Since it now seems likely that we are heading for a contested Republican National Convention, I want to push back against Jack's post from a few weeks ago that the current rules governing that assembly will probably not be changed because neither Cruz nor Trump has an incentive to do so.
There are many possible permutations in a contested convention, but let me throw out one that is a real possibility. Under the current rules, only two names can be placed in nomination for President--Trump and Cruz. Why? Because the rules say that you need to win at least 8 states to be nominated. This is a crucial point because, as long as this rule stays in place, the GOP will not have an "open" convention. This structure, of course, works well for Trump and Cruz by excluding John Kasich or a dark horse like Paul Ryan from consideration on a second ballot.
Trump, though, may conclude that he will lose this two-way contest because Cruz will do better on subsequent ballots. Is there a way out of this dilemma? Maybe. Trump could put a motion on the floor that only his name can be put in nomination because Cruz is constitutionally ineligible to be President. Can he get a majority of the delegates to vote for this? Maybe, but it may depend on what John Kasich does. A Trump/Kasich coalition may have a majority (so could a Cruz/Kasich coalition). What would Trump have to give Kasich for these votes? The Vice-Presidency? A rule change to allow Kasich's name to be placed in nomination for President? (By saying, for instance, that you just have to win at least one state to be nominated.) In turn, what would Cruz have to offer Kasich to stop this outcome? Maybe the same things.
One takeaway is that John Kasich, not the Supreme Court, may end up being the final authority on the meaning of the Natural Born Citizen Clause as applied to Ted Cruz.
This would entail Kasich having the votes; currently, RUBIO has more delegates than him & at least at this time, MR is under the impression he can control them on the first ballot. Note also there are many unbound delegates. How they will settle is unclear; will all come out for someone by the beginning of the convention?
ReplyDeleteThe "eight state" rule in place at this time would require control of a majority of delegates in the states. Certain states at time have no candidate that meets that test. Cruz has not met the test yet but should eventually.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/kasich-barred-by-convention-rule/
Anyway, it's a thought experiment, but even if Trump tried it (sort of makes him look weak), doubt Kasich would buy into it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGerard:
ReplyDeleteDelegates who are pledged under state caucus or primary rules to vote for a candidate on the first ballot of the convention do not necessarily support that candidate and are most definitely not controlled by that candidate. Kasich has no power to give his delegates to Trump.
Team Cruz has known this from the beginning and has spent months assembling slates of delegate candidates who do support him and then getting them elected to go to the RNC.
The clueless Team Trump only just discovered the RNC rule book and Cruz's work with the delegates from media reports. Their response to date has been to assemble a team of five people (Yuuge!) to start a delegate outreach effort and is threatening to sue. Kasch is too cash poor to hire staff and has no volunteer base to compete for delegates.
As a result, delegates who support Cruz or oppose Trump should dominate the rules and credentials committees and are highly unlikely to support any any rules changes to benefit Trump.
If Trump cannot get a majority of pledged delegates going into the convention, it is possible that Cruz can assemble a majority from unplugged delegates on the first ballot and far more likely on the second ballot when most of the pledged delegates are released.
SPAM I AM! in his role as troll for the Cruz Canadacy took two strikes before presenting the Cruz talking points, neglecting Gerard's raising the issue of whether Cruz is a natural born citizen. I recall from earlier threads at this Blog the debate between SPAM I AM! and Mr. W with SPAM I AM! eventually seemingly conceding, giving Mr. w yet another W. Is SPAM I AM! upholding the Constitution by continuing supporting the Cruz Canadacy?
ReplyDeleteGerard:
ReplyDeleteHere is a good general article concerning delegate selection.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/04/07/cruz_outmaneuvering_trump_in_hand-to-hand_delegate_fight_130220.html
ReplyDeleteThese information really worth saying, i think you are master of the content and thank you so much sharing that valuable information and get new skills after refer that post.
SAP Training in Chennai
And another:
ReplyDeletehttp://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ted-cruz-not-paul-ryan-would-probably-win-a-contested-convention/?ex_cid=538twitter
I think we all win if the GOP has a contested convention.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteContesTED! Who is HaTED! and DetesTED! and soon to be DefeaTED!
ReplyDeleteTED Talks? Not getting a lot of love in the Bronx (NY).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I personally think he is a natural born citizen as I covered in detail in the past; see the other side with a response from me here:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/01/guest-post-from-mark-field-regarding-ted-cruzs-eligibility-for-the-presidency#comments
But, to the degree this will be decided, another possibility would be Congress when it officially counts electoral votes. As noted by Prof. Cole in his recent book, non-court decision-making here is quite important. This has also be noted in the OP's writings too. This has been seen, e.g., in the area of guns, where Congress repeatedly pre-Heller supported a pro-individual rights view of the 2A. It can also do its part there now:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/06/nra-supreme-court-merrick-garland-senate-mitch-mcconnell-column/82613644/
That Bronx cheer resonated in the Sound (i.e., Long Island).
ReplyDeleteIt's fun watching Bart, who so often here castigates the elites for using complexly rigged games to thwart the will of the people, supporting a Cruz candidacy which is openly banking on working with the Party bosses and establishment to comb the upcoming convention rules to win the nomination from someone who is clearly going to come in with more votes (and delegates) than anyone else.
ReplyDeleteAlso, did anyone see a map of Wisconsin's primary results by county? Bart and Brett are big supporters of places having more political power than people (population), so how much offended were they by the fact that while Cruz won more people's votes Trump seems to have won as much if not more geographic locations? We don't want the people in the most populous centers to 'lord it over' all the people in the other counties, do we?
http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/wi/Rep
Given his expertise on the father of the 14th Amendment, I for one would love to hear Gerald's take on the recent voting apportionment decision by the Court.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMr. W: It's fun watching Bart, who so often here castigates the elites for using complexly rigged games to thwart the will of the people, supporting a Cruz candidacy which is openly banking on working with the Party bosses and establishment to comb the upcoming convention rules to win the nomination from someone who is clearly going to come in with more votes (and delegates) than anyone else.
ReplyDeleteSo now the GOP establishment is in love with Cruz?I? LMAO!
Team Cruz worked the grass roots delegates for months to BYPASS the GOP establishment. The Cruz delegates are part of the conservative base, not the establishment.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ted-cruz-not-paul-ryan-would-probably-win-a-contested-convention/?ex_cid=538twitter
The GOP establishment's SOP for multiple election cycles was to unify around one establishment candidate who won with pluralities while multiple conservative candidates split the majority conservative electorate. Cruz hoped to have the conservatives to himself to win the nomination outright, but planned from the outset to work the state party delegates in case the party establishment was able to achieve its SOP and the race went to the convention.
Trump turned the Cruz and establishment plans on their head, however. The Donald divided Cruz's hoped for majority by taking many of the working class votes he was targeting. However, the combination of Trump and Cruz gutted the support for any establishment candidate. The net result is that Trump rather than an establishment candidate is leading with a plurality of support, so Cruz is putting his delegate plan B into effect against Trump instead of the establishment.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGerard:
ReplyDeleteTime is catching on as well to the delegate battle:
Meanwhile, there is little mystery about who has the best operation for wrangling, recruiting and securing delegates. From Tennessee to Colorado, Cruz’s delegate-hunting operation has dominated, with his aides confident that around 200 Trump delegates will swing to Cruz after the first ballot. In Virginia, where Cruz finished a distant third, the campaign is hustling to install supporters in the state’s 13 at-large delegate slots. In Louisiana, Cruz is set to pick up as many as 10 more delegates than Trump, despite losing the Bayou State primary by four points. In a show of organizational muscle, 18 of 25 delegates elected at the North Dakota state convention backed Cruz. In Georgia, where Cruz finished a distant third, his allies have dominated preference polls of the party activists showing up at precinct and county meetings. “We’re going to make sure we get dealt four aces,” says a member of Cruz’s delegate operation. “You don’t just want Cruz supporters. You want fighters. At the national convention, there will be more browbeating and arm twisting than you can imagine.”
Consider what has been happening in Arizona: Trump romped to victory in the state on March 22, crushing Cruz with 47% of the vote. The win netted Trump all 58 of the state’s delegates–but only for the first ballot. Cruz’s operatives in the state have been working for weeks to secure activists who are inclined to support the Texas Senator once they’re no longer bound to Trump. The result is an intimate lobbying campaign, carried out through phone calls and texts, emails and in-person contacts at party gatherings and Tea Party functions, gun shows and forums held by taxpayer groups.
“You’re not trying to move thousands of people,” says Constantin Querard, Cruz’s Arizona state director. “These meetings usually have 30 to 200 people. It’s feasible to contact everyone.” Cruz boosters estimate that anywhere from half to 90% of the Arizona delegates will switch to Cruz after the first ballot.
