2010 11:40 AM (RD7QR)

Can we wait till after the New Year when I'm sober. Well OK semi-sober

I make a motion for post-Super Bowl.

Do I have a second?

53 New rule, whoever wins the Iowa primary is disqualified.

Posted by: John Galt at November 22, 2010 11:44 AM (F/4zf)

Not to worry all you RINO lovers. A true conservative NEVER wins Iowa or New Hampshire. 

That is why the Republican Party bosses have them first.

54 Stare decisis is Latin for "perpetuating stupidity."

55

true conservative

Oh, boy.

OK, I'll bite--define that term, please.

56 I guess the TSA guys don't realize the "phone" can send the video to the cloud, making brute confiscation counterproductive.

57

nevergiveup

 

i'm not sure she can be elected either but i know the parade of idiots they pull out every 4 yrs are not either 

58 how about anyone from the coasts is banned from being elected president and anyone from illinois..........

59

It strucke me a couple of days ago... that there might be an attack on this that WE can help with...

Under the 10th Amendment,

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.

And, we ALSO have the RIGHT to Petition for Redress... altough there is no current mechanism to do so.

There is also NO place in the Consitution, which states WHO gets to decided the MEANING of terms is the Constitution.... thus it could, under the 10th, devolve to the People.

So I sugest, an Online Petition, to be handed to the Administration, DEFINING the Commerce Clause, General Welfare Clause, and Emminent Domain, back to the Origional Intent.... signed by the People (under the Right to Petition for redress), and the 10th (where the Right to interpret the Constitution devolves to the People, as it is not explicitly granted to anyone else thorugh the Constitution).

 

60

#46, there we go with the "If you don't love Teh Sarah your a RINO!!11!eleventy" argument. Which has jack shit and fuck-all to do with the thread.

Just because some of us think other candidates are needed to unseat Obama does not make all of us RINOs. I'm not a Romney-Huckabee supporter. I'm liking Haley Barbour right now. Not sure he'll do it, but I used to live there and I do hear rumors out of Jackson. Yeah, he could be counted as a member of that old boy's club. Former RNC chair and two-time governor of Mississippi. But he's got a hefty resume, and can bring the GOP machinery to the table while being conservative enough to bring a lot of the Tea Party energy in. It's going to take a coalition of the conservative world to bring down Chicago Jesus, not one triumphant sect or another. We learned that with Angle and O'Donnell.

Sarah Palin is young. She is a long-term asset. Many great assets are expended before their time. Right now, her greatest good is her Facebook page, her kingmaking ability, and her ability to draw and withstand a lot of fire while other assets do the damage. Don't make the mistake of thinking she has to be the young Republican Messiah, some sort of Mirror Universe Obama.

61 'electability" = let the MFM chose our candidate for us. That worked so well in 2008 didn't it?

I guess we need another worthless poll 2 years in advance. After all, they were so damn accurate right up to the last minute this year.

How's that last poll in CA-20 working for you? 10 point Republican lead right?

The primary is the time to pick the candidate who you think is right, not who you think will win, because who you think will "win" is nothing more than a reflection of who the media puts on TV more.

Two years in advance it is nothing more than "name recognition". That is why the "old hands" always lead in the early days.

62

how about anyone from the coasts is banned from being elected president and anyone from illinois..........

Gulf Coast or East and West?

 

63 "True conservative":  A belief in small government, and the ability of the individual operating in a free environment, vastly to improve our society over the ability of government.  Works with both fiscal and social conservatism.

Another way to say it: Earning over Entitlement.

64 DC article on Randy Barnett's Repeal Amendment (courtesy Instapundit)

65 #68. And people wonder why I gave up on Christianity.

66 K, I'll bite--define that term, please.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at November 22, 2010 11:54 AM (B+qrE)

I guess you haven't been following the AOS threads much lately huh?

One of the authors on Breitbart said it best many months ago; Too may hyphenated conservative labels out there. 

What it boils down to in the end is small government, low taxes, and adhering to the Constitution as written.

67 okay, for the Sarah Palin fanbois out there: name one instance in history when the VP candidate, who hadn't been a VP before, from a losing ticket has ever come back to win the presidency in a subsequent year

68

sgt dan

 

if you don't support sarah...i don't think you are a rino...i'm asking the question..who is the one that all of us can get behind following our glorious victory in the mid term?  because the party is NOTORIOUS for not listening to it's constituents...look at the scrambling of the mitch mcconnel with the no ear marks....he was for them until we started screaming...so reluctently he had to agree to now be against them.   i like sarah, but i'm not sure she is the candidate...i just don't want it to be a rino.......

