US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2379

On October 09 2015 08:27 Slaughter wrote:



She was a dick about it and tried to not only get her name removed (which is fine, no one gives a shit if she is accommodated in this way) but the main problem was she still tried to retain control sending out messages through her lawyers that licenses aren't valid without her stamp. She also simply could have used this power to designate other individuals to do this BUT SHE DID NOT DO THAT. She expressly shut down giving all licenses and didn't allow any of her deputys to give them out. She is trying to have it both ways to abuse her position to discriminate against homosexuals. Not to mention the groups working with her have been pretty shady as fuck trying to spin shit. Like that whole BS story about meeting the pope and getting his approval.

If she had simply asked for the accommodation and hadn't made a huge fuss about it no one would have cared, she wouldn't have been sued and this isn't a story. Instead she used this situation to try to grand stand for her viewpoint.

On October 09 2015 08:29 Cowboy64 wrote:

I suppose you prefer it always being the GOP's fault... somewhat disingenuous of an argument. Also disingenuous is the "Congress doesn't do anything anymore" argument that is bandied about quite often. A basic perusal of the Constitution will show that Congress is not the Executive branch and therefore has no power to "do things".

On October 09 2015 08:29 Cowboy64 wrote:

I suppose you prefer it always being the GOP's fault... somewhat disingenuous of an argument. Also disingenuous is the "Congress doesn't do anything anymore" argument that is bandied about quite often. A basic perusal of the Constitution will show that Congress is not the Executive branch and therefore has no power to "do things".

On October 09 2015 08:37 Gorsameth wrote:

You really did not pay much attention in school did you?
Sure you read some words in a book (or looked it up on a wiki 5 minutes ago) but you obviously have no grasp on what those words mean.

Congress's job is to pass bills. They are currently terrible at it. Hence them not doing anything anymore.

The top Republican and Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee are preparing to introduce a bill Thursday they're billing as "companion" legislation to the major Senate sentencing overhaul unveiled last week.

Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and ranking member John Conyers, D-Mich., issued a rare joint statement saying their proposal results from several months of negotiations "to ensure our federal criminal laws and regulations appropriately punish wrongdoers, are effectively and appropriately enforced, operate with fairness and compassion, protect individual freedom ... and do not waste taxpayer dollars."

Key provisions in the proposal, obtained by NPR in advance of a formal news conference, suggested that the language mostly tracks the Senate legislation. If passed, the bill would reduce mandatory life sentences for drug offenders convicted under the "three strikes" laws to 25 years behind bars. The changes would apply to people already in prison — but in a change from the Senate counterpart, prisoners who have certain prior violent felony convictions would not be eligible.

The lawmakers said they expect to propose other legislative changes to the asset forfeiture system, and to prisons and juvenile justice, in the coming weeks.

The plan by the House members came as something of a surprise for advocates following the issue. Goodlatte had previously said he would address parts of the justice system piecemeal, with asset forfeiture coming first.

"Nobody expected this all would be coming so quickly," said Holly Harris of the U.S. Justice Action Network, a group that pushes for reform at the state and federal level. "I wonder if there was an effort in D.C. to tamp down expectations."

Harris said the Senate plan released last week is "far more comprehensive" than anticipated and the outlines for action in the House Judiciary Committee are aggressive, too. "If all of that gets done this year, it'll put me out of business," she added.

Jeremy Haile, who's long advocated for changes to the justice system, called the new plan "substantial" and "salutary." Haile, of the DC-based nonprofit The Sentencing Project, pointed out that federal courts usually don't have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes like assault or armed robbery.

On October 09 2015 08:37 Gorsameth wrote:

You really did not pay much attention in school did you?
Sure you read some words in a book (or looked it up on a wiki 5 minutes ago) but you obviously have no grasp on what those words mean.

Congress's job is to pass bills. They are currently terrible at it. Hence them not doing anything anymore.

While some are suggesting House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) will be holding the gavel for the foreseeable future, Boehner reportedly called Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) Thursday after House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthry (R-CA) announced he was dropping out of the speaker's race and asked Ryan to run.

Two unnamed sources confirmed to the Washington Post the conversation, which took place over two "long" phone calls. According to the Post's Robert Costa, Boehner told Ryan -- a budget wonk who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee -- he could influence policy from the leadership post while serving as a healer for the divided caucus.