Cruz has made the shadow campaign a personal priority. While Trump planned his next megarally, Cruz left the campaign trail three days before the critical Wisconsin primary to speak to the North Dakota state convention in Fargo. Cruz also found time to campaign in Wyoming, with only 29 delegates. “It’s good old-fashioned grassroots politics,” says Quin Hillyer, a conservative columnist who is part of a group that has met to discuss how to stop Trump. “Cruz and his team are showing that they’re masters at it.”
http://time.com/4284790/learning-to-love-ted-cruz/?xid=homepage
There is a morbid fascination in watching the GOP decide whether to go down with the Yamato or the Bismarck. More survived the former (277 against 114), but the Yamato had a bigger crew.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the EVENWEL v. ABBOTT, the "liberal originalism" post on this blog is a good one -- history, it isn't just for conservatives. History tends to only tell us so much but on that level, it isn't one side or the other all the same.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-940_ed9g.pdf
The different position of Rep. Bingham (GM's subject) and Radical Republicans is suggested by Mark Graber's paper:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2483355
SHAM I AM! is shameless in his trolling at this Blog for the Cruz Canadacy. Earlier he posted a comment with the talking points of the Cruz Canadacy and more recently he copies at length from an article he provides a link to. Keep in mind the heading of this post by Gerard:
ReplyDelete"John Kasich and the Natural-Born Citizen Clause"
In my earlier response to SPAM I AM! I pointed out he had ignored the natural born citizen clause. He continues not to respond, perhaps because of his concession on another thread at this Blog in his debate with Mr. W. Now I have no idea if SPAM I AM! is on a Cruz Canadacy payroll or merely a lemming. If I had to guess, it would the latter.
There is a morbid fascination in watching the GOP decide whether to go down with the Yamato or the Bismarck. More survived the former (277 against 114), but the Yamato had a bigger crew.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger James Wimberley : 2:47 PM
Many of the dead from the Titanic were buried in Canada, so you could make a case that one of the GOP candidates represents that doomed ship.
Shag:
ReplyDeleteThe subject is delegate maneuvering. I am the only one posting on subject.
The rest of you are whistling past the graveyard at the prospect of what a Cruz rather than a Trump candidacy means for your lying felon dowager queen in waiting.
These poll numbers are GREAT news for John McCain!!
ReplyDeleteBart's comments like the one at 2:44 are quite remarkable. How many times have we listened to Bart's hyperbolic pronouncements of the people subverted by party elites playing backroom games? And now he seems to be glowingly covering Cruz's attempt to subvert the will of a majority of voters in the GOP nomination process. The people in the states he describes voted over and over for Trump over Cruz. And now Cruz is employing longtime operatives to work 'behind the scenes' to try to get Trump's delegates (who are party regulars) to switch their votes to Cruz, who they were not elected to represent? Mark this well fellow regulars.
ReplyDeleteHere's the wikipedia page on the Cruz operative Bart's article covered:
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantin_Querard
Professional, longtime political operative. Working to get people who were elected by voters to represent Trump to switch to Cruz.
Bart is the guy who regularly hollers about elites subverting democracy louder than a pig caught by the tail. Mark him well now...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOnce again we have SPAM I AM! telling the rest of us with his:
ReplyDelete"The subject is delegate maneuvering. I am the only one posting on subject."
that he is the only one in step. SPAM I AM! ignores the heading to Gerard's post as well as its concluding paragraph. And it's ironic that a clueless SPAM I AM! refers to the "clueless team Trump." I'm not shilling for Trump. What's clear is that SPAM I AM! lemming-like is not objective in his comments. Even though he's been called out, he continues to evade, that's part of his DNA.
Mr. W: he seems to be glowingly covering Cruz's attempt to subvert the will of a majority of voters in the GOP nomination process.
ReplyDeleteA bit more than a third of the voters in the GOP primaries and caucuses cast ballots for Trump and may of them were Indis and Democrats.
No candidate has received close to a majority of the vote, so it will be up to a majority of the elected delegates to choose the nominee.
Fair point, I should have said 'bypass the winner of more votes than any of the other candidates.'
ReplyDeleteyour lying felon dowager queen in waiting
ReplyDeleteShe is not a felon until found guilty of a felony in a court of law; not the court of DePalma's fevered imagination. Absent such, this is mere slander of the base sort of which he appears to have a headful.
"She is not a felon until found guilty of a felony in a court of law;"
ReplyDelete"An individual who commits a crime of a serious nature, such as Burglary or murder. A person who commits a felony." West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2
Sorry, Larry, but you don't have to have been convicted to be a felon, or else the term, "convicted felon" would be redundant.
She's a felon by virtue of having committed felonies, and that the DoJ is too corrupt to indict her for them does not render her innocent.
The DOJ is following normal guidelines in determining she did not commit something worthy of being charged. One can disagree with them (e.g., Mr. W. and Brett disagree on the serious nature of the core charges here) but that isn't really what "corrupt" generally means. But, we can have special meanings.
ReplyDeleteAs to "felon," it is common for people to only use that term when the person has been convicted. For instance, Trump allegedly committed various crimes and there is reasonable evidence to label him a "criminal" for that reason, but that isn't something certain people do. As Mr. W. once noted, the libertarian "three felonies a day" concern would make the average person a "felon," but again, we don't say that. We don't say "such and such a person is a felon." Perhaps, Republicans are special snowflakes there and none running for office are "felons" on that level.
Again, I'm not making any specific claims here, including about Hillary Clinton. And, yes, one can call OJ a "murderer" even if he wasn't prosecuted in the court of law for that. Still, I understand the confusion to some degree.
But Brett is not confused. Perhaps it can be said, using some dictionary definitions, that Brett, a self-proclaimed anarcho libertarian, is a felon, by Brett's own unconventional standards. It is part of Brett's DNA, well demonstrated by his comments over the years at this Blog. Consider Brett's closing:
ReplyDelete"She's a felon by virtue of having committed felonies, and that the DoJ is too corrupt to indict her for them does not render her innocent."
and apply it to Pres. Reagan and several in his Administration on the Iran-Contra brouhaha. Who determines that one has committed felonies? An anarcho-libertarian who is also a 2nd A absolutist? Brett of course has his 1st A speech rights, subject of course to defamation limitations.
Joe: The DOJ is following normal guidelines in determining she did not commit something worthy of being charged.
ReplyDeleteOh good lord! Thank you for my first belly laugh of the month.
This is the gang who refused to prosecute the Black Panthers for voter intimidation, the IRS conspiracy against and harassment of opposing political groups and Planned Parenthood marketing in body parts, while signing off on Obama's various unconstitutional decrees in violation of the US Code and then blocking IGs from accessing their records. THE most corrupt Justice Department since and arguably including Nixon.
Jurors are required to consider defendants accused of a crime innocent until the prosecution proves their guilt. No one else with access to the facts is required to do so. The Clinton case is not remotely close.
Shag: apply it to Pres. Reagan and several in his Administration on the Iran-Contra brouhaha.
ReplyDeleteThe swap of scrap pile weapons to Iran for cash, which was provided to the Contra rebellion was not a crime of any type.
Revealing that you can consider a foreign policy with which you disagree to be a crime, but not hundreds of documented felony and misdemeanor violations of the U.S. Code.
SHAM I AM! claims to be a criminal defense attorney, assuming DUI so qualifies, pointing out the presumption of innocence for juries (and judges on bench trials, I might add), but as an individual he believes in using the 1st A speech clause in a defamatory manner. His rant includes racist implications.
ReplyDeleteHumor, even unintentional, is a blessing.
ReplyDeleteSPAM I AM! seems to be suggesting that Reagan's Iran-Contra did not not result in deaths and injuries. Weren't there federal statutes violated by Iran-Contra? Reagan may have had the defense of some mental deterioration on his role in Iran-Contra, but what about key members of his Administration?
ReplyDelete"The DOJ is following normal guidelines in determining she did not commit something worthy of being charged. "
ReplyDeleteI'm with Bart on this, that's worthy of laughter. It's quite clear that a the key decision point in the DOJ's determination of whether to charge is, "Is this person a Democrat?" And, yes, that represents corruption.
If Hillary were not a Democrat, and a highly placed one, she'd have been charged months ago for the felonies she committed in connection with that private server. People have done serious time for much less.
But, not, of course, people who happened to be important Democrats.
"But Brett is not confused. Perhaps it can be said, using some dictionary definitions, that Brett, a self-proclaimed anarcho libertarian, is a felon, by Brett's own unconventional standards."
Shag, I quoted a law dictionary definition of "felon", in what world is that an "unconventional" standard?
And we've already had that conversation. Yes, I'm a felon, by the prevailing definition of the word. I have serious problems with many of the things the government has chosen to make felonies, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShag: SPAM I AM! seems to be suggesting that Reagan's Iran-Contra did not not result in deaths and injuries. Weren't there federal statutes violated by Iran-Contra?