69 34 Sarah Palin opening offices in Iowa.shit..

Why would that upset you?  Just pick a candidate and beat her in the primaries.  If you can....And if you can't beat her in the primaries, your favorite can always run as an Inde, a la Linda Snortcokesky. 

70 TSA motto: Hey, I got my first job! Shouldn't we give grocery baggers badges, guns, and absolute authority, too? I mean, that's where all you suspects buy your illegally-large tubes of toothpaste. We could nip terrorism in the bud in the stores. For the children. And the SEIU.

71 I have been chosen by GOD HIMSELF (actually, Daddy) to RULE!  Vote Queen Leeza but be sure to spell the name right!

72

66 'electability" = let the MFM chose our candidate for us. That worked so well in 2008 didn't it?

Yep, and if that mindset gets as another McCain, we deserve whatever helll is unleashed on us.   I am fed up with the 'middle' being really 1980 Liberal. 

We're letting them make the rules and not even defending our own against abuse.  Sheesh....

73 i'm not sure she can be elected either but i know the parade of idiots they pull out every 4 yrs are not either Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 22, 2010 11:55 AM (Cm66w) Yup your probably right which is why I drink

74 74 okay, for the Sarah Palin fanbois out there: name one instance in history when the VP candidate, who hadn't been a VP before, from a losing ticket has ever come back to win the presidency in a subsequent year

Ronald Reagan (only he looked and sounded a lot like Bob Dole at the time).  And he got smarter after running as "Bob Dole"

75 east and west

76 Neither Romney or Huckabee should be allowed into the primaries. Those two are guaranteed to keep Barry & the Beast in the White House. Even if elected, do we really want awful RINOs further destroying the Republican 'brand' of limited government? George Bush and the past leadership, I talking to you Mitch McConnel, did lots of damage and turned the party into Democrat lite when it comes to the scope/spending of government. There's no way the Republic can survive if both political parties keep thinking everything can go on a national credit card and be administered by some bureaucrat.

77 nevergiveup... cheers

78
Re-Hash, it's what's for dinner.

79 Ronald Reagan (only he looked and sounded a lot like Bob Dole at the time).  And he got smarter after running as "Bob Dole"

Careful there, people get really cranky when you point out the Reagan similarities between the two.

80 Ronald Reagan (only he looked and sounded a lot like Bob Dole at the time).  And he got smarter after running as "Bob Dole"

I have no idea what this means.

81 List of known or probable 2012 GOP candidates: Sarah, Mitt, probably the Huckster, Pence. List of possible candidates: Pawlenty, John Thune. Throw in a dark horse just because (Ron Paul?). That makes a seven-person field, and we only know something about three of them (Sarah, Huck, RP). This is not exactly inspirational.

82 OMFG: I'm starting to get the email on listservs that I subscribe to, to call your senator to vote against the earmark ban because, if you don't, OUR PARTICULAR GOVERNMENT PROGRAM WILL BE ELIMINATED!!!111!!!!ELEVENTY!!!!!

the libs know we mean business

83 73 O/T but WOW!  I just looked out my window and the snow is really coming down!  I can't believe it's snowing and sticking here before Thanksgiving!  (And it's cold for here too--below 30 degrees!)

Global warming climate change climate disruption causes increased snow-fall and decreased temperature.  Just ask Algore, .

Don't you just love it when warmeners make ridiculous claims like "climate is not weather", forgetting that the two are closely linked?

84 When Charlton Heston comes back, he's going to find the sky-scraping statue of Barack Caesar sticking out of the sand, and suddenly everything will make sense.

85 The future of states rights hung in the balance a long time ago, and the states lost.

86

"Ronald Reagan (only he looked and sounded a lot like Bob Dole at the time).  And he got smarter after running as "Bob Dole"

I have no idea what this means."

 

The velvet cobra flies at midnight.

87 92 OMFG: I'm starting to get the email on listservs that I subscribe to, to call your senator to vote against the earmark ban because, if you don't, OUR PARTICULAR GOVERNMENT PROGRAM WILL BE ELIMINATED!!!111!!!!ELEVENTY!!!!!

