February 11, 2014

The Danger Of Masking Personal Preference As Political Philosophy
— DrewM

Peter Wehner and Michael Gerson are two liberals pretending to be conservatives. They are veterans of the George W. Bush who are working very hard to bring back "compassionate conservatism" and present it as actual conservatism. You can read about Wehner's inability to understand conservatism here, Gerson's announcement that the GOP needs to become more liberal to attract amnestied Hispanics here. Most recently the duo combined to write a long and tedious piece about how conservatives need to give up on the idea of limited government and embrace the supposed constitutional underpinnings of the modern welfare state.

Charles Cooke and Wehner have been engaging in a back and forth about the Wehner/Gerson model for understanding the Constitution.

In his reply to Cooke, Wehner gives up the game that he actually believes in enumerated powers or constitutional restraints on the government.

As for the charge of embracing a “living Constitution”: It is one thing, and I believe quite a problematic thing, for judges to invent and create and impose on the public invented rights. But in the representative democracy the founders created, they certainly believed that within certain parameters the will of the people, ratified in election after election and by Congress after Congress, needed to be taken into account.

So if enough people vote for something often enough the Constitution doesn't matter. This would be the opposite of the point of having a Constitution. Some things are beyond the reach of the majority.

We can talk about the political realities of repealing Social Security another time (spoiler: math will do it for us) but the supposed principle Wehner lays down is not a principle in any recognized sense.

This is my problem with people like Wehner, Gerson and Andrew Sullivan...they conflate their personal views with what is right, necessary and ultimately, constitutional. They then go about privileging their personal predilections with all sorts of protections and erecting hurdles others might overcome to challenge their ideal policies.

Here's my test to determine how serious someone is about the Constitution...name a policy you would like to see either enacted or outlawed that is not supported by the Constitution and then admit it. I don't mean something silly like "I hate broccoli and think it should be outlawed" but something that goes to the heart of your politics and beliefs.

One example is some pro-life people admit the Constitution is silent on abortion and that a Right to Life amendment would be necessary to outlaw it at the federal level. This is a principled position that doesn't assert that using the tools of the left, usurping political power with the judicial.

Personally, I'm very concerned about the encroaching surveillance state. I hate those licence plate readers that police and other government agencies are using. I am very worried about the proliferation of "security" cameras and things like facial recognition software. What I can't do is figure out a legitimate constitutional argument against their use (at least as we currently know they are being used).

Do I think that we should elect people who will minimize, if not eliminate, these kinds of things? Yes because that's a policy question and that's for a elected officials to decide and be held accountable for.

If I took the Wehner/Gerson model I'd go about finding reasons why they should be found unconstitutional. All I'd need is a few nifty quotes from some founders and presto-chango! My preferred outcome wouldn't be the subject of mere politics but a bedrock constitutional principle that you all must respect and adapt to.

No matte what they might say the Wehner/Gerson approach has no limits to it. Why if we can just get enough votes we might be able to pass a law that Wehner/Gerson can no long publish their nonsense. Sure it would violate the First Amendment but according to their "principles" that doesn't matter.

Hey, maybe there approach isn't so bad after all.

Nah, loathe them as I do, my principles are more important to me than they are.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:08 AM | Comments (267)
Post contains 687 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Personally, I'm very concerned about the encroaching surveillance state. I hate those licence plate readers that police and other government agencies are using. I am very worried about the proliferation of "security" cameras and things like facial recognition software. What I can't do is figure out a legitimate constitutional argument against their use (at least as we currently know they are being used). Do I think that we should elect people who will minimize, if not eliminate, these kinds of things? Yes because that's a policy question and that's for a elected officials to decide and be held accountable for. This^^^ is a main reason why I am tentatively supporting Rand Paul.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 07:12 AM (7ObY1)

2

 >>>I'm very concerned about the encroaching surveillance state

 

Just buy a hat, Drew

Posted by: Bigby's Jazz Hands at February 11, 2014 07:14 AM (3ZtZW)

3 Personally, I'm very concerned about the encroaching surveillance state.


Better ditch your smart phone.  And computer.  And anything else electronic that is networked.

Posted by: Country Singer at February 11, 2014 07:14 AM (L8r/r)

4 Facial recognition algorithms can be totally screwed up if you wear a mask all the time.

Posted by: Bigby's Jazz Hands at February 11, 2014 07:15 AM (3ZtZW)

5 I am very worried about the proliferation of "security" cameras and things like facial recognition software.

Mask defeats FRS everytime.

Posted by: EC at February 11, 2014 07:15 AM (GQ8sn)

6 OT: have you guys seen Ted Cruz's birthday message to Sarah Palin? I love this guy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiJj44XHB4I

Posted by: DangerGirl and her Sanity Prod (tm) at February 11, 2014 07:17 AM (waJ+2)

7 The important question is -- how much more gay can Johnny Weir get? I'm only half watching the Olympics. But I turn it on every day to see what's going on. As far as I can tell the Olympics now consists of 57 different figure skating events and a biathlon. But what's funny is that Johnny Weir seems to be ratcheting up the uber-camp gayness every day. Maybe every hour, not sure. Every time I see him he has more make-up on, more glitter, more and every gaudier jewelry, and is wearing ever more pink. I expect by the end he'll be broadcasting in full drag, possibly post-operative.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 11, 2014 07:17 AM (ZPrif)

8 Seems to be a lot of "Republican" posers, these days. Iowa GOP Senate Candidate Gave Money to Corzine Supported Arlen Specter, cap and trade. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gop-senate-candidate-gave-money-corzine_778917.html I found this part intriguing: The Federal Elections Commission filing can be viewed here. Jacobs’s first name is misspelled as “Marc,” though the Republican’s campaign confirms Jacobs made the donation. misspelling?

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 11, 2014 07:18 AM (IXrOn)

9

I find that the tin pie pans work great at keeping the surveillance state out of my head.

 

In a pinch, the disposable aluminum pie pans can do the job as well.

 

But in either case, finish the pie first.  I don't know how many times Jill's had to clean meringue out of my 'do before I head out of the house.

Posted by: Joe Biden at February 11, 2014 07:19 AM (xvtYZ)

10

Personally, I'm very concerned about the encroaching surveillance state. I hate those licence plate readers that police and other government agencies are using. I am very worried about the proliferation of "security" cameras and things like facial recognition software. What I can't do is figure out a legitimate constitutional argument against their use (at least as we currently know they are being used).

 

 

I tried really hard to fight a random license plate stop on 4th Amendment grounds.  Kept going back to court every time they reduced the fine and saying "fuck you, I want a trial".  Because I wanted standing and I think it is unconstitutional.  Weasels just dropped the case against me.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at February 11, 2014 07:19 AM (A0sHn)

11 Alls I can say is: Drew, fukkin A.

Posted by: maddogg at February 11, 2014 07:19 AM (xWW96)

12

srsly tho - I was thinking on the people that came to the US from places like the USSR and how they were always amazed and happy as little kids to be part of it all. Like how it blew them away we had all this stuff and were free and all - an inner feeling you can't really touch.

 

Then I was thinking about this survellance/police State thing and how I might feel in a place that had none of that. I dunno. Best outcome might be one of those EMPs we keep getting instructed to be scared of.

Posted by: Bigby's Jazz Hands at February 11, 2014 07:20 AM (3ZtZW)

13

>>>Mask defeats FRS everytime.

 

There's prolly money to be made doing stuff like IR diodes in ties and hats and collars in jackets, etc.

Posted by: Bigby's Jazz Hands at February 11, 2014 07:21 AM (3ZtZW)

14 "One example is some pro-life people admit the Constitution is silent on abortion and that a Right to Life amendment would be necessary to outlaw it at the federal level. This is a principled position that doesn't assert that using the tools of the left, usurping political power with the judicial." if the constitution is silent on it shouldnt it go to the states? the 14th amendment was adopted after the civil war to deal with the aftermath of that anti-abortion laws had been on the books since the 1830s at that point when the 14th amendment was adopted you didnt see people running around in the streets hailing it as a victory for womens reproductive rights it took roughly 100 years and 7 fuckin mind bending contortionist assholes in black robes to find abortion in the 14th amendment IT AINT THERE

Posted by: sound awake at February 11, 2014 07:21 AM (pk/NG)

15

The surveillance state is a good point.  Unless there is an expectation of privacy the government can watch.  Take, for example drones - aka unmanned arial vehicles.  What is so bad about them that isn't shared by a manned aircraft?  That they are smaller and cheaper?  There isn't anything unconstitutional about them that I can think of.

 

 

Posted by: Mikey NTH - President's Day Sale - All Red Hot Rage 15% Off! at February 11, 2014 07:22 AM (hLRSq)

16 Then get an Amendment in there you idiot.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 11, 2014 07:23 AM (Z/g31)

17 So I guess no one is going to tell us why ace has disappeared?

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at February 11, 2014 07:23 AM (bCEmE)

18 What's the word on Ace?  How's he doing?  Last I heard he was feeling under the weather?

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 11, 2014 07:24 AM (Z7PrM)

19 Surveillance state is very, very hard to stop. Technology makes it ever cheaper. Camera chips being stamped out for pennies. Best way to combat it is fight fire vs fire -- the Panopticon. In the near future every middle class house will be festooned with cameras. Everyone will have dash cams. Everyone will have personal lifecams. All tied into facial recognition. The only way to limit government abuse will be to record everything they do. Only time police departments change bad behavior is when they get caught on camera. Without that they'd just lie, deny, and make counter-accusations. Technology trends make video surveillance cheaper every year. Likely impossible to build a dam strong enough to hold that back. Especially since most voters will demand more surveillance in the name of public safety anytime something bad happens.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 11, 2014 07:24 AM (ZPrif)

20 Drew Wrote: " Personally, I'm very concerned about the encroaching surveillance state. I hate those licence plate readers that police and other government agencies are using. I am very worried about the proliferation of "security" cameras and things like facial recognition software. What I can't do is figure out a legitimate constitutional argument against their use (at least as we currently know they are being used)." I fear there is no solution. The future is going to have us cataloged and track our every movement and utterance. Why? Because technology will make it too easy to do so. It will become an irresistible temptation for all-mighty government. They simply won't be able to help themselves.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 11, 2014 07:24 AM (bb5+k)

21 Mask defeats FRS everytime.


Guy Fawkes -- the guy is EVERYWHERE!

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 11, 2014 07:24 AM (8ZskC)

22 So I guess no one is going to tell us why ace has disappeared?


Hobo meat is a helluva drug.