ReplyDeleteMost certainly, the Iran Contra operation did result in casualties.
North & Co. sold our enemy Iran non-functional weapons for use in their war with Iraq. I would not wanted to have been the hapless Iranian grunt using these TOW I missiles against advancing Iraqi tanks. I trained with these largely non-functional weapons with the 82 Airborne in the early 1980s and most of them simply spun into space.
The money we received from Iran went to the Contras and very likely led to the deaths of some enemy Sandinista grunts.
I always considered Iran Contra to be an absolutely brilliant scam to get around likely unconstitutional restrictions on the CiC while screwing our enemies in Iran and Nicaragua.
Quite clear to you perhaps, but for others, not so much.
ReplyDeleteImportant people of both parties have been prosecuted in recent years and on some level if is somewhat reassuring given the cynicism some have about the PTB never getting caught. Obviously, power at times can help prevent prosecution, but it would be easier to accept that truth from you if you weren't so blatantly slanted about singling out one party here about things. OTOH, you have labeled yourself as a conservative, so your biases are not surprising.
And, yes, we had that conversation. The "prevailing" usage is not to call Brett, even assuming he committed some felony, a "felon." Yes, technically, that would be accurate, but it is not the most common usage. And, for many, people use "felon" only to mean those who have been convicted. Thus, the confusion.
But Hillary is not technically a felon, having committed one of those obscure "Three Felonies a Day". She's a serious felon, having violated laws concerning the handling of national security secrets and government records.
ReplyDeleteYou know, felony felonies.
"And, for many, people use "felon" only to mean those who have been convicted."
Especially people who want to pretend that folks who are being sheltered by the legal system are factually innocent, rather than just benefiting from a corrupt legal system.
Does anything say more about Brett's built in bias than the fact that when he thinks of a non-obscure, non-technical, serious felony he thinks 'sending an email over a personal server and not a government server?' Lord knows what he then thinks of felonies like murder, piracy etc. (those are 'super-duper serious' ones I guess).
ReplyDeleteI mean, really, you could not have thought of a more obscure, technical felony if you'd tried. It just so happens that this one *might* have been committed by a politician you really, really dislike.
I say *might* as well because, who says Hillary committed this crime? Brett, from reading newspapers and online blogs? I'd think that an anti-government person like Brett would believe that only if the government could prove something about someone beyond a reasonable doubt after a full and fair trial could we fairly say it happened. But maybe that's me....
Lord knows what he then thinks of felonies like murder, piracy etc. (those are 'super-duper serious' ones I guess).
ReplyDeleteOr torture.
Look, Mista Whiskas, she could have sent emails over a personal server all day and all night, and it wouldn't have been a felony, if she'd confined herself to using it for private business rather than job related communications. The crime wasn't using a private server. It was using a private server for NATIONAL SECURITY SECRETS, which were legally confined to a secure server system.
ReplyDeleteAnd not turning the communications over to the government on leaving that job. That, too, was a crime.
And communicating national security secrets with people who didn't have security clearances, like Sidney Blumenthal.
I think you're quite aware that, at the very least, she was conspiring to put her communications beyond the reach of FOIA inquiries, in violation of that law. The private server had no other purpose than to move her emails, and those of her subordinates she encouraged to use it, beyond the reach of the government's communications recording and search system, so they wouldn't turn up when people did FOIA requests.
And so that, if the government did demand them, she'd have physical custody, and would thus be able to pick and chose which got turned over, and which got deleted, without anybody else second guessing those choices. As she was not legally entitled to do.
It's not a fake crime, it's real one, several real ones, and people are rotting in prison for less. And that you don't freaking care if your party's candidate for President is a CRIMINAL is part of this country's decay.
FYI, my brother's office at work is in a vault with Tempest security, and if he'd done a TENTH of what we know Hillary did, he'd be wearing stripes, and pacing back and forth in a little hotel room with lousy maid service.
ReplyDeleteI think you have no idea, no idea at all, just how pissed off people who routinely deal with classified information are about this, knowing they'd be ruined for a fraction of what she's publicly known to have done.
This is serious stuff, don't you dare blow it off like this.
This is serious stuff, don't you dare blow it off like this.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Brett : 1:45 PM
You managed to find a way to blow it off when Bush was torturing people, I'm sure you'll get over this.
For Brett, this is so serious that he's probably expanding his arsenal to be prepared for whatever an anarcho-libertarian and 2nd A absolutist thinks needs to be done about the DOJ and the rest of government when he disagrees.
ReplyDeleteAnd to get SPAN I AM! excited about the Cruz Canadacy, he (and others) might check out Paul Krugman's NYTimes Blog today; "Why Cruz Is Worse Than Trump" from an economic standpoint, what with Trump's protectionism and Cruz's desire to return to the gold standard. SPAM I AM! can amuse with his ancient economic views of chronic Hayek - and Glenn Beck.
Back to Brett, is he whistle blowing on his bro?
"Back to Brett, is he whistle blowing on his bro?"
ReplyDeleteNope. Don't know what he does in that office. Point is, neither do random script kiddies doing port scans, which is more than can be said of knowledge of what was on Hillary's server.
"For Brett, this is so serious that he's probably expanding his arsenal to be prepared for whatever an anarcho-libertarian and 2nd A absolutist thinks needs to be done about the DOJ and the rest of government when he disagrees."
Me, and quite a few other people.
ReplyDeleteMe, and quite a few other people.
# posted by Blogger Brett : 2:46 PM
That is a very odd link for you to post.
"You managed to find a way to blow it off when Bush was torturing people, I'm sure you'll get over this."
ReplyDeleteSince I'm apparently your side project while cyber-stalking Bart, maybe you could refresh my memory. Doubtless you've got a link to me blowing off Bush torturing people, right at hand.
Shag: And to get SPAN I AM! excited about the Cruz Canadacy, he (and others) might check out Paul Krugman's NYTimes Blog today; "Why Cruz Is Worse Than Trump"
ReplyDeleteBy all means. Everyone pull up a chair and let us dissect what the NY Times resident economic incompetent has to offer.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/why-cruz-is-worse-than-trump/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body
Krugman: But on economics, Trump is a big protectionist, while Cruz is a devotee of the gold standard. And we know quite a lot about what these policies would do.
Protectionism makes economies less efficient, but it does not, in general, destroy jobs. Put a tariff on imports and people will spend less on imports — but they will normally spend more on other things instead. So a worldwide turn toward protectionism would both reduce everyone’s exports and reduce their imports, with the overall effect on spending and hence on employment more or less a wash.
This dumbfounding contention is so contrary to history that it would fail any Econ 101 student.
Using the same reasoning, the progressive Herbert Hoover enacted the Smoot Hawley tariff on imported goods. In retaliation, other nations raised their tariffs, waging a word trade war and the world fell into a deep recession. Beyond the increased cost of living this imposed on every American, U.S. export businesses failed across the country. These failing businesses defaulted on their loans causing dozens of banks to fail and the stock market to crash. (This is not the 1929 correction, which was largely recovered by early 1930, but rather the subsequent collapse.) Trump is proposing the same policy.
Krugman: And no, protectionism didn’t cause the Great Depression. It was a consequence, not a cause — and much less severe in countries that had the good sense to leave the gold standard.
These nations which minimized their recessions did not follow the rest of Hoover and Roosevelt's perfect storm of progressive mismanagement of the economy including more than doubling spending financed by debt and the most progressively punitive tax code (shapes increase in burden from bottom to top) in US history, massively increasing regulation, and increasing the cost of labor through Hoover's jawboning businesses in 1930 and 1931 followed by Roosevelt's unionization policies and minimum wage. No one else in the world followed these policies, at least to the extent the US did.
Krugman: Which brings us to Cruz, who is enthusiastic about the gold standard — which did play a major role in spreading the Depression.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with gold is, first of all, that it removes flexibility. Given an adverse shock to demand, it rules out any offsetting loosening of monetary policy.
Worse, relying on gold can easily have the effect of forcing a tightening of monetary policy at precisely the wrong moment..
The US had a goal standard for over its first century and enjoyed the world's highest GDP and employment. Its one downside was a slow deflation because the money supply did not keep up with the rapidly expanding economy.
Progressives introduced money supply "flexibility" with the creation of the Federal Reserve and effectively left the gold standard. The results from 1913 to 1932 were two deep recessions. The Fed nearly doubled the money supply to buy WWI debt, creating a hyper inflation, then spiked interest rates to mop up the fiat money, causing the "1920 depression." A few years later, the Fed started up the printing presses in the late 1920s, creating a stock market bubble and a healthy general inflation. In 1929, the Fed started raising interest rates to mop up the excess money and kept them high, accelerating the bank failures started by the tariff trade war.
Since 2008, the Fed has created trillions of dollars of fiat money, essentially given it away for free to the financial sector, which poured it into stocks and created the current stock market bubble. Cruz want to stop the progressive "stimulus
party enriching their Wall Street patrons.