Speaking of listservs, I accidently put my e-mail (along with Ace's   ) address on that stupid "global warming, fact or fiction" quiz the Union of Concerned Scientists put on FB a week or two ago. 

Here's a paragraph from one of their recent screeds:

Never before have so many of the issues that you and I care about been in motion at one time. But at every turn, we face powerful opposition. We have seen the oil, coal, and agribusiness industries—and the legislators who support them—continue to block progress by misleading the public with unproven claims and faulty analysis.

88 jumping right in here and I'm sure it's been said, but we need the entire kitchen sink approach with this . leave nothing on the table and we certainly don't want to rely on a lack of severability clause to make the case. the free enterprise fund decided only a few months back is a good indicator that courts are willing to look beyond that - egregious as it may be.

89 The velvet cobra flies at midnight. Posted by: Joanie (Oven Gloves) at November 22, 2010 12:19 PM (HaYO4) Return to the Afghanistan banana stand. Repeat: Return to the Afghanistan banana stand.

90
The guy who video taped the little boy getting the strip search last was intimidated by the TSA, who tried to get him to delete the video.  TSA then shadowed him to his plane.  TSA has now started to confiscate cameras of those caught shooting the pat downs.

Lovely. Tyranny by any other name.

Posted by: Derak at November 22, 2010 11:49 AM (CjpKH)

IMO, one area we could use a law is to make it so that all uniformed federal, state, and local law enforcement agents (DOD excluded) automatically agree to being videotaped when acting in their official roles. 

This notion of going after people for videotaping cops/TSA/etc agents and getting grief for it has to end.

91 runningrn, the stress test showed everything normal - so I've started working out at the Y

92 runningrn thanx for your concern   I know your prayers made a difference

93 everyone should be calling their congress critters encouraging them to vote no on the dream act....

94

Exhbit Number kajillion that the process for nominating a President is screwy beyond redemption.

Iowa and New Hanmpshire?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at November 22, 2010 11:51 AM (B+qrE)

I'd suggest setting the primary structure based on number of Republican voters in the last presidential election.

So, I presume Texas would be first, Rhode Island would probably be last. It would reward states with a good Republican organization, and better reflect Republicans over all - Iowa and New Hampshire tend to be outliers as everyone is noting.

95 I had a headache Sunday. It could have been caused by all the beer I drank Saturday night....but I am thinking climate change. Can I haz grant to study that theory, please? Posted by: Mallamutt at November 22, 2010 12:22 PM (OWjjx) Why not? They're trying to tell us that AGW causes everything from bad knees to skunky beer, so you might as well throw that in too.

96 It's like clockwork...

Every winter, during a major snowstorm:
drooling libtard: "CLIMATE IS NOT WEATHER LOTS OF SNOW DOESN'T MEAN GLOBAL WARMING ISN'T REAL"

Every summer, during a heat wave:
drooling libtard: "SEE? SEE?, GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL YOU IDIOTS, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE WHEN THE PLANET MELTS!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!"

97 108 everyone should be calling their congress critters encouraging them to vote no on the dream act....

Speaking of illegal aliens, check out this story on Michelle Malkin's site:

Dianne Feinstein grants an illegal alien deportation waiver

98 More on healthscam and executive fiat from Fox:

A new regulation introduced by the Health and Human Services Department requires insurance companies to give consumers a rebate if they don't spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical care.

I had to rush over to the bookshelf and check my copy of the "annotated Constitution" to make sure that the stuff under the authorities of the President had not changed.

99

A most excellent post, Journolist. Thanks, from someone who doesn't follow the courts closely at all.

Actually, all the Open Bloggers are doing fine work. (You, too, Purple Avenger.)

100 TSA has now started to confiscate cameras of those caught shooting the pat downs.

When did the executive department get the authority to steal the property of private citizens without court action?

101 Instead of backing Miller in the Alaska race, Sarah should have run for Senate herself..  Then, after 2 terms, I would be willing to look at her record and speeches and positions on the hundred of policies she has thus far never spoken about and decide if she is a serious candidate.

As of now, a half-term ex-governor of a tiny population state (although big geographically) who spends her time tweeting, writing books  and being a reality show host, does not strike me as "serious".  She's got all the right "sentiments".. but shit... so do most of the morons that inhabit this place.. and I sure as shit ain't voting for any of you's guys..