Posted by: EC at February 11, 2014 07:24 AM (GQ8sn)

23 Everyone seems mum on the subject, Tami.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 11, 2014 07:25 AM (Z7PrM)

24 There isn't anything unconstitutional about them that I can think of. Posted by: Mikey NTH - President's Day Sale - All Red Hot Rage 15% Off! at February 11, 2014 11:22 AM (hLRSq) And therein lies the rub. Unless you push back as the surveillance encroaches, it becomes part of common life. Once it's there, then you no longer have a "reasonable expectation" of privacy, since you "know" you could always been seen, heard, or otherwise have communication intercepted.

Posted by: AMDG at February 11, 2014 07:25 AM (t7OO0)

25 What's the word on Ace? How's he doing? Last I heard he was feeling under the weather?


Ace sleeps with the fishes.

Posted by: Tessio at February 11, 2014 07:25 AM (8ZskC)

26

>>>In the near future every middle class house will be festooned with cameras. Everyone will have dash cams. Everyone will have personal lifecams. All tied into facial recognition.

 

Sousveillance.

Posted by: Bigby's Jazz Hands at February 11, 2014 07:26 AM (3ZtZW)

27 So I guess no one is going to tell us why ace has disappeared?


"Hiking the Appalachian trails."  How does that work for you?

Posted by: Mark Sanford at February 11, 2014 07:26 AM (8ZskC)

28 Ace sleeps with the fishes. --- Follow me to the Springfield aquarium!

Posted by: Troy McClure at February 11, 2014 07:26 AM (/Crba)

29 Me wanting the debt limit reduced, not increased, is that personal preference or constitutional philosophy?

Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at February 11, 2014 07:26 AM (kxSZr)

30 "This is my problem with people like Wehner, Gerson and Andrew Sullivan...they conflate their personal views with what is right, necessary and ultimately, constitutional." I find trouser creases to be a more objective measure.

Posted by: David Brooks at February 11, 2014 07:26 AM (rCOda)

31 I would like to see the Senate as the States' house and abolish the direct election of Senators. Then Senators could be appointed by their respective State governments and represent the interests of the State gov'ts rather than just act as the 'upper' People's legislative chamber. Crazy idea, I know.

Posted by: mugiwara at February 11, 2014 07:27 AM (W7ffl)

32 To the Surveillance State - I am a meat popsicle.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 11, 2014 07:27 AM (Z/g31)

33 Comrade, you are free to do whatever is permitted.  In fact, you must do what is permitted, but of your own free will, of course.

Posted by: Caliph Barky al-Ochoomba at February 11, 2014 07:27 AM (o3MSL)

34

>>>There isn't anything unconstitutional about them that I can think of.

 

4th Amendment has no penumbras or emanations, I guess.

Posted by: Bigby's Jazz Hands at February 11, 2014 07:27 AM (3ZtZW)

35 In the surveillance state, those in the police or investigating agencies of government rely on a machine, a computer, a program, whatever , to collect this data. I don't believe that at this time any of these devices has the rights of a resident or citizen, and cannot be cross-examined in a court. To surveil our large population requires these devices, computers, whatever....because there are not enough cops, spies, rat-bastard citizens to snitch out everyone who runs a red light, drives over the speed limit, smokes a doobie in the basement or whatever. Fill out your taxes wrong - again, a computer will be used to catch that , but the IRS is literally a law unto itself, and that HAS to change.

Posted by: Ribald Conservative riding Orca at February 11, 2014 07:28 AM (RFeQD)

36 i was pulled over by a policeman with a license checker. my wife it turns out hadn't paid a red light camera ticket.

Posted by: Avi at February 11, 2014 07:28 AM (p/izY)

37 You know, at least I admit that alextopia is a. a theoretical construct and II. a benevolent(ish) dictatorship.

Posted by: alexthechick - Come to us, oh mighty SMOD at February 11, 2014 07:28 AM (VtjlW)

38 it took roughly 100 years and 7 fuckin mind bending contortionist assholes in black robes to find abortion in the 14th amendment IT AINT THERE Posted by: sound awake at February 11, 2014 11:21 AM (pk/NG) This. Per Drew's comment, the constitution can be interpreted as "silent" on the issue because it's so self evidently incompatible with natural law that the founders would be dumbfounded that anyone should suggest special mention of prohibiting it.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 11, 2014 07:28 AM (bb5+k)

39 What I can't do is figure out a legitimate constitutional argument against their use (at least as we currently know they are being used). Here, let me help you: No government entity may, without probable cause and a signed warrant, collect ANY information on ANY citizen. What's going on with the NSA is very clearly unconstitutional, which means it's illegal. This isn't rocket surgery...

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 11, 2014 07:29 AM (0HooB)

40 Should I just go ahead and have "Not Sure" tattooed on my arm now, and get it over with?

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 07:29 AM (7ObY1)

41 17 So I guess no one is going to tell us why ace has disappeared? Posted by: Tami at February 11, 2014 11:23 AM (bCEmE) I'm betting it's that nasty stomach flu. Had that myself a couple of weeks ago, it's really unpleasant and takes awhile to get over.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 11, 2014 07:29 AM (bb5+k)

42 Comrade, if you are doing nothing against the interests of the state, you have nothing to fear from constant surveillance of all aspects of your life.

Posted by: Caliph Barky al-Ochoomba at February 11, 2014 07:30 AM (o3MSL)

43 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 07:30 AM (PYAXX)

44 36 i was pulled over by a policeman with a license checker. my wife it turns out hadn't paid a red light camera ticket. --- Those red-light cameras, and speed cameras too, can probably be challenged in court. A likely way to get the charges dropped would be to threaten to go to trial and say you want to subpoena all records related to those cameras, such as safety studies before and after they were installed as well as the revenue brought into the municipality from them. Burying them in paperwork and threatening them with bad headlines can help if your only downside cost is a ticket you're expected to pay anyway.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at February 11, 2014 07:30 AM (/Crba)

45 The Living Constitution: The government has to buy us dinner before they fuck us. Fortunately, SNAP covers that.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 11, 2014 07:31 AM (wTgwx)

46 But in the representative democracy the founders created Da fuck?

Posted by: Washington, Franklin, Smith, Jefferson, Et. Al. at February 11, 2014 07:31 AM (PYAXX)

47 37 You know, at least I admit that alextopia is a. a theoretical construct and II. a benevolent(ish) dictatorship. --- And it is presided by a superhero wearing a leather mask while carrying whips and handcuffs.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at February 11, 2014 07:31 AM (/Crba)

48 Is there anyone who physically checks on ace? I'm hoping it's just a matter of him getting the opportunity to make copious amounts of pancakes.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 11, 2014 07:31 AM (rCOda)

49 This is really the problem- liberals believe we are (and should be) a Democracy. The Constitution created a Republic.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 07:31 AM (PYAXX)

50 Only time police departments change bad behavior is when they get caught on camera. Without that they'd just lie, deny, and make counter-accusations. Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 11, 2014 11:24 AM (ZPrif) The only reason this works at all is because so far they cannot interdict the transmission of video of them behaving badly, to the public. I expect that to change in the future, especially with the legacy of "King Obama."

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 11, 2014 07:32 AM (bb5+k)

51

It will be curious to see how mass observation changes behaviors in the population.

 

How many parents here will tell their kids about the ubiquitous cameras and spying? Point out the devices, tell 'em to watch their P and Qs in public, semi-public, even private lives? Tell 'em how everything is a crime now.

 

I kinda think I will, and I'm going to teach my boy a love for the wasteland expanses, telling him: But that's not here.

Posted by: Bigby's Jazz Hands at February 11, 2014 07:32 AM (3ZtZW)

52

"Should I just go ahead and have "Not Sure" tattooed on my arm now, and get it over with?"

 

Go away, bait'n!

Posted by: The GOP at February 11, 2014 07:32 AM (PGXA8)

53 The only reason this works at all is because so far they cannot interdict the transmission of video of them behaving badly, to the public. --- I'm guessing that all of us may be getting dash-cams soon, a la Russia where they are needed for insurance purposes due to scammers / hit-and-run drivers.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at February 11, 2014 07:33 AM (/Crba)

54 What I can't do is figure out a legitimate constitutional argument against their use (at least as we currently know they are being used). What am I? Chopped liver?

Posted by: Amendment IV at February 11, 2014 07:33 AM (PYAXX)

55

>>>In the surveillance state, those in the police or investigating agencies of government rely on a machine, a computer, a program, whatever , to collect this data.

 

What are you worried about?

Posted by: Franz Kafka at February 11, 2014 07:33 AM (3ZtZW)

56 43 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

I like to think of him as a malignant tumor, but that's just me....

Posted by: backhoe at February 11, 2014 07:33 AM (ULH4o)

57 rat-bastard citizens to snitch out everyone Did you know there is a group of hard-core Obamabot Commies who used to "report" vehicles with Rightist/conservative/NRA bumper stickers to Janet Napolitano? I don't know if they are still active, but I suspect they are. They are so hard-core Commie they refer to each other as "comrade" and call theirr God-King "Comrade Obama." The C4P website outed the organization quite some time ago. Their website postings were the stuff of horror. They really do want to line us up against the wall and kill us. They come right out and say it, proudly.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 07:33 AM (7ObY1)

58 So I guess no one is going to tell us why ace has disappeared?

I remember a story about some semi-genius cubicle-dweller who worked at a big tech company, like Xerox.  He always talked about bugging out of the rat race and going to an island to live an idyllic life.  One day he just disappeared -- didn't call, didn't clean out his desk, nothing.

Over the years a whole mini-culture developed among the employees about where he went, what he was doing -- always around the idea that he was living the dream while they were still slaving away in their ratholes.  They would paste pictures of him on beautiful beaches and hang them at their desks, stuff like that.

Years later the guy resurfaced. It turned out he had just gone to some new cubicle in another tech company and was doing exactly the same mundane shit as before.  The discovery completely ruined the fantasy world that his former co-workers had built around him.

There's a moral in there somewhere, I guess.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 11, 2014 07:34 AM (8ZskC)

59 What are you worried about? Posted by: Franz Kafka at February 11, 2014 11:33 AM (3ZtZW) --- Corner cockroach watching me masturbate, apparently.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at February 11, 2014 07:34 AM (/Crba)

60 The problem isn't necessarily the surveillance. It's the keeping of the surveillance. Is it a problem to scan license plates for stolen vehicles or for people who have outstanding warrants? That's most likely Constitutional. Keeping all of the information to track people who haven't done anything but could be used for political purposes ("Councilman, what was your car doing at Polly's Pagoda of Prostitutes?") is probably not Constitutional. That seems to fall under an illegal search.