Almost immediately after news broke McCarthy was dropping his bid, Ryan issued a statement saying he would not be a candidate for speaker.

On October 09 2015 09:34 zlefin wrote:
Here's a nice article on the trilemma created by the debt ceiling:
http://columbialawreview.org/bargaining-in-the-shadow-of-the-debt-ceiling-when-negotiating-over-spending-and-tax-laws-congress-and-the-president-should-consider-the-debt-ceiling-a-dead-letter/

edit: adding a tldr with the first paragraph

"If the debt ceiling is inconsistent with existing spending and taxing laws, what must the President do? In earlier work, we argued that when Congress creates a “trilemma”—making it impossible for the President to spend as much as Congress has ordered, to tax only as much as Congress has ordered, and to borrow no more than Congress has permitted—the Constitution requires the President to choose the least unconstitutional path. In particular, he must honor Congress’s decisions and priorities regarding spending and taxing, and he must issue enough debt to do so. Here, we extend the analysis in two ways. First, we rebut several recently-advanced arguments that purport to dissolve the trilemma. We explain that upon close inspection some of those arguments amount to non sequiturs, while one potentially promising solution would merely substitute a nondelegation violation for a separation-of-powers violation. Second, we ask whether our original analysis changes if both Congress and the President, when they pass appropriations measures, knowingly create a trilemma. We conclude that the answer does not change—that is, that spending and taxing laws must still take precedence over the debt ceiling. Accordingly, the debt ceiling is effectively a dead letter, and both Congress and the President should treat it as such."

On October 09 2015 10:58 ticklishmusic wrote:


Boehner: Pls I want to leave
Ryan: Lol u think I want the job
Boehner: U get a cool gavel thing
Ryan: Can I hit shitty Republicans with it
Boehner: no
Ryan: lol gl with that
Boehner: fuck no one wants this job

On October 09 2015 11:43 GreenHorizons wrote:


lol so true. The "freedom caucus" has made the position untenable by anyone but themselves.

On October 09 2015 11:28 zlefin wrote:
clutz, did you actually read the entirety of the article?

1. Doesn't Discuss Occam's Razor or any similar principle. Somewhere in the paper they accurately state that the debt ceiling was created in 1917. However, they imply strongly that prior to this that Congress simply thought that the overall level of debt was irrelevant and did it to allay concerns about debt. In fact, the truth is almost the opposite, the debt limit was create to simplify the process of issuing bonds that is because, "Between 1788 and 1917 the amount of each bond issue by the United States Treasury had to be separately authorized by Congress by passing a legislative act that approved the bond issue." http://en.wikipedia....ling_increases; see also ("Before World War I, Congress often authorized borrowing for specified purposes, such as the construction of the Panama Canal.76 Congress also often specified which types of financial instruments Treasury could employ, and specified or limited interest rates, maturities, and details of when bonds could be redeemed. In other cases, especially in time of war, Congress provided the Treasury with discretion, subject to broad limits, to choose debt instruments.") http://www.google.co...,d.aWc&cad=rja.

In this way, they set off in their writing on a dishonest foot by: 1. Not acknowledging that without the debt limit Congress would have an even more difficult way of Constitutionally issuing debt, and 2. Ignoring that one law (the debt limit) specifically speaks to the issue while the others do so only indirectly.

2. Doesn't Discuss that Exceeding the Debt limit is not certain when a budget is passed. Tax receipts are never certain. This fact is never discussed. No budget passed has an 100% chance of causing the federal government to exceed the debt ceiling, so no budget even contains an "implicit" authorization to raise the debt limit. Unanticipated September growth in employment and tax revenues could cause the entire discussion (debt limit) to be moot.

3. In the Spending Cuts vs. Tax increases part, the authors for some reason assume the President could successfully increase tax revenues. This claim is dubious first because of the slow machinery that underpins the tax system, and second because the dubious connection between increasing tax rates and increases in tax revenues.

While I think the rest of the information and analysis is quite good, the omission of these three significant points renders the conclusions fairly specious.

On October 09 2015 12:29 zlefin wrote:
I can seriously cite it because it is scholarly, and well written, in a highly reputable journal. The conclusions and arguments may be wrong, but it is definitely well written and a good read.
So what do you think the most constitutional action would be for a president faced with that Trilemma?