So, let's drop the debate about Sarah until after the first of the year.. or start a new thread about it..

102

vic

 

these agents are out of control....

103 these agents are out of control.... Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 22, 2010 12:35 PM (Cm66w) Lets be honest, these "agents" are not the best of the best?

104

I had a headache Sunday. It could have been caused by all the beer I drank Saturday night....but I am thinking climate change. Can I haz grant to study that theory, please?

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 22, 2010 12:22 PM (OWjjx)

Well... CO2 does displace oxygen, and oxygen is good to get rid of hangovers... soooooo...

1. Submitting BS plan for study..

2....???

3. PROFIT!

105 As of now, a half-term ex-governor of a tiny population state (although big geographically) who spends her time tweeting, writing books  and being a reality show host, does not strike me as "serious".

Kinda like an actor making movies with chimps?  "Bedtime for Bonzo".  What can be less serious than that?

106 "True conservative"(tm)

Someone who does not endorse people like John McCain.

107 What can be less serious than that? Posted by: Roger at November 22, 2010 12:38 PM (tAwhy) Community Organizer?

108 Here's a thought.  How about if we nominate a person for President who isn't so polarizing among the CONSERVATIVE BASE itself?

109 Simply put, I believe the Constitution means what is says and says what it means. The Constitution should be regarded in this manner since it functions as the framework for the United States government and the supreme law of the land.

Eventually, nuance upon nuance extinguishes the original essence, leaving only the latest top coat of nuance/shellac. This shellacking is merely the latest destruction of the Constitution that began with Wilson's total disregard and disgust for the constitutional constraints that his authoritarian administration ignored all together. Federal authoritarians simply won't tolerate the audacity of American citizens still clinging stubbornly to the US Constitution.

110 You seem to forget in the interim Reagan served as Governor of the state of California - the state with a budget larger than most countries throughout the world.

That, in my book, makes someone serious.  And, as I said for Sarah, if she would settle down and build a body of accomplishments in politics I would seriously consider her.  As of now, she hasn't.

111 Actually the State with the highest Republican percentage in 2008 was WY (my favorite State)

65% Repub vs 33% Dem

112 Community Organizer?

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 22, 2010 12:39 PM (0GFWk)

Well, you either proved or dis-proved my point.  I think.

113

Hello........RINO.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 22, 2010 12:37 PM (OWjjx)

Hmm...ok perhaps, Republican votes by states the Republican candidate won, followed by those that lost? Then we'd have;

TX
GA
TN
MS
AL

Not a bad five first states to get a conservative...

Ok, and looking at which states we would have had in 2008 with this system;

TX
FL
OH
NC
VA

I'm guessing both the Huckster and McCain would have done more poorly with this starting five.

114

130 Here's a thought.  How about if we nominate a person for President who isn't so polarizing among the CONSERVATIVE BASE itself?

Is there one?  Is there one that doesn't cause me to weep for their poor wives having to live with them?

115 Because the bottom line is, the stakes are so high that the execution of our strategy has to be flawless.  So if we nominate a candidate that is continually going to get undercut by our own team, then we will lose to the Obama Machine.

116 How about this for all you "electability" people: The current "choice candidates" according to the laters Gallop polls are:

1. Tired old flip flop retread RINO Mitt at 19%
2. Palin the hated unelectable scrunt at 16%
3. Huck the liberal religious *uck at 16%
4. None at 14%
5. Eye of couch sitting Newt at 13%

There is your current top 5 in "electability".

117 Vic, you know as well as I do that the poll only reflects the respondent's choice among those options that are given.  So OF THOSE FOUR, yeah, Mitt is apparently the most 'popular' (I just threw up a little).  I'm hoping that we get a fresh face.

118 If the constitution's meaning can change over, if it can be 'interpreted' in light of modern society-- than it is in fact meaningless.

119 Lordy-- look at who we had, all three-- Romney, Huckabee and McCain...pure blah bland Rinohood. 

Again, I weep for their poor wives!

120 Winner of the 2008 Iowa Republican caucus "Huck" followed by Romney.

Winner of NH Primary McCain followed by Romney

Winner of SC primary McCain followed by Huck (with many many "irregularities" such as Myrtle Beach running out of ballots at 10 am)

Keep in mind who owns the statewide Republican Party in SC.