Posted by: Chris at February 11, 2014 07:34 AM (crkWb)

61 Is there anyone who physically checks on ace?

I'm envisioning a dramatic reveal, like an opening scene in a hall-of-fame episode of hoarders.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 11, 2014 07:35 AM (+lsX1)

62 One example is some pro-life people admit the Constitution is silent on abortion and that a Right to Life amendment would be necessary to outlaw it at the federal level. Straw-man down! Few (if any) pro-life advocates want to "outlaw [abortion] at the federal level." We want the Federal Government out of it, and then to outlaw it (for a given value of the word "outlaw" which really means "heavily restrict") at the State level.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 07:35 AM (PYAXX)

63 Years later the guy resurfaced. It turned out he had just gone to some new cubicle in another tech company and was doing exactly the same mundane shit as before. The discovery completely ruined the fantasy world that his former co-workers had built around him. There's a moral in there somewhere, I guess. Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 11, 2014 11:34 AM (8ZskC) Oh, so ace is blogging at The Federalist?

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at February 11, 2014 07:35 AM (bCEmE)

64 To elaborate, some congresscritter even held up his phone to James Clapper (IIRC) at some committee hearing and asked, "Where is the probable cause for tracking me?" or something to that effect. He didn't receive an answer.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 11, 2014 07:35 AM (0HooB)

65 31 I would like to see the Senate as the States' house and abolish the direct election of Senators. Then Senators could be appointed by their respective State governments and represent the interests of the State gov'ts rather than just act as the 'upper' People's legislative chamber. Crazy idea, I know. Posted by: mugiwara at February 11, 2014 11:27 AM (W7ffl) It's been my observation that most amendments after the first 10 were mistakes.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 11, 2014 07:35 AM (bb5+k)

66 Is there anyone who physically checks on ace?

I'm hoping it's just a matter of him getting the opportunity to make copious amounts of pancakes.


He's working on the War and Peace of movie reviews.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 11, 2014 07:35 AM (8ZskC)

67 I think you chose a bad example. Whether or not the argument wins, may remain to be seen, but you can make a 4th amendment argument against facial recognition, security cameras, and license plate readers. The same argument applies that a was used against the use of GPS trackers without a court order.

Posted by: deadrody at February 11, 2014 07:35 AM (aT8Zk)

68 DrewM,

Nice post.

Your point about our betters conflating personal belief with political philosophy is in part an extension of the focus on self that blossomed in the late 1960s.

"What I think and feel is paramount."

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 11, 2014 07:35 AM (QFxY5)

69

It will be curious to see how mass observation changes behaviors in the population.

 

-----------

 

Just look at Havana - everyone there is convinced the secret police are watching, reading, and listening to everything, even though you know it isn't true.

 

But that's only one step.


Another is the "circular prison" concept.  You don't need to have legions of secret police to do the surveillance if you can make it easy to have one's fellow citizens do the surveillance too.  And you do that by dividing and fracturing the citizenry.  Again, Havana...you have folks there who will sell out their neighbors for having a pound of hamburger. 

 

 

 

Posted by: @JohnTant at February 11, 2014 07:36 AM (eytER)

70 "One example is some pro-life people admit the Constitution is silent on abortion."
Other than the right to life enshrined in the constitution and the 14th amendment which protects life unless due process protects it? Other than that particular part of the constitution?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2014 07:36 AM (zfY+H)

71 I think I like these guys take on the Constitution.

Posted by: Ezra Klein at February 11, 2014 07:36 AM (Aif/5)

72 Brandon get with the technology times.

The cockroach will have a 1080P camera and be a WiFi hotspot.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 11, 2014 07:36 AM (Z/g31)

73 Why must the gay blade doing figure skating for NBC dress like a flaming fag on TV? What's his fuckin point and why do I have to deal with it. He, NBC, and gay activists can go fuck themselves, just do it in private. STOP STICKING IT IN MY FACE

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 11, 2014 07:37 AM (t3UFN)

74 Under the theories of Wehner     and Gerson, I suppose that if enough people voted that every tenth person should be killed and their assets divided among the    others, that would be just peachy.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 11, 2014 07:37 AM (0GF2j)

75 Here, let me help you: No government entity may, without probable cause and a signed warrant, collect ANY information on ANY citizen. What's going on with the NSA is very clearly unconstitutional, which means it's illegal. This isn't rocket surgery... Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at February 11, 2014 11:29 AM (0HooB) The question is what are your 4th Amendment rights to be captured on video when you are outside in a public place. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when you are in public. Where the line of reasonable expectation begins when you get into keeping video and pictures of license plates. I don't know where I stand on that, by the way. Yes, absolutely there is a line at which storing data becomes excessive. I'm simply not certain where that is.

Posted by: alexthechick - Come to us, oh mighty SMOD at February 11, 2014 07:37 AM (VtjlW)

76 CBD, the conflating personal starts far earlier.  Woodrow Wilson was such a crusader.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 11, 2014 07:37 AM (Z/g31)

77 Oh, so ace is blogging at The Federalist?


Bingo.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 11, 2014 07:37 AM (8ZskC)

78 name a policy you would like to see either enacted or outlawed that is not supported by the Constitution and then admit it.

here's mine: congressional term limits, unfortunately.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 11, 2014 07:37 AM (n0DEs)

79 NSA-you may read my daily journal but not my diary.
TSA- you may not only look at my breasts you may also touch them.
IRS- You may look at my Tax Receipts, My 1040, My childrens health records, my bank and credit statements , my friends and acquaintances, my political persuasion, and ask my Doctor to find out if I own a weapon. 
EPA- i may catch rain with my tongue, but i may not store it in a drum .
DOJ- you may look at all that tsa,irs,nsa,epa, collect  on me.

Posted by: willow at February 11, 2014 07:38 AM (nqBYe)

80 Is there anyone who physically checks on ace? - You mean in addition to the NSA?

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 11, 2014 07:38 AM (wTgwx)

81 This is all very nuanced and tres chic, I just want to know how f@ck we get out of this Third World Dictatorship that Bobo has imposed on us via his pen and his phone?

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, think mink. at February 11, 2014 07:38 AM (kXoT0)

82 Is it a problem to scan license plates for stolen vehicles or for people who have outstanding warrants? Random license plates or random people? Yes. "...no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." If you have reason to believe that a *particular* car is stolen, run the license plate. If you have reason to believe a *particular* person has outstanding warrants, run a check. Alternatively, if you have another *legitimate* reason to run the plates or run an ID check, and those come back with information that the car is stolen or the person has outstanding warrants- that's fine, too. However- random checks absolutely violate the 4th Amendment.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 07:38 AM (PYAXX)

83

No government entity may, without probable cause and a signed warrant, collect ANY information on ANY citizen.

What's going on with the NSA is very clearly unconstitutional, which means it's illegal.

-

I don't disagree with you, but I actually think what the IRS is doing is worse.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 11, 2014 07:39 AM (0GF2j)

84 Jim Hoft ‏@gatewaypundit Horror! Eco-Leftists Resort to KKK Tactics– Use Torches & Masks – to Threaten Energy Executive (Video) http://shar.es/QKucX @gatewaypundit I hate eco-terrorists. Here they are proudly using KKK tactics -- showing up the homes of their enemies at night, wearing masks and waving torches. Pure intimidation.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 11, 2014 07:39 AM (ZPrif)

85 Day four since the big guy has been gone. The co-bloggers are still fighting behind the scenes to see who assumes power over the blog. I think it is time to change the banner to "of Spades" because, alas, ace is no more.... [Ten years ago, Ace disappeared for months.]

Posted by: Judge Pug at February 11, 2014 07:39 AM (NRYdU)

86 Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 11, 2014 11:37 AM (Z/g31)

Good point.

But....for the masses, I think that the 1960s were the tipping point.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 11, 2014 07:40 AM (QFxY5)

87 Well I need to scoot.  Leave you with some music.
http://youtu.be/2TkvgbveuSs

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 11, 2014 07:40 AM (Z/g31)

88 Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2014 11:36 AM (zfY+H) Ewwwwww.... new thought... IF by virtue of being born in America, children of illegals are US Citizens... Then should ILLEGALS be able to kill them before they are born??? after all... they are aborting AMERICANS!

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 11, 2014 07:40 AM (84gbM)

89 Oh, so ace is blogging at The Federalist? Posted by: Tami at February 11, 2014 11:35 AM (bCEmE) heh And, from the living room, to the den.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 11, 2014 07:40 AM (IXrOn)

90 I'm not much for redistributive bribery of the general population as a means to attain political power. That's it in a nutshell. Such practices are antidemocratic, infantilizing, and elitist. Now here is where it gets tricky. The entire premise of our republic is based on the notion of an informed electorate. Currently, we are generally a nation that can't seem to make itself confront uncomfortable facts. We spend too much. Our federal government has become a bloated, rapacious, contradictory entitity that would make George III blush. Our national security strategy is a laundry list of unprioritized feel good points. We do indeed stick our noses into the internal affairs of others on issues that matter not a whit to our interests. Our presidential campaigns mirror all of this...tell me the last time any candidate delivered an actual critical thought without it being tailored to perceptions instead of reality. We've gone through about half a century of hipster, hippie, and communist relativist dissections of the American way. The great issues that needed confronting--civil rights for example--were hijacked by grievance cottage industries that still exist. The one great period of pushback, the Reagan years, was brief and now over 25 years past. We really are at a fork in the road. Down one path lies the wish of all those who have found us wanting from their social justice viewpoint: We become Europe, where everyone is guaranteed the same desultory existence and the Constitution becomes a curious historical artifact. Barack Obama has a pen and a phone in this universe. Hillary Clinton will inherit them. Down the other lies a reinvigoration of the individual with all the responsibilities and hazards that entails. Here the Constitution is the negative document it was intended to be. Here are the limits, you may go no farther. I hope we have the wisdom to recognize that what has gone before does matter in trying to construct the future.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 11, 2014 07:40 AM (659DL)

91 "Oh, so ace is blogging at The Federalist?" My coffee (yes, still drinking it at 11:40) just went the wrong way.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 11, 2014 07:40 AM (rCOda)

92 TSA- you may not only look at my breasts you may also touch them.



I am now going to change my nic to "TSA".

Posted by: EC at February 11, 2014 07:40 AM (GQ8sn)

93 Actually, if conservative justices said that the Constitution outright prohibits certain things, it may be dishonest but they'd be on more even footing with the left philosophy. As is they are always playing defense, because liberals are always advancing new rights on general principles, while conservatives just play defense. You do see more of Scalia etc. saying certain stuff is disallowed these days, which makes it funny to see libs cry judicial activism. Also sorry but who made you the RINO police exactly? As far as I can tell you're only conservative in a deficit panic sense.