SPAM I AM! once again show his ignorance on economics. And his history sucks lemons. Note that SPAM I AM! closes with"Since 2008 ..." ignoring the gap of the Court's election of George W. in Bush v. Gore (5-4) followed by the 8 inglorious years of Bush/Cheney, with SPAM I AM! in lockstep leading to the Bush/Cheney Great Recession of 2007-8 that left that big financial hole for Pres. Obama. Yes, crazy Glenn Beck agrees with Cruz and lemming SPAM I AM! Which reminds me, when is the next Three Stooges festival?
ReplyDeleteWhile SPAM I AM! quotes portions of Krugman's blog, he avoids certain non economic comparisons of The Donald and Gold Rush Cruz that are funny. I wonder if SPAM I AM! pans for gold in the mountains of CO.
Brett said...
ReplyDelete"You managed to find a way to blow it off when Bush was torturing people, I'm sure you'll get over this."
Since I'm apparently your side project while cyber-stalking Bart, maybe you could refresh my memory. Doubtless you've got a link to me blowing off Bush torturing people, right at hand.
OK, I guess that it is possible that you have referred to that torturing scumbag as a felon. If so, perhaps you could refresh my memory with links to a few of those posts.
BB:
ReplyDeleteThe CIA adopted SERE methods employed on tens of thousands of military members, including my USAF brother.
None of this is "torture" as defined by the U.S. Code.
Bart DePalma said...
ReplyDeleteBB:
The CIA adopted SERE methods employed on tens of thousands of military members, including my USAF brother.
None of this is "torture" as defined by the U.S. Code
Blankshot, how long do you think it would take me, using only SERE methods as used against prisoners, to get you to admit that Bush tortured people?
Of course, everyone knows that Bush tortured people, so there is really no need to torture you.
Per Mr. W's comments on Cruz delegate matters, this is noteworthy:
ReplyDeletehttp://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/good-news-for-dems
Me, I'm just happy Trump seems to have found someone to evenhandedly protect his interests here (fair is fair) and protect the voters who in state after state gave Trump the most votes. Now, it would not be by rule illegitimate to "game" the system there, but does seem somewhat unfair to do what Cruz is doing.
But, we shall see how it all settles out. Wyoming for the Dems this weekend.
In an unrelated topic George Mason University recently renamed it's law school the Antonin Scalia School of Law (ASSoL). Sadly, after brutal mockery on Twitter, they have already re-renamed it.
ReplyDeleteSPAM I AM!;s many quotes from Paul Krugman's NYTimes blog pos "Why Cruz Is Worse Than Trump" did not include the opening paragraph:
ReplyDelete"On economics, that is. On other issues — well, who was worse, Mussolini or Torquemada? Decisions, decisions."
Mussolini was at least credited with getting the trains to run on time in Italy. Contrast this with Cruz's role as a Senator in TX in closing down government.
Brett, when you have to appeal to the specific norms of a certain professional group in order to point to how 'serious' this alleged crime is you're by definition now talking about an 'obscure' and 'technical' crime.
ReplyDelete"The CIA adopted SERE methods employed on tens of thousands of military members, including my USAF brother."
ReplyDeleteEr, the entire point of SERE training is to simulate the enemy torturing you.
And SERE is voluntarily undertaken. Is it torture when you volunteer for it?
ReplyDeleteShag: SPAM I AM!;s many quotes from Paul Krugman's NYTimes blog pos "Why Cruz Is Worse Than Trump" did not include the opening paragraph: "On economics, that is. On other issues — well, who was worse, Mussolini or Torquemada? Decisions, decisions.".
ReplyDeleteI restricted myself to Krugman's economic arguments, not his Trump-like name calling.
However, I would note the irony that Mussolini was a New Dealer rock star and the National Recovery Act which Krugman worships was based on Mussolini's corporatism.
I wonder if Krugman even knows this?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBD: "The CIA adopted SERE methods employed on tens of thousands of military members, including my USAF brother."
ReplyDeleteMr, W: Er, the entire point of SERE training is to simulate the enemy torturing you.
Then the CIA was only employing simulated torture against al Qaeda.
Actually, this is known as coercive interrogation and falls between FBI questioning and actual torture (the infliction of severe pain). Under the Geneva Conventions, it is forbidden against privileged prisoners of war, but not against unprivileged prisoners of war.
Joe, David Gans' post "RBG, Originalist" is interesting but I doubt that many originalists will agree that RBG is an originalist. Maybe Jack Balkin might comment on the post. But I'm waiting for Larry Solum at his Legal Theory Blog to post on Gans' post and perhaps editorialize, as well await the reactions at the Originalism Blog. There are many categories of originalism and RBG might at times fit one or more of them. But I doubt that New Originalists (other than Jack) would buy into this. In any event, RBG has been a great Justice in recognizing the progressive qualities of the Constitution as it has been amended. She need not be classified as an originalist to be an effective Justice. While RBG had a close personal relationship with the late Justice Scalia, did her opinion in the recent case reflect the originalism of Scalia? Had Scalia indicated after orals his views on the case in conference or otherwise? Does Justice Thomas' concurrence reflect Scalia's views? RBG is a rose, whether labeled an originalist or otherwise.
ReplyDeleteBREAKING NEWS!
ReplyDelete"In CO through the efforts of SPAM I AM! and other lemmings, the Cruz Canadacy garnered all the Republican delegates in the primary. SPAM I AM! and his fellow lemmings have been panning for gold in abandoned CO mines in hopes that Cruz will bring back the gold standard."
Query: Are these lemmings aware of "Fools' Gold?" But give SPAM I AM! credit; lying repeatedly about the Cruz Canadacy was effective. Credit is also due for Tom-Tom Tancredo, SPAM I AM!'s political mentor in CO.
Shag, "originalist" does have a certain plastic feeling to it though a basic meaning for many is "non-liberal" or the like. So, sure, though RBG there did use history. It is true she used other things, like precedent, though so did her old pal.
ReplyDelete"Brett, when you have to appeal to the specific norms of a certain professional group in order to point to how 'serious' this alleged crime is you're by definition now talking about an 'obscure' and 'technical' crime."
ReplyDeleteSo, among accountants embezzlement is an obscure and technical crime?
Malpractice is an obscure and technical crime for doctors?
Plagiarism is an obscure and technical crime for authors?
Sorry, communicating classified information with people who don't have security clearances isn't that obscure.
Shag:
ReplyDeleteThere you go again promoting the Cruz candidacy...
The sensible Colorado GOP voters should finish shutting out Trump at the state convention down the pass in Colorado Springs today.
Once again SPAM I AM! falsifies history and economics on his luntzman Il Duce trying to connect him to the New Deal This is another one of SPAM I AM!'s "Fast Shuffles" with his stacked deck of mishistory and miseconomics.
ReplyDeleteLater, SPAM I AM! comes up with:
"There you go again promoting the Cruz candidacy."
Correctly it is the Cruz Canadacy, to be candid.
CO, the Mile High State (of mind), is high on the Cruz Canadacy. But "sensible Colorado GOP voters" is highly oxymoronic.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteClassified materials prosecutions are hardly obscure or technical.
ReplyDeleteThe Obama administration has prosecuted these crimes more often than most administrations, but generally only if the offender has embarrassed the White House. Team Obama does not prosecute its own.
Laws are for the little people and political opponents.
With this, SPAM I AM!:
ReplyDelete"Laws are for the little people and political opponents."
displays his midget mentality, ignoring the equal protection clause. Both SPAM I AM! and Brett are little people and political opponents, so perhaps this is self-serving. Each of them at times has taken the position that the 2nd A protects and furthers their disagreement with the government and how to react.
By the Bybee [expletives deleted], did Reagan prosecute his own regarding the Iran-Contra scandal? Pardon me, it was so long ago, how can I remember? OOPS! Just Google away.
BD: "Laws are for the little people and political opponents."
ReplyDeleteShag: By the Bybee [expletives deleted], did Reagan prosecute his own regarding the Iran-Contra scandal?
Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III asked a panel to name an independent counsel and they chose Lawrence Walsh.
I will not be holding my breath for Obama to appoint a special prosecutor for Clinton any more than he did for his IRS bureaucrats.
Laws are for the little people and political opponents.
Now tell me again why you plan to vote for a lying felon to become president?
Brett, you're just digging deeper, look at your 'for accountants, for doctors' qualifiers. Yes, there are a lot of things that accountants and doctors do that would be illegal for them to do that non-accountants and non-doctors would find incredible that it's taken as a seriously illegal offense. We're not talking about someone knowingly giving classified secrets to the enemy here, *that* would be what a layperson would find to be a 'serious felony' involving classified material, we're talking, at most, of a person sending something classified to another US employee working under her but not using the designated server. That's by it's nature mala prohibitum, not mala in se and the definition of a 'technical' crime. You're just such a blind partisan you've lost basic common sense and the ability to see this from anything but a partisan position.