After looking at this, and knowing who the top 5 current contenders are I have zero hope for the Republican Party.

121 Vic, you know as well as I do that the poll only reflects the respondent's choice among those options that are given.

Actually some of the respondents volunteered a candidate not on the list. Cristie got 1%.

But this poll illustrates my point. "Electability" based on polls are nothing more than a media circus of "popularity" of face time on the news.

122

After looking at this, and knowing who the top 5 current contenders are I have zero hope for the Republican Party.

Ditto-- yes, we need a fresh face, but not so fresh they've only served 1 year as governor, senator etc.  Which is what we're faced with.

Either that or we rehab a 'not so fresh' face and make it a team effort to make them palatable.   Sadly, no group is more cruel to it's own than the GOP.  We not only eat our young but we like torturing them a few years first while calling them names and then whining that they didn't win.

123 McCain did win because of winner take all (most of all).

Stupid rules allow for a candidate to win almost all the delegates with 30% of the vote. That is bullshit. You wind up with a candidate that that the base hates and they stay at home.

124

You wind up with a candidate that that the base hates and they stay at home.

No, you end up with me.  Somone who has voted over and over for the conservative candiate that I literally loathed and felt I needed an SAE after voting.    But I was a good little drone and I voted correctly for the sake of the party, country etc. 

And we still got crap and every year.  I'm now out for purely selfish reasons.  Just once before I die, I'd really like to vote for someone that I'm proud to vote for...I'm tired of being screwed with dinner, much less a kiss. 

So no, what you end up with is a bunch of pissed off one night stands

125 74 okay, for the Sarah Palin fanbois out there: name one instance in history when the VP candidate, who hadn't been a VP before, from a losing ticket has ever come back to win the presidency in a subsequent year<<<

Oh, my bad.  I didn't realize we were not allowed to do new stuff.

And you can cram "fanboi", boi.

126 I'm now out for purely selfish reasons.  Just once before I die, I'd really like to vote for someone that I'm proud to vote for...I'm tired of being screwed with dinner, much less a kiss.

Yep, I voted for Palin. Before she was nominated I intended to vote 3rd party myself. My intent was to let the Republican Party know I was tired of BS RINO candidates. But I figured if McCain did win Palin would have a lock on 2012 because McCain would be one term.

After 2008 (and standing in line in the rain) I swore no more voting for the "lesser of the evils". I would like one candidate to vote FOR since 1984.

If they primary in another damn RINO in 2012 I will go permanently to Libertarian crack pots.

127 If they primary in another damn RINO in 2012 I will go permanently to Libertarian crack pots.

Ditto again,   Most of my circle of friends are libertarian and its growing daily......seems everyone has develoeped low Rino tolerance.

128 I still say the only way we will ever get a "conservative" candidate is go to proportional delegates and set the order of the primaries by percentage "red" vote in previous election.

Open primaries was probably not a factor and that is controlled by State law anyway and not subject to Republican "rules".

129 One other rule that may help is to have the bottom 50% of the candidates drop out after the last primary before super Tuesday.

Then after super Tuesday have the next bottom 50% drop out.

130 Re severability. your comment that if the severability clause is missing, it automatically means that it cannot be severed is wrong. The case law actually has a test for severability in the absence of a severability clause. i don't remember the exact wording, but the gist was that if the courts believe the law would not have been passed without that part of the law, then no severability. now, if the mandate is struck down... i think that meets the test. the mandate was key to making the whole thing work, economically. without it, not nearly enough people are forced into coverage to make it make sense. so i think obamacare will not be severed, but its not as simple as you imagine.

131 The rules of 2008 are not that much different than the rules of 1980.

Yes, and in 1980 the Republican bosses thought they were getting a RINO then too. After all, he WAS a CA governor and an actor. He fooled them.

If you go back and look at the modern Republican Party we have nominated and ran RINOs in every election since FDR except 1980 when they though they were getting a RINO and in 1964 when they got Goldwater thanks to a never to be repeated fluke.

132 97
Basically it stated that there have been a lot of huge rogue waves (in the ocean) recorded.  It attributed it to "climate change" but conceded that it couldn't be ascertained whether or not this was human caused.  Junk science is junk science--a flawed hypothesis built on a stack of flimsy lies.
Posted by: runningrn at November 22, 2010 12:19 PM (qY2Vc)

Seeing as how the ability to detect rogue waves came about only recently, there is no baseline against which to determine what constitutes "a lot". For all we know, whatever number have been detected is normal or may even be below normal. Until sufficient data have been obtained to provide an estimate of normal, this doesn't even rise to the level of junk science.