Posted by: Jeff at February 11, 2014 07:41 AM (vd6Gd)

94 The co-bloggers are still fighting behind the scenes to see who assumes power over the blog.


Last time they all stood together on the roof of Reagan's tomb, who was standing closest to Ace?

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 11, 2014 07:41 AM (8ZskC)

95 I actually think what the IRS is doing is worse.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 11, 2014 11:39 AM (0GF2j)

Passive collection of data, to be used...perhaps....never.

Versus the active use of government power to damage political opponents.

I think you are correct.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 11, 2014 07:41 AM (QFxY5)

96 Gay marriage is mandated by the "more perfect union" clause.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 11, 2014 07:41 AM (wTgwx)

97 I always find it useful to refer to the original documents -- The 4th Amendment:
 
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
It's amazing to me that the SC keeps finding penumbras and enamations of this amendment that allow dogs to sniff your car, no knock breakins, border searches of your electronics or anything within 100 miles of the border, TSA searching your crotch, seizures of your property via RICO without a trial, and so on.
 
Fuck the SC in particular.

Posted by: GnuBreed at February 11, 2014 07:42 AM (cHZB7)

98 There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when you are in public Find me the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the Constitution. That's okay. I'll wait. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated The State has no right to surveil me at all without a warrant. And no warrant shall issue but on probable cause (that is: belief that I committed, or have material information relating to, a specific crime).

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 07:42 AM (PYAXX)

99 ace is probably just enjoying  his pancakes.

many pancakes.

Posted by: willow at February 11, 2014 07:42 AM (nqBYe)

100 Straw-man down! Few (if any) pro-life advocates want to "outlaw [abortion] at the federal level." We want the Federal Government out of it, and then to outlaw it (for a given value of the word "outlaw" which really means "heavily restrict") at the State level. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 11:35 AM (PYAXX) You do know the GOP platform calls for a Right to Life Amendment that would outlaw abortion, right? It has for years.

Posted by: DrewM. at February 11, 2014 07:42 AM (2OdVw)

101 Does the 9th Amendment not cover all rights? Restricting an unenumerated right might have a lower hurdle than restricting an enumerated right. But that does not mean the government should be able to restrict any rights without proper discourse and scrutiny.

Posted by: Mike at February 11, 2014 07:43 AM (OW1V/)

102 Horror! Eco-Leftists Resort to KKK Tactics– Use Torches & Masks – to Threaten Energy Executive (Video) http://shar.es/QKucX @gatewaypundit

*


Heh...Sure Art Garfunkel appreciates the hat/tip on the song.



Posted by: dananjcon at February 11, 2014 07:43 AM (NpXoL)

103 Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 11, 2014 11:37 AM

Brand recognition.

http://tinyurl.com/modhu2w  (NBC News)

"The first openly gay pro football player would be a hot commodity for brands trying to connect with the LGBT community or to burnish their diversity creds.

Marketing experts say he could tackle a lucrative, seven-figure-a-year career as a pitchman, as long as he performs on the field."


Posted by: LC LaWedgie at February 11, 2014 07:44 AM (KQp38)

104 "here's mine: congressional term limits, unfortunately." I'm convinced that the next person who campaigns on term limits, regardless of party or office, will win in a landslide with relatively little fundraising.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 11, 2014 07:44 AM (rCOda)

105 90?
Circa?

I don't disagree with a word you wrote- I just cannot figure out how to reverse the changes in America.

Posted by: backhoe at February 11, 2014 07:44 AM (ULH4o)

106 I think the Johnny Weir thing is actually funny at this point. Today he's broadcasting in a bright pink pantsuit, wearing 4 costume jewelry necklaces, and has on more make-up than any of the figure skating chicks in the actual competition. He's rapidly approaching maximum flamboyancy. Honestly not sure how he can keep out-gay himself tomorrow and the day after that.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 11, 2014 07:44 AM (ZPrif)

107 as long as he performs on the field."


Even that won't matter.

Posted by: EC at February 11, 2014 07:44 AM (GQ8sn)

108 "I actually think what the IRS is doing is worse."
I agree. Its significantly more damaging to liberty and a horrendous abuse of power. Not as bad as the killing of people done by the Clinton administration, but very bad. Even Nixon couldn't get away with this kind of thing.
The public privacy thing is a bit tricky and made significantly more problematic with the new electronic age. However, its always been fine for cops, etc to surveille people in "plain view" or "public" without a warrant. After all you can't argue that cops have to look away from someone because they have no order from the courts making it okay to see them.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2014 07:44 AM (zfY+H)

109 I've always felt I didn't care all that much about surveillance, except as a matter of pure principle-after all I'm just an ordinary guy doing ordinary stuff. I've never worried about who could watch my law- abiding ways. But I don't know anymore. It seems being a conservative Christian has become. Now I have a slight, niggling worry that going to a church that doesn't endorse the gay lifestyle could make me worthy of surveillance.

Posted by: Northernlurker, moron wannabe at February 11, 2014 07:44 AM (BLAfs)

110 Companies Not Allowed To Make Workforce Adjustments Under Latest Obamacare Rewrite Unless They Can Justify It To The IRS… And we all know how unbiased the IRS is under Barack Obama. Via CNS News: Once again acting without Congress, President Obama has unilaterally changed his signature health insurance law, delaying its employer mandate – the second time he’s done this — to 2016, after the mid-term elections. BUT: To be eligible for the additional delay, the Obama administration says an employer “may not reduce the size of its workforce or the overall hours of service of its employees” unless it can justify those reductions to the Internal Revenue Service. Weasel Zippers: Oh yeah it will be applied evenly across the board? Can you say blackmail? Can you still say blackmail or is that verboten now? Is it whitemail now?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 11, 2014 07:45 AM (t3UFN)

111 Last time they all stood together on the roof of Reagan's tomb, who was standing closest to Ace? Don't know. They were all in red latex with ball gags.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 11, 2014 07:45 AM (659DL)

112 Hmmm... anyone check the Prison where they are keeping Hillary's Benghazi Video Guy... for Ace?

Posted by: Romeo13, proudly wearing his Mk3 Tinfoil Hat at February 11, 2014 07:45 AM (84gbM)

113 Just look at Havana - everyone there is convinced the secret police are watching, reading, and listening to everything, even though you know it isn't true.  Posted by: @JohnTant at February 11, 2014 11:36 AM (eytER)

Once you get the rats trained to run the maze, they will run it until they can run no more.  For decades, the Libs have been taking over one more section of the maze and the training.  It starts in preschool now and goes onward, upward, and outward. 

One is not allowed to have a reasoned principled objection to anything no matter how vile any more.  Don't like gay marriage--you are a hater.  Think Affirmative Action has actually harmed Black Americans--you are a hater.  There is only one group left in America that you can safely target--Conservatives--because they are all Old White Rich Men who hate womyn, the entire LBGTQ community, people who speak a foreign language, and people of color.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, think mink. at February 11, 2014 07:46 AM (kXoT0)

114 My friends, we have nothing to fear from the Eye of Sauron in the Whitehouse.

Posted by: Saruman at February 11, 2014 07:46 AM (GSIDW)

115 You do know the GOP platform calls for a Right to Life Amendment that would outlaw abortion, right? It has for years. Good thing I'm not a member of the VAG then, huh? Also- that's what national parties do- support national policies. I have encountered few (if any) actual "pro-life activists" who believe a federal law is necessary at all. Roe v Wade is bad opinion because it made a Federal issue out of what should have been a State concern. Overturning Roe v Wade simply means getting the Federal Government's nose out of where it does not belong.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 07:46 AM (PYAXX)

116 Hey compassionate conservatism worked before! We got nuthin' so let's try it again! GTFO you losers. Is anyone going to fall for that crap again?

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 11, 2014 07:46 AM (oFCZn)

117 If you have reason to believe that a *particular* car is stolen, run the license plate. If you have reason to believe a *particular* person has outstanding warrants, run a check. Alternatively, if you have another *legitimate* reason to run the plates or run an ID check, and those come back with information that the car is stolen or the person has outstanding warrants- that's fine, too. However- random checks absolutely violate the 4th Amendment. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 11:38 AM (PYAXX) I got stopped in a license check two Sundays ago on my way to church. Every single car on the way down one of the busiest side streets in town was being stopped right as one of the largest churches in town was letting out one service and people were arriving for another. It was absolutely designed to be as disruptive as possible. It took me asking why three times before the cop would tell me why he was asking for my license and I got a very angry "I have a right to ask for your license at a license check". Before anyone asks, yes, these have been upheld. You know what pissed me off? That I had to ask the cop three times why he wanted my license. Yes, you have a right to ask for it, Mr. Officer. And I have the damn right to know why. How dare you get pissed off that you have to tell me why.

Posted by: alexthechick - Come to us, oh mighty SMOD at February 11, 2014 07:46 AM (VtjlW)

118 Posted by: DrewM. at February 11, 2014 11:42 AM (2OdVw)

Yup...and how many congressmen would sign it?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 11, 2014 07:46 AM (QFxY5)

119 You know, at least I admit that alextopia is a. a theoretical construct and II. a benevolent(ish) dictatorship. Pfft. I have the moral honesty to admit that Cavil's Khanate would be an outright instrument of self-enrichment and vengeance against the enemies of the people. In roughly equal measure. Probably a good reason to avoid its ever existing, honestly.

Posted by: Brother Cavil at February 11, 2014 07:46 AM (naUcP)

120 Where the line of reasonable expectation begins when you get into keeping video and pictures of license plates. I understand your point, My Queen. However, I still can't find the phrase, "except in public" or "except at work" in our Constitution.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 11, 2014 07:47 AM (0HooB)

121 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 11:42 AM (PYAXX) I can get on board with that. You should think about blogging.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 11, 2014 07:47 AM (rCOda)

122 However, its always been fine for cops, etc to surveille people in "plain view" or "public" without a warrant. After all you can't argue that cops have to look away from someone because they have no order from the courts making it okay to see them. There's a huge difference between seeing what happens to be going on around you, and constant video/photo surveillance.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 07:48 AM (PYAXX)

123

As a lifelong Republican, and someone proud of the party's history, I've given up on the current politicians in Washington.  I used to write off people advocating amendments as kooks, but no longer.  There  are  no representatives  of  "small government"   Republicans in the captial, and there probably never have been.

 

We need to amend the Constitution.