ReplyDeleteBart,
"The Obama administration has prosecuted these crimes more often than most administrations"
Perhaps you can point to a prosecution for emailing a classified document to another federal employee who works for the sender?
"Then the CIA was only employing simulated torture against al Qaeda."
Except what makes it *simulated* for the USAF is 1. the person volunteers for it (as Shaq smartly noted) and 2. they know they're in friendly hands, that didn't apply to those we genuinely tortured with these methods.
"CO, the Mile High State (of mind), is high on the Cruz Canadacy."
The more convoluted the process, requiring political operatives to work the system, the better Cruz tends to do, the more transparent, straightforward and democratic, the worse. He's an elitist (how elitist do you have to be when you sneer at Harvard and Yale grads as not being up to your Princeton standards) and a life long member of the Republican establishment (a long time member of the Bush W machine, serving in various positions in his campaign and then White House and being rewarded with the TX Solicitor General position) posing as an anti-establishment firebrand for the rubes who are so inflamed at the mention of the establishment. It's common for party bosses to, sensing hostility to them among voters, get someone in their machine to run for office railing against the bosses.
Check this link:
ReplyDeletehttp://fas.org/news/iran/1992/921224-260039.htm
to learn about 5 pardons granted by George H. W. Bush to Reagan Administration officials involved in the Iran Contra scandal.
shorter Mr. W: http://files.onset.freedom.com/ocregister/multiplier/Viral_OC_hits/mckayla_maroney.jpg
ReplyDeleteAlso, for those with short memories, check out this linK
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thenation.com/article/irancontra-20-years-later-and-what-it-means/
for David Corn's "Iran/contra: 20 Years Later and What it Means" from The Nation Nov. 28, 2008. Note in particular that some involved in Iran- Contra played active roles in the Bush/Cheney Administration decision to invade Iraq on false grounds, which continues to roil the Middle East. [Printer-friendly 9+ pages.]
Mr. W: Perhaps you can point to a prosecution for emailing a classified document to another federal employee who works for the sender?
ReplyDeleteClinton violated the provisions against storing classified materials in an unapproved location and for providing them to persons without clearance. She also appears to have violated the provisions against stripping off classification warning from classified materials.
If I had done this as an Army intelligence officer back in 1993, I would still be serving time in Leavenworth prison.
BD: "Then the CIA was only employing simulated torture against al Qaeda."
Mr. W: Except what makes it *simulated* for the USAF is 1. the person volunteers for it (as Shaq smartly noted) and 2. they know they're in friendly hands, that didn't apply to those we genuinely tortured with these methods.
The torture statute does not provide a legal defense if the subject volunteers for torture. What makes SERE training and the identical CIA program simulated rather than actual torture in criminal violation of the US Code is that none of the methods inflict severe pain.
"CO, the Mile High State (of mind), is high on the Cruz Canadacy." >> The more convoluted the process, requiring political operatives to work the system, the better Cruz tends to do, the more transparent, straightforward and democratic, the worse..
You have no idea what you are talking about.
I have participated in the CO caucuses. After hearing speeches from the candidates or their representatives, the participating voters cast ballots or raise their hands for the candidates of their choice. It is all very similar to New England town hall democracy.
As for primaries in general, Trump is only leading because he can attract a one-third plurality substantially inflated by non-Republican votes in open primaries against a divided field enabling him to take more than his share of winner take all congressional district and state races.
If this were a two-person race like the Dems are running, Cruz would be the presumptive nominee by now.
Sanders won Wyoming, something like 55/45 but if Clinton gets the superdelegates, would come out behind. Oh well.
ReplyDeleteShag: to learn about 5 pardons granted by George H. W. Bush to Reagan Administration officials involved in the Iran Contra scandal.
ReplyDeleteWalsh''s prosecutions had nothing to do with the underlying operation and mostly consisted of making false statements to Congress.
https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/prosecutions.php
If our current outlaw administration was the subject of a similar independent counsel prosecution for lying to Congress, there would be dozens of convictions including Clinton on Benghazi.
there would be dozens of convictions
ReplyDeletePlease name at least two dozen. Hysterical rhetoric does not win arguments here.
Larry: Please name at least two dozen. Hysterical rhetoric does not win arguments here.
ReplyDeleteBenghazi: Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Patrick Kennedy, Matthew Olsen, the CIA benghazi station chief whose name is classified and all other witnesses who repeated the administration lies that a demonstration occurred at Benghazi, that intelligence analysts told the administration that a demonstration occurred, that the ambassador had not made requests for additional security and that the CIA contractors were not told to stand down.
IRS: Start with John Koskinen who has lied so many times that Congress has been calling for Obama to fire him and Lois Lerner for obstruction of justice for destroying evidence rather than lying to Congress. Lerner's subordinates likely fall into this category, But I have not been able to get their names online.
Obamacare: Every witness starting with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius who lied concerning the bureaucracy's elimination of the provision grandfathering in previous insurance policies, waivers of the individual and business mandates, coverage of abortion, mandates to cover contraception, the numbers of signees on the exchanges, the illegal bailouts of exchange insurers, etc, etc.
This does not even get to the administration lies to Congress concerning "stimulus" spending, EPA regulations and Interior's licensing of public lands.
SPAM I AM! informs us:
ReplyDelete"If I had done this as an Army intelligence officer back in 1993, ...."
He has demonstrated over the years at this Blog that in his case that title was oxymoronic.
SPAM I AM! is shameless with his lies. The method he employs in his response to Larry's reasonable request would probably yield in the case of Iran-Contra the names of 10,000 persons. SPAM I AM! just pulls this crapola out of his derriere. And he's a criminal defense attorney? Does he lie like this in court?
By the Bybee [expletives deleted], George H. W. Bush granted those pardons in 1992, I think after he lost to Bill Clinton. Bush I had said when he was Reagan's VP that he was out of the loop on Iran-Contra. But that was not correct.
And how many people died in Central America as a result of the Reagan Administration funding the Contras in violation of a federal law with the money from illegal arms sales to Iran?
Shag:
ReplyDeleteSince you are now on the Cruz bandwagon, you should be pleased to know that Cruz delegates took all the slots in CO and nearly all the slots in NC this weekend.
In the meantime, the Donald's new de facto campaign manager claims that Trump will be the presumed nominee by the end of the month.
Congrats to the Cruz Canadacy with its CO inhaling, which was an old-fashioned means of getting high (but too much lays you low).. But how come the CO Cruz Canadacy lemmings did not rely on CO's new national claim of recreational Ganja?
ReplyDeleteNPR this morning had a feature on CO's GOP political machinations that included a tad of humor involving the election of delegates, each being given 10 seconds to make his/her case. I imagined SPAM I AM! as such a candidate and the number of lies he could squeeze in 10 seconds. If in actuality SPAM I AM! was a delegate candidate (yes, I can spell that) for the Cruz Canadacy yesterday, I would ask my non-panning for gold mole in CO to provide a video of SPAM I AM!'s pinocchioing 10 seconds.
Shag:
ReplyDeleteThese conventions are very busy affairs with much more on their plate than choosing RNC delegates, which is often the last order of business. The party brass explains the rules, the candidates for state and national office give short speeches, the delegates decide which candidates (other than president) may run in the primaries (if you do not get a minimum number of votes, you do not get on the ballot), then the delegates seeking to go to the RNC get their ten seconds (most states do not let them talk), then the delegates decide who goes to the RNC. All of this takes several hours.
Being a long time elected representative hardly gives you a free pass into the primaries. A complete unknown decided to run for Congress in our district, gave a helluva speech to the delegates and nearly took enough delegate votes to deny our current Congress critter a spot on the primary ballot.
This is grass roots democracy, not establishment machinations, without a smoke filled room in sight. A number of my neighbors went to the state convention and the next door neighbor of one of my Airborne buddies who lives in Colorado Springs was elected to attend the RNC.
I did not ask for SPAM I AM!'s tutorial on CO GOP politics, but:
ReplyDelete"This is grass roots democracy, ...."
might account for:
1. CO, the Mile High State (of mind) legalizing recreational Ganja; and
2. The Bundy free grazing on federal public lands.
I understand that if the Cruz Canadacy is successful, it will not only push for the gold standard but also push for the Canadian Crude Keystone Pipeline to be rerouted through Colorado Springs in appreciation for the efforts of SPAM I AM! and other CO lemmings in support of the Crude [strike that!] Cruz Canadacy.
Maybe libertarian Co will come up with a license plate message somewhat in the manner of NH:
"GRASS FREE LIVING!"
If Shag ever has firearm issues, was listening to a woman lawyer talk about branding the other day ... her firm in part deals with firearm needs in Brookline MA.