133 If RINO means Republican in name only, what happens when all Republicans become RINOs? If the essence of the Republican Party becomes RINOism, then wouldn't the RINOs be the true Republicans? And, therefore, wouldn't they not be RINOs?

134

Open primaries was probably not a factor and that is controlled by State law anyway and not subject to Republican "rules".

I think it was a factor for McCain and New Hampshire. IIRC, McCain had half his votes from "independents" in NH. If McCain lost New Hampshire he would have dropped out.

I agree with Mallamutt's general idea. Huckabee sucked up a large portion of conservative Baptist votes. Especially in the South, there wasn't enough conservative votes left for Romney. McCain had a lock on military and independent votes.

I personally voted for Romney in the Alabama primary (Fred dropped out though he was still on the ballot) as I considered him the best alternative between him, McCain and Huckabee. Not a good choice, really.

I agree with Mallamutt again in that the solution is to get more viable conservative candidates. The problem is that conservative candidates are kneecapped by the media and RINOs.

135 If the essence of the Republican Party becomes RINOism, then wouldn't the RINOs be the true Republicans? And, therefore, wouldn't they not be RINOs?

Posted by: FireHorse at November 22, 2010 02:46 PM (sWynj)

That will be the day when they change the platform to big government liberalism. Then they will no longer be RINOs since that will be the Party creed.

136 I agree with Mallamutt's general idea. Huckabee sucked up a large portion of conservative RELIGIOUS Baptist votes.

FTFY

Conservatives saw through his populist shtick.

137

I'm trying to think of some candidate that has 1)significant executive governmental experience 2)not currently in the Federal government, 3)sufficiently fiscal and social conservative 4)so far has broad based appeal.

The only one I can think of is Bobby Jindal (maybe Tim Pawlenty).

138

If the less conservative candidate wins, there is usually a reason for it. Grand establishment conspiracies usually aren't one of them.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 22, 2010 02:55 PM (OWjjx)

Then tell me why Iowa and NH go first and we can't get it changed. Also tell me how many "conservatives" have won the primaries other than Reagan and Goldwater in the last 60 years?

Its not much of a "conspiracy" when the RINOs win every damn time.

139

The only one I can think of is Bobby Jindal (maybe Tim Pawlenty).

Posted by: Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz at November 22, 2010 03:00 PM (Bs34i)

Someone from LA was on here a few days ago really trashing him. Evidently he has gone "bad" since the election.

140 Both Bush's were RINOs.

And while "State" law controls the date, the RNC sets those dates and they get the States to vote them in. They did that this year as a matter of fact, and guess what? Iowa and NH are first again.

They also moved SC back to where it was originally (later date) so SC will have to pass another bill to move it.

141 And last time I checked, South Carolina was fairly conservative.

The reason McCain won SC was two-fold (1) Lindsey Graham runs the State Republican Party (2) Winner take all despite only 33% of the vote (with polls running out of ballots at 10 am in the most populous area of the State.

142 Haley Barbour

I could live with him, although would have to do some research.

143

#170, I'm living in Louisiana right now, and no, he has not done anything to impress lately. People figure he knuckled under to the Feds with the oil spill and the drilling moratorium.

And the quality of the roads in this state suck shit. I saw better paving jobs in Iraq. I'm going to need new shocks before I finish this job down here. 

Jindal gave a great speech at the NRA Annual Meeting a couple years ago, but living in this fucked up state has not sold him to me as deserving of promotion. Get me the fuck back to Tennessee where I belong.

Contrarily, I've been driving through Mississippi along the I-20/I-55 corridors no less than once per month for the last year and a half. That's an area I knew real well from my Ole Miss years in the 1990's. That state has boomed and boomed hard in a lot of places. Between Barbour and Kirk Fordice before him, interesting things happened in the last 16 years.

And the governor before Fordice was Ray Mabus, who Obama appointed to be Secretary of the Navy. His qualifications for that position are unknown to me.  