Posted by: MTF at February 11, 2014 07:49 AM (B5y+v)

124 The office is ordering Greek for lunch. I'm ordering Chicken Souvlaki with a side of greased Andrea Tantaros. Well, I can ORDER it can't I? I'll take the souvlaki alone, though.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 07:49 AM (7ObY1)

125 Even that won't matter.

Posted by: EC at February 11, 2014 11:44 AM

pivotal

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at February 11, 2014 07:49 AM (KQp38)

126 He's rapidly approaching maximum flamboyancy. Honestly not sure how he can keep out-gay himself tomorrow and the day after that.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 11, 2014 11:44 AM (ZPrif)


Do an internet search for Johnny Wier's most outrageous outfits.  It is unbelievable.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, think mink. at February 11, 2014 07:49 AM (kXoT0)

127 Before anyone asks, yes, these have been upheld. So has ObamaCare. That makes them no more Constitutional.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 07:49 AM (PYAXX)

128 I don't know where I stand on that, by the way. Yes, absolutely there is a line at which storing data becomes excessive. I'm simply not certain where that is. Posted by: alexthechick - Come to us, oh mighty SMOD at February 11, 2014 11:37 AM (VtjlW) One of my favorite lines from the movie "Remo Williams" is the reference to the 11th commandment. "Thou shalt not get away with it." What I mean by this is the usage of a catchall in terms of philosophical principals. In real world terms, it's axiomatic that the creation of systems meant to gather data about citizens in general, will be abused. Rather than trying to philosophize about where we ought to put the borders for such behavior, I would suggest we simply state an end result which we wish to preclude. No usage of generic scanning systems without a court order requesting information from them regarding a specific person(s), and regarding a specific crime having been committed. It's probably the best we can do.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 11, 2014 07:49 AM (bb5+k)

129 By the by, I would hope that the entirety of the Horde is on board with the RTFBYMFMF amendment.

Posted by: alexthechick - Come to us, oh mighty SMOD at February 11, 2014 07:50 AM (VtjlW)

130 "He's rapidly approaching maximum flamboyancy." Sounds to me like he's about to start fusing.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 11, 2014 07:50 AM (rCOda)

131 77 Oh, so ace is blogging at The Federalist? Bingo. Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 11, 2014 11:37 AM (8ZskC) Trying to reach a better quality of moron no doubt.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 11, 2014 07:50 AM (bb5+k)

132 Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 11, 2014 11:45 AM (t3UFN) Can someone explain to me how that's not straight up fascism?

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 11, 2014 07:51 AM (rCOda)

133

Re IRS scrutiny on reducing employment:

 

what in the mf'n fuck? Couldn't this be construed as breaking employee/employer contracts if the employee is at will? At the very least, does the IRS want more of a justification than "Ocare would be too expensive, so bite me"? How about "This is America, dickbag". That seems justifiable enough

Posted by: The GOP at February 11, 2014 07:51 AM (PGXA8)

134 Does anyone else suspect that ace is some guy with MPD, and all the Cobs are just manifestations of his psychosis?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 07:51 AM (PYAXX)

135 Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 11:33 AM (7ObY1)


Link?  I'd love to read that, digest it, then toss it all my "TOLERANCE!!!11!!" acquaintances.

Posted by: Country Singer at February 11, 2014 07:51 AM (L8r/r)

136 RTFBYMFMF Read the fucking bill you mother fucking mother fuckers?

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 07:51 AM (7ObY1)

137 Few (if any) pro-life advocates want to "outlaw [abortion] at the federal level." We want the Federal Government out of it, and then to outlaw it (for a given value of the word "outlaw" which really means "heavily restrict") at the State level. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 11:35 AM (PYAXX) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Right. And how many minutes after that decision will the pro-life movement be after individual states to make abortion illegal ? Like 10 at most. You're arguing over semantics. So long as abortion is protected at the federal level by a SCOTUS decision, that is the pro-life target. As soon as that is no longer the case, the target changes. I'd certainly be curious what the poll would look like of those that are pro-life, on federal laws against abortion. I doubt there is even close to a majority that view the issue with this kind of "constitutional nuance". "Oh, abortion is fine as long as its up to the individual states." Right. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you! Honestly, who are we trying to fool with this line of bullshit, anyhow ?

Posted by: deadrody at February 11, 2014 07:52 AM (aT8Zk)

138 There is a point at which adding things to the constitution is ridiculous (penumbras, etc). The Supreme Court is bad about that. However, you can go too far the other direction, and insist that unless the EXACT WORDING of what someone proposes is quoted directly and specifically from the constitution, it is not permissible as well.
That's ridiculous and insane. The constitution isn't ten times the size of the ACA plus all regulations, its a very short document of guidelines an rules for limiting government which wise and intelligent lawmakers and judges have to use to interpret law and make decisions based on.
In other words, lacking the phrase "reasonable expectation" or "except in public" does not mean that these concepts are unconstitutional, and demanding they be in the documents before you'll accept them is as ridiculous as a judge saying killing babies is a constitutional right.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2014 07:52 AM (zfY+H)

139 Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 11:51 AM (7ObY1) Got it in one.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 07:52 AM (PYAXX)

140 So, the guy known as "Ace" turns up missing, but now someone named "Johnny Weir" is constantly on TV. Do we have to draw you people a picture?

Posted by: jwest at February 11, 2014 07:52 AM (u2a4R)

141 Can someone explain to me how that's not straight up fascism? Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 11, 2014 11:51 AM (rCOda) Not me? Somebody has to take this "Law" and this admin to Court

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 11, 2014 07:52 AM (t3UFN)

142 Damn smokehouse almonds are addictive

Posted by: RWC at February 11, 2014 07:53 AM (fWAjv)

143 Ah f, the gop would never say that

Posted by: dudenolongerinsantacruz at February 11, 2014 07:53 AM (PGXA8)

144 Link? I'd love to read that, digest it, then toss it all my "TOLERANCE!!!11!!" acquaintances. It was waaaay back in my C4P days, before I was unpersoned by the 'nistas for suggesting that La Palin might on the rare occasion make the teensiest of mistakes. I'd have to search around for it. To be honest, the site was so vile I don't really want to search for it here at work. It was something like "Communists for Obama."

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 07:53 AM (7ObY1)

145 140 So, the guy known as "Ace" turns up missing, but now someone named "Johnny Weir" is constantly on TV. Do we have to draw you people a picture? Posted by: jwest at February 11, 2014 11:52 AM (u2a4R) The absence of the faaaaaaahlaming skull should have tipped us off as well.

Posted by: RWC at February 11, 2014 07:54 AM (fWAjv)

146 "There's a huge difference between seeing what happens to be going on around you, and constant video/photo surveillance."
Clearly, but that's not what I was talking about. I was trying to help some commenters here understand why its okay for a cop to watch people in public.
I think making records of what people do in public should require a court order or warrant. Seeing them is one thing, keeping that data is another. Its okay to watch someone take action in a public place on a camera, its another to record it and then store that forever.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2014 07:54 AM (zfY+H)

147 IF by virtue of being born in America, children of illegals are US Citizens... Posted by: Romeo13 at February 11, 2014 11:40 AM (84gbM) That condition is a piece of utter nonsense deriving from the 70s supreme court and the Wong Kim Ark decision. This was not at all the intent of the 14th amendment, and the primary author (John Bingham) explicitly said so.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 11, 2014 07:54 AM (bb5+k)

148 Maybe Ace is waiting to pass his "red line" for site donations. input $$

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 11, 2014 07:54 AM (IXrOn)

149 By the way, all of these ideas require the following principle to be put in place: "No branch or agency of Government shall take steps to accomplish by proxy those things it is forbidden to engage in directly; nor shall it otherwise circumvent the limits placed upon it by co-operation, free or coerced, with private or public entities of any kind."

Posted by: Brother Cavil at February 11, 2014 07:54 AM (naUcP)

150 Got it in one. You found it? Remind me of the name of the site?

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 07:55 AM (7ObY1)

151 "Damn smokehouse almonds are addictive'
Save the salty dust and use it next time you make popcorn. Trust me.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2014 07:55 AM (zfY+H)

152 Read the fucking bill you mother fucking mother fuckers? Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 11:51 AM (7ObY1) Winner, winner, chicken dinner! I mean, sure, we can come up with a more palatable, though less accurate, name for the amendment, but I do quite sincerely want a Constitutional amendment that requires the full text of every bill to be read aloud on the floor of the House and Senate by a human being at a normal speaking pace prior to the vote on the bill. That way at least one person on the planet will have actually read the bill before a vote.

Posted by: alexthechick - Come to us, oh mighty SMOD at February 11, 2014 07:56 AM (VtjlW)

153 Damn smokehouse almonds are addictive

Too much salt though.  They need to cut it down to about 50% of what they use and it would be perfect.


Posted by: EC at February 11, 2014 07:56 AM (GQ8sn)

154 Damn smokehouse almonds are addictive

Posted by: RWC at February 11, 2014 11:53 AM (fWAjv)


Yeah and if someone ever makes a flavor of caramel corn with smokehouse almonds, then I will weigh 500 pounds.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, think mink. at February 11, 2014 07:56 AM (kXoT0)

155 At the risk of repeating myself?
I simply don't know what to do. Vast swathes of "citizens no long like me" have been propagandized since pre-school. Bombarded by a media hostile to me and my values.

All I can think to do is lay low.

Posted by: backhoe at February 11, 2014 07:56 AM (ULH4o)

156 "Can someone explain to me how that's not straight up fascism?"
Its not fascism its just boilerplate tyranny. Fascism has a pretty specific meaning involving borrowing from left and right to create a scientific utopia. Its socialistic in economic and cultural structure but more right leaning in its embrace of tradition, nation, and military.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2014 07:57 AM (zfY+H)

157 Oh, so ace is blogging at The Federalist? Bad enough they poached CAC and Gabe, now they bagged the Ewok as well? What's next, selling the joint to Townhall?

Posted by: Brother Cavil at February 11, 2014 07:57 AM (naUcP)

158 Save the salty dust and use it next time you make popcorn. Trust me.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2014 11:55 AM (zfY+H)

That is a great idea!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 11, 2014 07:57 AM (QFxY5)

159 OT:  Does anyone remember the organization that sells Valentine's roses to benefit children with learning disabilities?

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 11, 2014 07:57 AM (0GF2j)

160 You know what pissed me off? That I had to ask the cop three times why he wanted my license. Yes, you have a right to ask for it, Mr. Officer. And I have the damn right to know why. How dare you get pissed off that you have to tell me why.

Posted by: alexthechick - Come to us, oh mighty SMOD
===
God bless you and keep you strong, young lady.