ReplyDeleteLooking into the CO thing, it seems the delegate selection process favors a Cruz-type. CO also supported Romney in 2008, who now supports Cruz.
Looking forward to vote next week.
Joe, I've been giving some thought to self-defense under the Scalia/Alito Heller/McDonald 5-4 decisions as perhaps a healthcare issue that might be covered by Obamacare as preventive (or pre-emptive?) "medication" such that minorities might get on an equality arms level with those with greater financial resources for arms who may fear minorities, sort of a healthcare leveling of the 2nd A. The NRA might go along with this as it has proclaimed that America is safer with more people armed, unless the NRA has problems with minorities having arms. But if the NRA is right on safety, then there might be less injuries from the use of arms, reducing healthcare costs and further improving the financial viability of Obamacare.
ReplyDeleteJack Rakove, the constitutional historian, was on C-SPAN last night. He said he was proud of his amicus brief in the Heller case.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dc-v-heller/
The equality issue is interesting in part since I think one major concern of the 2A is to have the general public be part of the militia and there can be inequality issues there including financial in nature. The NRA has supporting firearm training too. Subsidies there to help keep low income gun owners well regulated is possible.
Firearm use has long been a health issue since bullets tend to hurt one's health. As with other things there, regulation, not prohibition, is often the best policy.
Saul Cornell was at BU Law School a couple of Thursdays ago for a presentation that somewhat conflicted with the liberal (some progressives) Thursday lunch and I did not attend perhaps due to a lunch buzz. I plan to check to see if his presentation has or will be published at BU.
ReplyDeleteI thought the historians' amici briefin Heller was well done as well as that of the linguists. Lee J. Strang in his "Blunting the Instability Critique: Original Meaning Originalism andComputer-Assisted Research Techniques" is critical of historians, especially Saul Cornell, in their challenges to originalism. Cornell's "Originalism on Trial: The Use and Abuse of History in ... Heller," 69 Ohio St. L.J. (2008), to which Scalia did not respond.
Joe, I did some Googling and located the CSPAN talk by Rakove and enjoyed it, although he did not reference New Originalism's construction aspect until the Q & A. It ran a little over an hour. Here's the link for those who might be interested:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.c-span.org/video/?407406-1/interpreting-us-constitution
Rakove mentioned New Originalists Larry Solum and Randy Barnett but not Jack Balkin, although he did make a reference to Mary Lederman. Also, he note RBG's historical chops, referencing the Arizona case.
The CSPAN website is a good source when there's crapola on basic cable.
Glad you liked it -- weekends have some good stuff on history and books.
ReplyDeleteSide note on Rakove's talk: It took place at Georgetown Law School on 3/30/16. Rakove mentioned that Georgetown's two esteemed New Originalists Larry Solum and Randy Barnett were not present. But perhaps Solum was listening in as his April Fools posts at his Legal Theory Blog included one on a Rakove article that the link did not lead to. Apparently in the legal blogosphere revenge is best served on April1st.
ReplyDeleteSimone Gubler, a doctoral student (philosophy) at UTex Austin has an essay in the NYTimes "Philosophising With Guns" on the August 1st campus concealed carry implications educationally, including from the viewpoints of both faculty and students.
ReplyDeleteQuery: Has Sandy opined publicly on this subject?
I thought I saw Prof. Cole in the audience.
ReplyDeletehttp://jostonjustice.blogspot.com/2016/04/we-people-celebrating-lived-constitution.html
As Shag knows, over at Dorf on Law, Scalia is the subject of conversation today.
Shag: Simone Gubler, a doctoral student (philosophy) at UTex Austin has an essay in the NYTimes "Philosophising With Guns"
ReplyDeleteWhat ignorant nonsense.
Ms. Gubler obviously has never handled a firearm in her life and is allowing her fears to govern her reason. She has far greater chance of being killed by lightning leaving the lecture hall building than being shot by someone legally carrying a concealed weapon. However, if some armed predator comes to her lecture hall with the intent to commit mass murder, Gruber's chances of survival increase exponentially if one to more of her fellow students or even the professor is armed. The campus police will not be there to protect her.
Congress really needs to exercise its militia powers and train the citizenry how to safely and effectively use firearms to dispel such ignorance.
She has far greater chance of being killed by lightning leaving the lecture hall building than being shot by someone legally carrying a concealed weapon.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 1:13 PM
Blankshot, on average there are 51 people in the US killed by lightning each year. Nearly 12,000 are murdered each year by guns. Presumably more than 51 of those are being carried legally. So she has a significantly higher chance of being murdered by someone legally carrying a concealed weapon leaving her lecture hall than being killed by lightning. Maybe you should take some remedial math courses to dispel your ignorance.
I noted on TV a day or so ago an item on what looks like a Smartphone converting into a dumb gun that presumably works. This might qualify for carry purposes where permitted. But as knowledge of this spreads, might some be in fear and take Heller/McDonald (5-4) 2nd A self-defense measures with a gun against someone who whips out a Smartphone in an aggressive manner and it's actually a Smartphone with the latter becoming the victim of this fear? Smartphones are fairly common (although I have never had a cell phone, Luddite that I am). Imagine at UTex a student fondling what appears to be a Smartphone while engaged in a contentious class discussion with the prof and/or other students and someone yells out "He's got a phone that may be a gun!" How might students and the prof carrying concealed react?
ReplyDeleteBB: on average there are 51 people in the US killed by lightning each year. Nearly 12,000 are murdered each year by guns. Presumably more than 51 of those are being carried legally. So she has a significantly higher chance of being murdered by someone legally carrying a concealed weapon leaving her lecture hall than being killed by lightning..
ReplyDeleteYet more ignorance, almost certainly willful this time.
Every or nearly every state requires a permit for concealed carry.
Murderers (primarily gang bangers fighting over drug turf) who illegally use firearms to murder 11,000 every year in the US are almost never permitted for concealed carry. Firearm prohibitionists have offered a literal handful of examples of murderers permitted for concealed carry over the past several years.
Gubler has FAR, FAR greater chance of being killed by lightning leaving the lecture hall building than being shot by someone legally carrying a concealed weapon.
"Blankshot, on average there are 51 people in the US killed by lightning each year. Nearly 12,000 are murdered each year by guns. Presumably more than 51 of those are being carried legally."
ReplyDeleteWell, yes, we know that you'd presume that. But people presume a lot of things that are flat out wrong.
CCW permit holders kill, on average, about 76 people a year. Almost all of these are justifiable homicides. Now, I don't know, maybe Ms. Gubler has a habit of assaulting people that would put her at risk for being shot. If that's so, maybe she should end up shot.
But Bart is clearly right. Unless Gubler is in the habit of assaulting people, her odds of being struck by lighting are a good deal higher than being shot dead by a CCW permit holder.
Over the years on threads at this Blog, there have been many discussions on "the rule of law." Over at the Legal Theory Blog there is a post with an abstract of an essay by Sandy and Jack with the title "morton Horwitz Wrestles with the Rule of Law." This essay was written in July of 2009 and published in an edited book described in that post published in 2010. The essay is a relatively short 22 pages. It is a sobering article for both liberals, progressives, conservatives, etc. I don't know what prompted Sandy and Jack to make this essay available at this time via SSRN. Perhaps they are working on an update to reflect the Obama Administration on the themes of their essay. As is usually the case, Sandy and Jack write well together.
ReplyDeleteThe Working Group involved in crafting the "controls" accepted here included gun owners. Gun control allowed under the 2A in various respects. They drew up guidelines on where guns would be allowed, factoring in such things as the chance of accidental discharge.
ReplyDeletehttps://utexas.app.box.com/CCWorkingGroup-FinalReport
Concern about the law (as we see in supporting filibustered background checks supported by a large part of the gun owning public) is not left to those who do not handle guns. For instance, the author of the op-ed earlier cited someone covered in an early article:
One of the most prominent opponents of the campus-carry bill was an unlikely figure — a former member of the Navy SEALs. Adm. William H. McRaven, the former commander of United States Special Operations forces who directed the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, is now the chancellor of the 15-campus University of Texas System.
Given Texan culture, when she speaks of "over 1,500 faculty and 1,700 graduate students have signed petitions against SB11, and 39 academic departments have passed resolutions and issued statements against the bill," I have my doubts we are merely talking about those who don't handle guns here.
http://www.publicseminar.org/2016/01/the-anniversary-gift-texas-opens-public-universities-to-firearms/#.Vwv_2EaqiEw
It is left to time to determine how expansion of where guns are allowed, including in confined spaces with lots of people [which Heller itself seems to factor in regarding "sensitive places" analysis; OTOH, some don't like that decision], will play out. This includes non-lethal harms (being shot doesn't just lead to people being killed), more chance of guns to be taken by others etc. The op-ed also has a philosophical cast to it not limited to physical violence alone.