144 74 okay, for the Sarah Palin fanbois out there: name one instance in history when the VP candidate, who hadn't been a VP before, from a losing ticket has ever come back to win the presidency in a subsequent year

Not a fanboi by any measure, but:  Franklin Roosevelt.  (running mate of James Cox in 1920)

145 Ray Mabus, qualifications???

Liberal Democrat lawyer and friend of Bill Clinton.

146

Posted by: SGT Dan at November 22, 2010 03:34 PM (GgXZc)

Dan, you've got it right.  Jindal has been a total disappointment as governor here, to put it mildly.  Almost from the day he took office, he's taken every opportunity he could to enable the rotten-to-the-core legislature (perhaps the most corrupt state legislature in the country). In a direct violation of a specific campaign pledge, he tried to look the other way when the Louisiana leges attempted to raise their salaries to among the highest of any state legislators in the country (and as you can see by looking around you, they have NOT earned it).  As visible as he's been to the crooks in Baton Rouge, he's been INvisible to most of the rest of us, spending much of his time flying around the country trying to line up money and support for his next run for office, which is really a continuance of the entire trajectory of his public career.

It was at Jindal's urging that, in 2008, the leges raised the state's spending cap by a billion dollars -- and then, naturally, promptly spent it all.  What they spent it on, hell; WE don't know, nobody really knows, any more than they know where all the federal funds shuttled down here for levee maintenance in New Orleans over the last 50 years went.  As a result the State of Louisiana is facing a fiscal implosion next year not unlike that looming for many other financially irresponsible states.  It's so bad that rumors have been flying around this year that Jindal will resign his office to get the hell out of town before the shit hits the fan; this is one reason the special election conducted this month for the open lieutenant governor's office, an office that otherwise does next to nothing, garnered so much money and attention, and the candidacy of Secretary of State Dardenne (whose win puts him on track to be the next gov.).

Jindal's a flop.  Granted, this state was already fucked all to hell before he showed up, but he's made things even worse.  He's the anti-Chris Christie and belongs nowhere on a presidential ticket or in a national administration.

147

People who believe in RINO conspiracies are stuck in 1976.

 

148 Oh and by the way, remember the "Louisiana Purchase"?  That was Jindal's idea.  I shit you not.  It was he who, rather than fight for an industry that comprises one of the largest economic sectors of his state, instead whispered into Mary Landrieu's ear to push for whatever short-term carve-out she could get for Louisiana, never mind that ObamaCare will ultimately kill the entire health-care industry.

Do y'all remember seeing or hearing anything at all from Jindal, the man whom Rush touted in 2008 as "the next Ronald Reagan" (and I once believed that too), between his disastrous State of the Union response in '09 and the oil spill this summer?  Neither does anyone down here.

149

#179, Google tells me he'd at least been a serving Navy officer. The USS Little Rock Association has a really great pic of him from 1972, before the Navy changed the uniform regs to do away with beards. His is awful, he looks like a Saudi imam with that thing.

I'm trying to remember if he had any offspring at Ole Miss while I was there. Trent Lott's daughter was smoking hot. I don't know why they named her Tyler, that's a guy's name to me.

War Between the Undead, if you're anywhere near Fort Polk, let's grab a beer some weekend.

 

 

150 The USS Little Rock Association has a really great pic of him from 1972, before the Navy changed the uniform regs to do away with beards.

LOL, I was in the Navy from 1970 to 1977. Believe me, they discouraged beards on officers. I don't recall seeing a single officer with a beard the entire time.

They discouraged them on the EMs as well but you could wear one if your CO approved it via a "beard chit".

151 "I thought severability is assumed even if there is no severability clause explicitly included.  No?"

Yes, that's correct.  Express severability clauses are essentially redundant.  A statute comes before the court with a presumption of constitutionality, and the court must construe it in a manner such that it comports with the Constitution if it's reasonably possible to interpret its language that way.

Moreover, if some section of a statute is being challenged, the rest of it really isn't even at issue, so the question of the constitutionality of other parts of the statute isn't before the court to be determined and any comment on the subject by the court is dicta.  The federal courts especially, as courts of limited jurisdiction confined to live "cases or controversies," do not issue advisory opinions.

152

Much like the Kelo decision I have great faith that the Supreme Clowns will screw this up.

Consider that the Second Amendment was upheld by a 5:4 vote when the language is totally plain and is admittedly so by even (honest) leftist scholars. Add that to Kelo and other idiocies and I have great fear for my country.