Posted by: mrp at February 11, 2014 07:57 AM (JBggj)

161 Posted by: deadrody at February 11, 2014 11:52 AM (aT8Zk) Yep. That's exactly what I said. That we're all for abortion, just not at the Federal level. No. Absolutely I'm against abortion. Absolutely the pro-life crowd would immediately go to their States and start advocating for much heavier restrictions (hint: no one is for an outright ban- life of the mother is always an exception, even for the most absolutist of us). The issue is that it is not a Federal issue. It is (and should be) a State issue. Would I be happy with the fact that California or New York or Illinois would approve abortion without restrictions up to 9 months and a day? No. Would I support advocates who tried to change that public opinion and get that changed? Yes. Would pro-abortion activists do the same (albeit from the other direction) in Oklahoma, and Texas, and Arkansas? Absolutely. I'm not pretending that I'm against abortion- I'm stating, as a matter of principle, that it is not a Federal Issue. I no more want it outlawed at the Federal level than I want it protected at the Federal Level. You do realize that all 50 States have very similar driving laws, yes? And that few (none, last I knew for sure) of them were Federal statutes? Not that speeding is the same as abortion- but State issues are State issues. If all 50 States agree, that doesn't matter- it's still a State issue.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 07:58 AM (PYAXX)

162
As an aside, I thought PEOPLE ARE DYING because they lacked adequate health insurance was why they had to pass obamacare NOW, NOW, NOW.

Now not so much, its just a flesh wound I guess.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 11, 2014 07:58 AM (n0DEs)

163 Save the salty dust and use it next time you make popcorn. Trust me. Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2014 11:55 AM (zfY+H) Done. That sounds good.

Posted by: RWC at February 11, 2014 07:59 AM (fWAjv)

164 My pet Constitutional amendment:  Congressmen and Senators shall not set their own pay rate; they shall not be allowed to serve if they do not spend all of their non-legislative days in their own state / district; and they shall not be allowed to serve if they disfigure themselves with plastic surgery and hairpieces.

Posted by: Sphynx at February 11, 2014 07:59 AM (OZmbA)

165 You do know the GOP platform calls for a Right to Life Amendment that would outlaw abortion, right? It has for years. Posted by: DrewM. at February 11, 2014 11:42 AM (2OdVw) The people who write the platform are generally the hard core activists, (I was on the platform committee for my state years ago) not necessarily the typical electorate which I believe would agree with Alan. The Plurality\Majority of Republicans are Pro-Life, but I think they would be satisfied with leaving this as an issue of Federalism. The hard core activists? No.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 11, 2014 07:59 AM (bb5+k)

166 Not me? Somebody has to take this "Law" and this admin to Court

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 11, 2014 11:52 AM (t3UFN)


But, see, that mythical someone has no standing.  At least so far, no one who has tried has standing.  I would've thought the bondholders of GM would've had standing under protection of private property, but, hot dayum, I was as wrong as a pair of Johnny Wier hot pink hotpants.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, think mink. at February 11, 2014 07:59 AM (kXoT0)

167

>>> Yes, absolutely there is a line at which storing data becomes excessive. I'm simply not certain where that is.

 

Ask Iron Mountain

Posted by: Franz Kafka at February 11, 2014 08:00 AM (3ZtZW)

168 What's next, selling the joints to Townhall? Posted by: Brother Cavil at February 11, 2014 11:57 AM (naUcP)

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 11, 2014 08:01 AM (IXrOn)

169 You do know the GOP platform calls for a Right to Life Amendment that would outlaw abortion, right? It has for years. It probably also calls for border and immigration enforcement, but that hasn't slowed them down much, has it? It's ad copy to pull in the suckers. Unlike the Dems, you just can't take it seriously.

Posted by: Brother Cavil at February 11, 2014 08:01 AM (naUcP)

170 Yes, absolutely there is a line at which storing data becomes excessive. I'm simply not certain where that is. The moment you store it without benefit of a warrant based on probable cause. It's really not that hard a concept.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 08:01 AM (PYAXX)

171 "Yes, you have a right to ask for it, Mr. Officer. And I have the damn right to know why. How dare you get pissed off that you have to tell me why. " Translation: Please, please check all of my orifices multiple times with as many instruments as possible.

Posted by: jwest at February 11, 2014 08:02 AM (u2a4R)

172 Yeah and if someone ever makes a flavor of caramel corn with smokehouse almonds, then I will weigh 500 pounds. Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, think mink. at February 11, 2014 11:56 AM (kXoT0) Can't find a producer but there are a ton of recipes to make your own. One with bacon even.

Posted by: RWC at February 11, 2014 08:02 AM (fWAjv)

173 Can't find a producer but there are a ton of recipes to make your own.

One with bacon even.

Posted by: RWC at February 11, 2014 12:02 PM (fWAjv)


Will not search for recipes.  Will not.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, think mink. at February 11, 2014 08:04 AM (kXoT0)

174 What difference, at this point, does it make? 

Posted by: Hillary Clinton at February 11, 2014 08:05 AM (GjPnA)

175 "Gerson's announcement that the GOP needs to become more liberal to attract amnestied Hispanic"

I sat through a Rand Paul speech on Saturday wherein he said about the same thing.  But not before he also spent a lot of words saying that the Republican party needed to stop caring so much about what a person looks like and what language he might speak, and just let them be here already.

He also said that immigrants aren't liabilities; they are assets.

I didn't hear word one about the rule of law in the immigration part of his speech, though he did mention it in other parts when castigating (rightly) Obama and the Dems.

So my responses, which I was polite enough to refrain from yelling out:  I don't care what they look like, I care what they do and whether their ideology is compatible with American Constitutional ideals.   They break the law, and their beliefs are incompatible with Americanism.

I see no reason to elevate their desire to have the stuff I and my ancestors have created over my desire to protect that stuff for myself and my children.

And Americans are assets.  Immigrants are unknowns.

I agreed with the straight economics portions of his talk.  And I am willing to consider  -- or at least discuss in good faith -- the potential solutions he proposed for immigrations.   However, I strongly disagreed with all the bad faith he used to get to the start of his arguments.

And I am sick unto the ends of my tolerance of being called a dipshit, troglodyte, racist, bastard by the political party that wants to call me a member.

Posted by: Troll Feeder - having now "met" him once - is not that pleased with the content of Rand Paul's chara at February 11, 2014 08:05 AM (QFGmX)

176 Will not search for recipes. Will not. That's okay. The Horde will look for you. http://preview.tinyurl.com/kswtqhk

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 08:06 AM (PYAXX)

177 French rumor du jour: WaPoÂ’s working on a story about Obama having an affair with Beyonce Reggie Love hardest hit.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 08:06 AM (7ObY1)

178 Of course immigrants are assets; legal ones. Clearly illegal ones are criminals and by definition not assets. I wish a knight would walk up and slap people in the head with a rubber chicken when they confuse "illegal immigrant" with "immigrant."

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2014 08:07 AM (zfY+H)

179 I wish a knight would walk up and slap people in the head with a rubber chicken when they confuse "illegal immigrant" with "immigrant." You misspelled "illegal alien."

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 08:08 AM (PYAXX)

180 I just had a fabulous idea for photoshoppers.  Put obama's head on Johnny Weir in those snazzy outfits.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 11, 2014 08:08 AM (n0DEs)

181 I'm ordering Chicken Souvlaki with a side of greased Andrea Tantaros.


OPA!!!!

Posted by: joncelli, on his hobbyhorse at February 11, 2014 08:08 AM (RD7QR)

182 Your point about our betters conflating personal belief with political philosophy is in part an extension of the focus on self that blossomed in the late 1960s. "What I think and feel is paramount." And that is, to coin a phrase, the Crux of the Biscuit. Until we can somehow manage to raise the level of intellectual maturity of the country back to at least what it was during the '60's, we'll keep on regressing, we'll all become PajamaBoy. Just realizing that there's something greater than you would be a monumental leap, one that many on the Left have already proven incapable of comprehending.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 11, 2014 08:08 AM (0HooB)

183 Sherry, I received the coconut oil. I wanted to ask you if I am going to smell coconut all day? I have a doctor appointment & am on my way out. Respond if you read this & I will refresh page when I return. Thank you!. I bought maple smoked cashews at Whole Foods 2 months ago. If they weren't so expensive I would buy all the time. I usually nut CVS brand of honey roasted cashews.

Posted by: Carol at February 11, 2014 08:09 AM (z4WKX)

184 Wier is just doing his part to stamp his foot and swing his purse at Russia for not knuckling under to the homosexual mafia.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2014 08:09 AM (zfY+H)

185

Lunch? Don't mind if I do.

Posted by: Bigby's Jazz Hands at February 11, 2014 08:09 AM (3ZtZW)

186 DRUDGE REPORT ‏@DRUDGE_REPORT THOUGHT POLICE: Firms must swear Obamacare not a factor in firings... http://drudge.tw/1aRwh4O THOUGHT POLICE: FIRMS MUST SWEAR OBAMACARE NOT A FACTOR IN FIRINGS Is the latest delay of ObamaCare regulations politically motivated? Consider what administration officials announcing the new exemption for medium-sized employers had to say about firms that might fire workers to get under the threshold and avoid hugely expensive new requirements of the law. Obama officials made clear in a press briefing that firms would not be allowed to lay off workers to get into the preferred class of those businesses with 50 to 99 employees. How will the feds know what employers were thinking when hiring and firing? Simple. Firms will be required to certify to the IRS – under penalty of perjury – that ObamaCare was not a motivating factor in their staffing decisions. To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs. You can duck the law, but only if you promise not to say so.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 11, 2014 08:10 AM (ZPrif)

187 I usually nut CVS brand of honey roasted cashews. O_o

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 08:10 AM (PYAXX)

188 I am actually worried about Ace. He's always struggled with depression and he was clearly not doing well last week. God be with him.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2014 08:10 AM (zfY+H)

189 But, see, that mythical someone has no standing. At least so far, no one who has tried has standing. I would've thought the bondholders of GM would've had standing under protection of private property, but, hot dayum, I was as wrong as a pair of Johnny Wier hot pink hotpants. Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, think mink. at February 11, 2014 11:59 AM (kXoT0) Congress has standing. The executive branch is not entitled to "Make" law, just implement it

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 11, 2014 08:11 AM (t3UFN)

190 I wasn't concerned about Ace until I noticed he disappeared off of twitter, or at least he seems to be gone from a cursory glance.

Posted by: Paul Zummo at February 11, 2014 08:11 AM (Ud5vq)

191 We're in full Catch-22 territory now. We are ruled by Milo Minderbinder.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 11, 2014 08:11 AM (ZPrif)

192 @20 Posted by: D-Lamp at February 11, 2014 11:24 AM (bb5+k)

Lacey and His Friends by David Drake.  Cameras required everywhere, all the time, for everybody.

Posted by: Troll Feeder read a book once at February 11, 2014 08:11 AM (QFGmX)

193 183, I meant I usually buy at CVS. This is why I prefer computer ti iPad. I can type w/o looking. I hope you all have a nice afternoon!