The limited issue of guns in universities, especially some locations inside of them, is of course a lot different than some broad right to carry in public places. It is a special time, place and manner concern. But, since the law expands what is currently allowed, we are still talking supposition.
But Bart is clearly right. Unless Gubler is in the habit of assaulting people, her odds of being struck by lighting are a good deal higher than being shot dead by a CCW permit holder.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Brett : 3:21 PM
Even if we assume that her only risk of being killed by a legal firearm is by someone with a permit for concealed carry (hint: it isn't), 76 is still greater than 51. Bart is wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
With so much low hanging fruit, wouldn't try for the hard to reach places.
ReplyDeleteThe rejoinder is that most of those appear to be justifiable homicides for which she is not likely to be at risk for. Lightening is more random there.
What Joe said. Gubler is actually more likely to be shot by the police than a CCW holder.
ReplyDelete"The Working Group involved in crafting the "controls" accepted here included gun owners."
I've been pretty clear in the past that there are regulations that I'd support, such as requiring use of frangible ammo in places where over-penetration might be an issue. (Though I'd have concerns a Democrat almost certainly wouldn't share, concerning what level of government imposed those regulations.)
The problem here is calling that gun "control". When a law is passed prohibiting antifreeze in booze, we don't call that "prohibition". "Gun control" has a meaning, and it's not reasonable regulations that happen to concern guns. Gun Control Inc was not founded to make guns safe. It was founded to make them unavailable.
Gun control has never been about safety, except the illusory safety some imagine would derive from taking guns away from the law abiding.
Democrats as well as Republicans in various instances support local discretion in regard to gun regulations. So, "a Democrat" means "certain" Democrats.
ReplyDeleteOther times, Republicans want to take away power from localities in respect to guns, including (as legislation a certain person running for President as a Democrat supported) in respect to the type of lawsuits that can be brought. This might in certain instances be legitimate but if "level of government" alone is our concern, that would be true.
You might not call it that but "we" as in "many people normally" do call prohibiting certain additives "prohibition." It is not "prohibiting" alcohol, yes, since alcohol is still allowed. Likewise, "controlling" isn't the same as "prohibiting." The word "control" is not obscure. "Animal control," e.g., is not the same as banning the animal in question. You can "control" dogs and cats without banning them.
Likewise, there are various "controls" or "regulations" that you support. This in some cases entails (the very nature of a "permit") keeping guns from certain people or places. This "controls" them. But, it isn't broad prohibition like of a poison. Guns remain allowed, if well regulated.
except the illusory safety some imagine would derive from taking guns away from the law abiding.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Brett : 5:49 PM
There is nothing illusory about a country being safer if there are fewer guns.
Yes, and people who think they're Napoleon will tell you there's nothing illusory about their being a short French general, too.
ReplyDeleteYes, and people who failed elementary school math probably think that is a good analogy.
ReplyDeleteBrett: But Bart is clearly right. Unless Gubler is in the habit of assaulting people, her odds of being struck by lighting are a good deal higher than being shot dead by a CCW permit holder.
ReplyDeletebb: Even if we assume that her only risk of being killed by a legal firearm is by someone with a permit for concealed carry (hint: it isn't), 76 is still greater than 51. Bart is wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
What part of justifiable homicide aka self defense do you not comprehend?
Unless Gubler plans to attempt to murder (the legal justification for deadly self defense) someone legally carrying a concealed weapon, then she has about as much chance of being murdered by a person legally carrying as being hit by a meteor.
Sorry, but we live in a country where someone like George Zimmerman can get away with murder by claiming self defense. I'll take my chances with the lightning.
ReplyDelete"Yes, and people who failed elementary school math probably think that is a good analogy."
ReplyDeleteAnd you think that's an appropriate comeback to a professional engineer. How dense are you, anyway? I suppose we can set an upper limit: You haven't sunk to the Earth's core under your own weight.
Yet.
"Sorry, but we live in a country where someone like George Zimmerman can get away with murder by claiming self defense."
No, we live in the sort of country where Travon Martin can commit a violent assault, get killed in self defense, and the media will move heaven and earth to make people think he was murdered, instead, in order to make him a poster boy for attacking an unrelated law.
Brett said...
ReplyDelete"Yes, and people who failed elementary school math probably think that is a good analogy."
And you think that's an appropriate comeback to a professional engineer.
Apparently the standards for being a professional engineer have slipped dramatically.
Brett said...
No, we live in the sort of country where Travon Martin can commit a violent assault, get killed in self defense, and the media will move heaven and earth to make people think he was murdered, instead, in order to make him a poster boy for attacking an unrelated law.
You might be the only person left in the country who still believes that nonsense. George Zimmerman appears to be on a mission to convince anyone still paying attention to him that he murdered that kid.
I personally think it is quite possible that the evidence in that case was such that a jury might not convict. Sometimes, the hard proof to convict falls on sympathetic defendants, sometimes people like that guy. But, suffice to say, need for lethal force in that situation appears dubious to me. EVEN IF the teen was the aggressor or there was some reasonable belief that he was.
ReplyDeleteAnd, since then, we saw arming GZ probably makes things worse. This doesn't make the right to have a gun not a right or something. But, you know, that's my take on it, and GZ isn't who'd I latch myself on here though if he actually was part of some neighborhood watch, that would be exactly the sort of thing a "militia" view of the 2A could entail -- average people involved in police like functions.
Anyway, Brett calling dibs on expertise given his potshots at people who know a whole lot more history and law than he might be glasshouses in nature. Just saying. Maybe, neither side should throw stones but it's advice I'd give to both sides.
Back to the subject at hand...
ReplyDeleteCombined, Cruz and Rubio took a majority of the AR primary vote and their campaigns are combining forces to ensure AR chooses Cruz or at least anti-Trump delegates.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cruz-rubio-join-forces-in-arkansas-to-block-donald-trump-delegates/article/2588237
This is the only effective way a second tier candidate can actually deliver delegates to a Trump or Cruz.
Joe: we saw arming GZ probably makes things worse
ReplyDeleteFor whom?
Certainly not for Zimmerman as Martin pounded his head into the concrete.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCertainly not for Zimmerman as Martin pounded his head into the concrete.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 9:53 AM
It seems pretty obvious at this point that George Zimmerman deserved to get his head pounded into the concrete.
And, that's the perspective from which the left's reaction to the case makes sense: Thanks to collective racial guilt, if a black guy decides to pound on a white guy, the white guy should just man up and take it. If he dies, it's no big deal, it just balances the books a little.
ReplyDelete"Anyway, Brett calling dibs on expertise given his potshots at people who know a whole lot more history and law than he might be glasshouses in nature"
I was following the case, and it was clear from almost the first that it was a straightforward case of self defense, despite all the work the media put into trying to confuse things. (Like using old photos to implant the idea that Travon was just a little kid.) The fact that the district attorney refused to prosecute the case in the first place should have clued you in: It was a political prosecution, there never was a legitimate basis for it. He was prosecuted on orders of the Governor.
new post: "What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said" panel announced.
ReplyDeleteThis is catnip material -- law professors schooling the Supreme Court on how they should write their opinions. The professors' arguments often tend to be flawed for any number of reasons, including the realistic compromise results that multi-member opinions tend to bring us. Prof. Balkin can provide his .02 here w/o opening comments for people like myself to critique him. It's his blog.
According to Brett George Z was a good guy with a gun against a minor Black kid wearing a hoodie using a cell phone, a bad kid armed with Skittles that George Z was stalking on a neighborhood watch:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/jul/15/skittles-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-acquittal
I assume Brett has cautioned his mixed race (Asian-American) young son not to wear a hoodie or eat Skittles just to be on the safe side from good guys like George Z good guys with guns. Or perhaps Brett would provide his son with something more lethal from his arsenal.
And, that's the perspective from which the left's reaction to the case makes sense: Thanks to collective racial guilt, if a black guy decides to pound on a white guy, the white guy should just man up and take it.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Brett : 10:58 AM
White guilt has absolutely nothing to do with it. The police dispatcher told Zimmerman to leave the kid alone. And yet somehow Zimmerman still manages to end up in a fight with that kid? Then, after he gets away with murder, Zimmerman spends the next few months confirming everyone's worst assumptions about him. Yeah, the a-hole deserved to get his head pounded against the ground.
"According to Brett George Z was a good guy with a gun against a minor Black kid wearing a hoodie using a cell phone, a bad kid armed with Skittles that George Z was stalking on a neighborhood watch:"
ReplyDeleteNope, flat out lie. Aside from acknowledging that he was a good guy with a gun, you just attributed to me the misinformation campaign.
Zimmerman was a guy with a gun being beaten to death by somebody on top of him. He was perfectly entitled, legally, to interrupt the process before it was finished. No stalking involved, but even if there had been, that wasn't legally cause for Martin to assault him. Zimmerman had at least as much right to be out walking in the rain there as Martin did.