Posted by: Carol at February 11, 2014 08:12 AM (z4WKX)

194

>>>Wier is just doing his part to stamp his foot and swing his purse at Russia for not knuckling under to the homosexual mafia.

 

This is exactly why we need to get back to the idea of defunding the Army every two years like the Constitution says. Because if you don't have a standing Army you have to draft. And when you draft, people like this go the front lines, every time.

Posted by: Bigby's Jazz Hands at February 11, 2014 08:12 AM (3ZtZW)

195
You know, at least I admit that alextopia is a. a theoretical construct and II. a benevolent(ish) dictatorship.

Posted by: alexthechick - Come to us, oh mighty SMOD at February 11, 2014 11:28 AM (VtjlW)







What's the fun in having a dictatorship if it's benevolent?

Side note: One more thing that the few "right wing" dictatorships have over the leftist variety is bitchin' uniforms. Check out some of the photos, besided the drab colors, leftist despots have apparently outlawed tailoring.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at February 11, 2014 08:12 AM (TIIx5)

196 How will the feds know what employers were thinking when hiring and firing? Simple. Firms will be required to certify to the IRS – under penalty of perjury – that ObamaCare was not a motivating factor in their staffing decisions. To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs.
======
IOW, firing employees is now illegal.

Posted by: mrp at February 11, 2014 08:12 AM (JBggj)

197 French rumor du jour: WaPoÂ’s working on a story about Obama having an affair with Beyonce

Reggie Love hardest hit.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 12:06 PM (7ObY1)



At the risk of ruining everyone's lunch, is this an indicator that Jay-Z and Barky have been wife-swapping?

Posted by: Country Singer at February 11, 2014 08:12 AM (L8r/r)

198

Here's my test to determine how serious someone is about the Constitution...name a policy you would like to see either enacted or outlawed that is not supported by the Constitution and then admit it. I don't mean something silly like "I hate broccoli and think it should be outlawed" but something that goes to the heart of your politics and beliefs.

 

Restriction of the electoral franchise.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 11, 2014 08:13 AM (zF6Iw)

199 Watching the famous clip of Shirley Temple and Bill "Bojangles" Robinson tap-dancing up and down the staircase. And thinking about how we've gone from Shirley Temple to Honey Boo Boo. America: WTF HAPPENED?

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 08:13 AM (7ObY1)

200 If we've got to live in a fascist dystopia then at least hand out drugs for free. And scratch-off cards, dammit!

Posted by: joncelli at February 11, 2014 08:13 AM (RD7QR)

201 You know how I know the dear First Lady cares about us? She tweets a pic of her fucking dogs wearing jewelry and sitting at a table with the White House china. For the middle class..

Posted by: RWC at February 11, 2014 08:14 AM (fWAjv)

202 In my next life, I'm going to be a figure skater.

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at February 11, 2014 08:14 AM (bCEmE)

203 Declaring bankruptcy will be made illegal next comrades.

Posted by: IRS at February 11, 2014 08:14 AM (Aif/5)

204 Well, looks like Boneless is ready to roll over........again.

Posted by: maddogg at February 11, 2014 08:14 AM (xWW96)

205 Posted by: mrp at February 11, 2014 12:12 PM (JBggj) Yep. "Rubber rooms" for every bad employee in the nation.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 08:15 AM (PYAXX)

206 Drudge is not loading for me.

Posted by: EC at February 11, 2014 08:15 AM (GQ8sn)

207 201 You know how I know the dear First Lady cares about us?

She tweets a pic of her fucking dogs wearing jewelry and sitting at a table with the White House china.





For the middle class..

Posted by: RWC at February 11, 2014 12:14 PM (fWAjv)


She just wants us to know where dogs stand in her eyes relative to...say...us.

Posted by: joncelli at February 11, 2014 08:15 AM (RD7QR)

208 Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2014 11:57 AM (zfY+H) And fascism also has a strong component of state control over the conduct of private enterprise. So again, I'm looking for an explanation of how the IRS seizing control of companies' ability to adjust the size of their labor force isn't fascist.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 11, 2014 08:17 AM (rCOda)

209 An Ace haiku:

No more Valu-Rite
And hobos wandered away.
Ewok hops a freight.

Posted by: joncelli at February 11, 2014 08:17 AM (RD7QR)

210 She tweets a pic of her fucking dogs wearing jewelry and sitting at a table with the White House china. In a way, isn't this Obama's story too?

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 08:18 AM (7ObY1)

211 134 Does anyone else suspect that ace is some guy with MPD, and all the Cobs are just manifestations of his psychosis? Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 11:51 AM (PYAXX) So that's why everyone sounds the same on the podcasts.

Posted by: Buzzion at February 11, 2014 08:18 AM (fnL0J)

212 This. Per Drew's comment, the constitution can be interpreted as "silent" on the issue because it's so self evidently incompatible with natural law that the founders would be dumbfounded that anyone should suggest special mention of prohibiting it.

-----

Same thing with gay "marriage". Mentioning such an absurdity would probably have bought you a trip to the nuthouse, or the Colonial equivalent.

Posted by: Biff Boffo at February 11, 2014 08:18 AM (YmPwQ)

213 210 She tweets a pic of her fucking dogs wearing jewelry and sitting at a table with the White House china.


In a way, isn't this Obama's story too?

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 12:18 PM (7ObY1)


Well, except for the location of the dogs relative to the dinner table.

Posted by: joncelli at February 11, 2014 08:19 AM (RD7QR)

214 The Federalist No toaster fucking jokes there Free of damned morons

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 08:19 AM (7ObY1)

215 In a way, isn't this Obama's story too? Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 12:18 PM (7ObY1) Replace 'with the china' to 'on the china' and bingo.

Posted by: RWC at February 11, 2014 08:20 AM (fWAjv)

216 "And thinking about how we've gone from Shirley Temple to Honey Boo Boo. America: WTF HAPPENED?" That's the worst perspective check I've read in months. And I'm supposed to engage in this culture? No thanks, I got off that train years ago and haven't seen anything that makes me want to go back.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 11, 2014 08:20 AM (rCOda)

217

The site called Hot Air

Interacting with my peers

Mister Ace of Spades

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 11, 2014 08:21 AM (zF6Iw)

218 Why must the gay blade doing figure skating for NBC dress like a flaming fag on TV? What's his fuckin point and why do I have to deal with it. He, NBC, and gay activists can go fuck themselves, just do it in private. STOP STICKING IT IN MY FACE

---

He's probably trying to get arrested to make a point against the Anti Gay laws.

He should be careful what he wishes for. This is Russia, not Frisco.

Posted by: Biff Boffo at February 11, 2014 08:21 AM (YmPwQ)

219 I'm concerned our hatred of Mexicans will be noticed unless we amnesty at least a few of them, we can always treat them like crap once they come into the light, plus we need people to cut our lawns since there are 16 year olds left in our country.
But NO Irish.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 11, 2014 08:22 AM (38LLM)

220 Of my friend Ace, I can say only this: Of all the souls I've encountered in my travels, his was the most ... surly! *sob*

Posted by: Adm. J.T. Kirk at February 11, 2014 08:22 AM (vgIRn)

221 You misspelled "illegal alien" "criminal".

Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 11, 2014 08:22 AM (aDwsi)

222 He should be careful what he wishes for. This is Russia, not Frisco.


He'll wish he chugged the tap water in Sochi after he ends up with a Po-210 enema.


Posted by: EC at February 11, 2014 08:23 AM (GQ8sn)

223 And thinking about how we've gone from Shirley Temple to Honey Boo Boo. America: WTF HAPPENED? Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 12:13 PM (7ObY1) Laura I's quote today on radio was: "We went from Shirley Temple to Miley Cyrus. Nuff said."

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 11, 2014 08:23 AM (IXrOn)

224 Shorter Peter Wehner and Michael Gerson on how to win elections: We will give you a bit less than what the other guy is offering--vote for us.

Sounds kinda stupid when you distill it down. But stupid is the hallmark of reasonable Republicans.

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 11, 2014 08:24 AM (VjL9S)

225 Ayn Rand, that lunatic, predicted a law that said you couldn't fire people. What a crazy outlier huh? That will never hapen...

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2014 08:24 AM (zfY+H)

226 I hope Ace is on a James O'Keefe undercover gig.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 11, 2014 08:24 AM (IXrOn)

227 I hope Ace is on a James O'Keefe undercover gig.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 11, 2014 12:24 PM (IXrOn)

 

They're investigating Imperial corruption on Endor.

Posted by: Insomniac at February 11, 2014 08:25 AM (DrWcr)

228 Oops :

...plus we need people to cut our lawns since there are NO 16 year olds left in our country.
But NO Irish.


Fixed.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 11, 2014 08:25 AM (38LLM)

229 I hope Ace is on a James O'Keefe undercover gig.


Furry convention in Vegas already?

Posted by: EC at February 11, 2014 08:26 AM (GQ8sn)

230 I hope Ace is on a James O'Keefe undercover gig. As Hannah Giles fluffer.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 11, 2014 08:26 AM (0HooB)

231 Personally, I'm very concerned about the encroaching surveillance state. I hate those licence plate readers that police and other government agencies are using. I am very worried about the proliferation of "security" cameras and things like facial recognition software. What I can't do is figure out a legitimate constitutional argument against their use (at least as we currently know they are being used).

I don't even have a problem with them using that kind of technology if it was only used for stuff like checking for wants and warrants. The problem comes in with creating databases that store all this info on people who have no wants or warrants - just normal citizens.

A test that is frequently used for 4th amendment law is ones "expectation of privacy". I would argue that people do not expect their every movement to be permanently recorded in a government database every time they step out their door. Unfortunately, getting SCOTUS to see things the way I do seems like a long shot, to say the least.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 11, 2014 08:26 AM (IN7k+)

232 At the risk of ruining everyone's lunch, is this an indicator that Jay-Z and Barky have been wife-swapping? Posted by: Country Singer at February 11, 2014 12:12 PM (L8r/r) You lucky I don't know where you live muthafucka. I ain't never been that desperate for tail.

Posted by: Jay-Z at February 11, 2014 08:27 AM (oFCZn)

233 Where's ace?

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 11, 2014 08:27 AM (38LLM)

234 The real reason the courts haven't touched the executive orders fiasco is threefold.
First, it starts up a constitutional crisis and the courts really prefer to avoid that - especially with Roberts in charge more worried about his legacy than the law.
Second, what happens when the courts say "that's illegal, stop it" and Obama says "who cares? Stop me." Its even worse a situation.
Third, there's a chance that a decision might set back executive orders going back 50 years and that's a huge headache.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2014 08:27 AM (zfY+H)

235 What?  Another Little Big Horn?

http://tinyurl.com/mahrlcv


Redskins on the war path.  Need to see more of this all the way around.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 11, 2014 08:27 AM (BZAd3)

236 I hope Ace is on a James O'Keefe undercover gig. As Hannah Giles fluffer. Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at February 11, 2014 12:26 PM (0HooB) Ewok pimp. No need for the fur coat.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 11, 2014 08:27 AM (IXrOn)

237 At least 95% of conservatives would support big government if they actually trusted the people in power. The whole libertarian swindle is to get us to concentrate on opposing "big government" rather than the forces using that government to destroy our society. "Big government" is just a means for the left to get votes. It is purely incidental to their real agenda.

Posted by: Realist at February 11, 2014 08:28 AM (LmD/o)

238 Where's ace? Posted by: Dr Spank at February 11, 2014 12:27 PM (38LLM) Watching the Olympics in Seattle.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 11, 2014 08:28 AM (IXrOn)

239 As Hannah Giles fluffer.  Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at February 11, 2014 12:26 PM (0HooB)

Oh.

Oh my.

BRB.  Bunk

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 11, 2014 08:28 AM (MPIX5)

240 Watching the Olympics in Seattle. Posted by: artisanal 'ette


What??

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 11, 2014 08:29 AM (38LLM)

241

At least 95% of conservatives would support big government if they actually trusted the people in power.

 

Guess I'm one of the  5%, then.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 11, 2014 08:29 AM (zF6Iw)

242 What?? Posted by: Dr Spank at February 11, 2014 12:29 PM (38LLM) I think you broke him.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 11, 2014 08:30 AM (IXrOn)

243 Third, there's a chance that a decision might set back executive orders going back 50 years and that's a huge headache. If any EO's contradict the Constitution, so what? That's what we pay them for. But it's clear from TFG's actions that will never be a concern anymore, as he can do what he wants. And on that note, I gotta go do stuff. Y'all have fun and try not to trash the place, 'k?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b] at February 11, 2014 08:30 AM (0HooB)

244 Third, there's a chance that a decision might set back executive orders going back 50 years and that's a huge headache.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2014 12:27 PM (zfY+H)


Remind me again how many battalions the Supreme Court has.

Posted by: Caliph Barky al-Ochoomba at February 11, 2014 08:31 AM (o3MSL)

245 What?? Posted by: Dr Spank at February 11, 2014 12:29 PM (38LLM) no one is owning up to where Ace is it's kind of the Where's Ewok for the last handful of days

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 11, 2014 08:31 AM (IXrOn)

246 Nood

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at February 11, 2014 08:31 AM (bCEmE)

247 Hey, Ace has borrowed my H.G. Wells Time Machine™ and was going to visit January 2017.  Perhaps he saw something he didn't like?

Posted by: Sphynx at February 11, 2014 08:31 AM (OZmbA)

248 And now for something totally different: Pubic Schools
http://tinyurl.com/gnov2

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2014 08:31 AM (zfY+H)

249 So, is it going to be the norm for young singers and actresses to post nude photos of themselves on the internet weekly? It's gotten to be so common. I want to say: I've seen all your naughty bits -- what else ya got?

Posted by: Judge Pug at February 11, 2014 08:31 AM (NRYdU)

250 At least 95% of conservatives would support big government if they actually trusted the people in power. If 95% of conservatives trusted the people in power, no way there would be "big government."

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 11, 2014 08:32 AM (IXrOn)

251 A test that is frequently used for 4th amendment law is ones "expectation of privacy". And it's a false test- one that has nothing to do with the 4th amendment. My "expectation of privacy" doesn't even enter into the question (or shouldn't). The 4th amendment sets up a prohibition: my person, house, effects, etc. are sacrosanct- the government may not search or seize them. Period. Then the 4th amendment sets up 1 specific exception to that: a warrant may be issued upon presentation of probable cause- that is, reasonable belief that I have committed, or have material knowledge/documentation of, a specific crime. There is no gray area there. Either you get a warrant based on probable cause, or you leave me the f*ck alone. All the nonsense with "expectation of privacy" was slight-of-hand to make you think the 4th Amendment said something different from what it plainly says.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 08:33 AM (PYAXX)

252 Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2014 12:24 PM (zfY+H)


Comrade, you are still free to go bankrupt and throw yourself on the mercy of the state for food-stamps and unemployment.

Posted by: Caliph Barky al-Ochoomba at February 11, 2014 08:33 AM (o3MSL)

253 At least 95% of conservatives would support big government if they actually trusted the people in power. Guess I'm one of the 5%, then. Ditto. It helps (or doesn't) that I don't generally trust people to begin with...

Posted by: Brother Cavil at February 11, 2014 08:33 AM (naUcP)

254 I have Fox on for background noise, and it seems that the King of the Frogs doesn't know when to shut up, much like his Commie buddy, Barack the First.

Posted by: Bill at February 11, 2014 08:34 AM (uvyrw)

255 Conservatives aren't for smaller government out of some fondness for small things, we're for small government because we want the government restricted to its legal and proper role.
Conservatives want a government just big enough to do its proper job within constitutional limits, and no bigger. It just ends up being about small government today because the government is so vastly gargantuan.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2014 08:34 AM (zfY+H)

256 "237 At least 95% of conservatives would support big government if they actually trusted the people in power." Hogwash. Most modern Conservatives would be called Classical Liberals 100 years ago. Authoritarians probably account for less than a third of the Conservative movement. There's nothing conservative about advocating for power for the State, so long as the "right people" are in charge. "Libertarian swindle?" The only swindler, here, Sir or Madam, is you. Your kind are the establishment of the GOP, and you suck at both governing AND winning elections.

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at February 11, 2014 08:42 AM (q/jNW)

257 Sorry, should be, "You say there's nothing wrong..."

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at February 11, 2014 08:43 AM (q/jNW)

258 And it's a false test- one that has nothing to do with the 4th amendment.


My "expectation of privacy" doesn't even enter into the question (or shouldn't).

That is just a shorthand for describing that arguments that come into play when discussing the bounds of the 4th.

For example, from wikipedia ( http://tinyurl.com/d6x8xo ):
In Florida v. Jardines the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 26, 2013, that police violated the Fourth Amendment rights of a homeowner when they led a drug-sniffing dog to the front door of a house suspected of being used to grow marijuana.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the court said that police conducted a “search” when they entered the property and took the dog to the house’s front porch. Since the officers had not first obtained a warrant beforehand, their search was unconstitutional, the court said. The court said the police officers violated a basic rule of the Fourth Amendment by physically intruding into the area surrounding a private home for investigative purposes without securing a warrant.

“When it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the home is first among equals”, Justice Scalia wrote. "At the amendment’s very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable government intrusion". Scalia added: “This right would be of little practical value if the state’s agents could stand in a home’s porch or side garden and trawl for evidence with impunity”.



Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 11, 2014 08:53 AM (IN7k+)

259 This is exactly why we need to get back to the idea of defunding the Army every two years like the Constitution says. Because if you don't have a standing Army you have to draft. And when you draft, people like this go the front lines, every time. Posted by: Bigby's Jazz Hands at February 11, 2014 12:12 PM You want Weir on the front lines? Why?

Posted by: JJ Stone at February 11, 2014 09:06 AM (4oSMi)

260 That's just the thing, Alex, "reasonable expectation of privacy" was not and is not an exclusion or exception to the 4th.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,"

And "unreasonable" is clearly defined as "but upon probable cause."

Once they added "reasonable expectation of privacy" excuses lack of probable cause, it gutted the first clause. Because then I have no right at all to be secure in my person, house, PAPERS AND EFFECTS. My "right" then becomes entirely transitory and location/situation dependent, and mostly dependent upon the whims of the state.

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 11, 2014 09:12 AM (VjL9S)

261 At least 95% of conservatives would support big government if they actually trusted the people in power. If we trusted the people in power - or people in general - we would cease to be conservatives.

Posted by: Paul Zummo at February 11, 2014 09:13 AM (Ud5vq)

262

To steal a line from Hillary, "What difference does it make ?".

 

The Constitutionality of actions do not mean shit. The Judiciary rules first and justifies later. The Executive simply ignores. The Legislative supports the Executive ... in return for Plausible Deniability. The States voluntarily defer to the Federal. The Press calms and distracts the Masses.

 

We have no peaceful options left, and no position of retreat safe from Politics. It's either going to be Tyranny of the Majority or Federal Collapse from here on out.

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 11, 2014 09:19 AM (CSqCa)

263 The problem with wearing a mask is that it may be...illegal were you are: http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html Otherwise, IR LED bulbs maybe the correct solution, as I understand they play merry hob with the CCD sensors and make the resulting images unusable. But I do not know that as a fact.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at February 11, 2014 09:24 AM (1hM1d)

264 Also, I've contemplated getting a green laser pen and pointing the laser at offending camera devices.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at February 11, 2014 09:25 AM (1hM1d)

265 Ski masks are illegal?

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 11, 2014 09:59 AM (6bMeY)

266 I love how we're being told to "give up on small government" just as we're starting to win. The only reason the Tea Party didn't do better in '12 was because of IRS targeting. We are set to have 2010 all over again, and I think, even better.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 11, 2014 02:25 PM (KL49F)

267 "If you have reason to believe that a *particular* car is stolen, run the license plate. If you have reason to believe a *particular* person has outstanding warrants, run a check. Alternatively, if you have another *legitimate* reason to run the plates or run an ID check, and those come back with information that the car is stolen or the person has outstanding warrants- that's fine, too."

"However- random checks absolutely violate the 4th Amendment."

How?  You don't own your license plate: it's issued by the DMV for the PURPOSE of identification.  How is law enforcement randomly checking tags on a public street unreasonable?

"Find me the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the Constitution. That's okay. I'll wait."

You seem to have missed where there are two separate prongs in the 4th Amendment.  It says no warrants shall issue without probable cause, and it says searches and seizures are to be REASONABLE.  Hence the question of whether someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a particular case.  Reasonableness is an ancient common-law standard with which the Framers were perfectly familiar and which is invariably highly fact-specific.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

"The State has no right to surveil me at all without a warrant."

Come again?  You're the one being a strict textualist here, so where does it say that?  It says searches and seizures have to be reasonable.  It does not say a warrant is required for every search or seizure.

Posted by: Dave J. at February 11, 2014 03:19 PM (boDz7)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
235kb generated in CPU 0.1203, elapsed 0.2971 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2565 seconds, 395 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 21452
  • Files: 240
  • Bytes: 558.5M
  • CPU Time: 26:38
  • Queries: 631427

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5953260

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0