In some ways that's the most disturbing thing about the narrative liberals fabricated to justify prosecuting Zimmerman: Just how little excuse they thought Martin would have legally needed to attack Zimmerman. Apparently walking on the same sidewalk as a black man at night is all the justification liberals think it takes for him to beat you up.
Brett, Zimmerman was told to leave the kid alone. And since he got away with murder Zimmerman has been working pretty hard to confirm that he instigated the fight.
ReplyDeleteItem: man not running for president to announce he is not running for president
ReplyDelete(Paul Ryan also said he wasn't running for the job he now has.)
"And yet somehow Zimmerman still manages to end up in a fight with that kid?"
ReplyDeleteYes, funny thing. The police dispatcher neglected to tell "the kid" to leave Zimmerman alone, too. So he doubled back and attacked him.
That's the problem here. Martin attacked Zimmerman. Despite all your rationalizations for why he was entitled to do it, that's what happened. Zimmerman did not viciously strike Martin about the knuckles with his nose, and then follow up with a shot.
When a guy is beat up, and there's a dead body with a bullet wound and scuffed up knuckles, it's not hard to figure out who attacked who.
Joe said... new post: "What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said" panel announced. This is catnip material -- law professors schooling the Supreme Court on how they should write their opinions.
ReplyDeleteIndeed.
My progressive con law professor and moot court coach taught a class where we simulated the operation of the Supreme Court. The prof knew I was a textualist form the first year con law course and purposefully assigned me to play Souter writing the opinion on a hypothetical SSM case to see if I would provide my opinion of what the Constitution actually says or one that Souter would likely write.
I played the Souter role to the hilt, applied the standard equal protection analysis with a rational relationship test, while assuming that distinguishing between marriage and SSM was irrational, to create a right to SSM. I aced the course.
If I had written anything like the awful Kennedy Obergefel opinion simply whining that it was unfair to deny a right to SSM without even bothering to go through an equal protection analysis, my professor would have justifiably given me a failing grade.
Brett said...
ReplyDeleteSo he doubled back and attacked him.
LOL Sure he did.
George Zimmerman has worked pretty hard to make it obvious who instigated that fight, and it wasn't the kid.
For extremely low values of "instigated", I suppose. Was pretty vicious of a white guy to be out walking around on a rainy night, knowing a black kid was in the area. [/sarcasm]
ReplyDeleteLike I said, what's disturbing about the 'liberal' take on this, is just how little excuse you figure Martin needed to be justified in beating on Zimmerman. Just out of sick curiosity, what's your scenario for that night, that results in Zimmerman getting contusions on the back of his head, a black eye and broken nose, and Martin only having scuffed up knuckles and a bullet wound?
You must have some sequence of events in mind that produced the physical evidence, but had Zimmerman be the aggressor the whole time. Let's hear it.
You must have some sequence of events in mind that produced the physical evidence, but had Zimmerman be the aggressor the whole time. Let's hear it.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Brett : 1:15 PM
I think Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher and went back to harass the kid. He probably pushed the kid and/or threatened him and the kid fought back. George Zimmerman has been nice enough to confirm that that is exactly the sort of asshole that he is.
Brett said...
ReplyDeleteLike I said, what's disturbing about the 'liberal' take on this, is just how little excuse you figure Martin needed to be justified in beating on Zimmerman
Bruises and a broken nose is not justification for murdering someone.
Right, knowing that the police would be showing up momentarily, and had already told him to leave the kid alone, he hunted the kid down and started a fight with him, even physically attacking him. Probably taunted him with the fact that he had a gun, and told him that he'd be by later to rape the kid's mother. Laughing manically the whole time.
ReplyDeleteWell, that's an amusing scenario, except that there's absolutely no evidence that any of it happened. Whereas we do know that Martin had Zimmerman down on the sidewalk and was beating him like a drum. Whereas we do know that Martin had a criminal record, that was buried as part of an effort to make the local school system look better. The local police chief later got fired because of it, when Martin's fate brought it to light. No, not an innocent child, an up and coming gang banger, exactly the sort of person you expect to commit assaults.
So, yes, you can *invent* a scenario where Martin was killed defending himself. But that's what you have to do, invent it.
Brett said...
ReplyDeleteRight, knowing that the police would be showing up momentarily, and had already told him to leave the kid alone, he hunted the kid down and started a fight with him, even physically attacking him.
Yes. And George Zimmerman has been nice enough to confirm that it's exactly sort of thing that he would do.
And the police have been nice enough to confirm, long after the fact, that Martin was a criminal. Exactly the sort of person who'd double back and assault somebody.
ReplyDeleteThe difference being that we have physical evidence that Martin beat Zimmerman up, and none whatsoever that Zimmerman attacked Martin. So everything you posit that makes Zimmerman instead of Martin the aggressor is a work of fiction.
Based on the need that Martin have been innocent, and Zimmerman be a murderer.
And the police have been nice enough to confirm, long after the fact, that Martin was a criminal. Exactly the sort of person who'd double back and assault somebody.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Brett : 2:18 PM
There is absolutely no evidence that Martin was violent. None whatsoever.
bb: There is absolutely no evidence that Martin was violent. None whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteApart from the aggravated assault on the smaller Zimmerman?
Sheesh, are you ever in denial about this.
ReplyDeleteApart from the aggravated assault on the smaller Zimmerman?
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 2:52 PM
Self defense. Basically, you have to create an imaginary violent past in order to explain why Martin would instigate a fight with Zimmerman. In order to explain why Zimmerman would instigate a fight with Martin you just have to realize that he's George Zimmerman.
The reason you think Martin's violent past was "imaginary" is that they were hiding his criminal record. Again, the local police got fired over the way they were falsifying crime statistics at Martin's school by burying police reports, Martin's being among them. They also got in a bit of trouble at the trial over concealing evidence of his criminality from the defense.
ReplyDeleteThere was a concerted effort on the part of the media to portray him as a harmless little kid who was viciously murdered. It was a PR campaign to attack "Stand Your Ground" laws, that they'd been working on, they were just waiting for somebody to come along to be the poster boy. Along came Martin, appearing to match the profile they were looking for. By the time they realized he was a vicious thug, they were already committed, so they just ran with it, buried the parts of the story that didn't fit, and did a bit of unsubtle falsification to make Zimmerman look like a more plausible murderer.
Of course, I'm pretty sure it was all wasted effort as far as you're concerned.
bb: Self defense.
ReplyDeleteBased on what evidence of a Zimmerman assault?
The physical evidence all points to a one-sided Martin ass-whipping of Zimmerman.
The reason you think Martin's violent past was "imaginary" is that they were hiding his criminal record.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Brett : 3:06 PM
No, the reason I think it's imaginary is because he hadn't done anything violent. Growing pot plants is not violent.
As for Zimmerman, he's doing a pretty good job of looking like a plausible murderer all on his own.
Bart DePalma said...
ReplyDeletebb: Self defense.
Based on what evidence of a Zimmerman assault?
The physical evidence all points to a one-sided Martin ass-whipping of Zimmerman.
The record of behavior points pretty conclusively to Zimmerman instigating the beatdown.
Ok, I'll grant you, biased press coverage and a police cover-up that fell apart well after the initial reports are why the average fuzzy headed liberal thinks that Martin wasn't violent.
ReplyDeleteYou think it because you're an idiot.
You think it because you're an idiot.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Brett : 3:32 PM
I'm not stupid enough to think that growing pot plants is violent. That's all you, sparky.
bb: The record of behavior points pretty conclusively to Zimmerman instigating the beatdown..
ReplyDeleteRecord of behavior?
The only evidence of the actions on the scene were the physical evidence and Zimmerman's testimony. Neither provided any evidence that Zimmerman instigated the fight.
I'm talking about his behavior before and after. He killed the only person who could testify to his behavior that night.
ReplyDelete"Breaking: NJ Admin. Judge Rejects Challenge to Cruz Eligibility Under the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause"
ReplyDeletehttp://electionlawblog.org/?p=81818
Nice formatting this time. Comments like "here is no basis to conclude that the issue of eligibility of a person to serve as President has been textually committed to Congress or the Electoral College." leave something to be desired.
Cute line: "The document contains no “Definitions” section." Too much emphasis on original understanding. I'm with Rick Hasen -- http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202747898455/OpEd-Ted-Cruz-Fit-for-Office-At-Least-Under-the-Constitution
Trying to figure out what an opaque reference by John Jay "apparently" means etc. underlines the limited value there. But, ultimately, the 1790 law is cited to uphold his natural born citizenship. I disagree with Mark Field et al. on the ultimate conclusions one should reach as to later cases, but I think they should have been dealt with.
Anyway, I agree with the result of the opinion here and again Rick Hasen hits to a core concern: "The democracy canon counsels that in ambiguous cases of interpretation, read the questionable provision to give voters a choice and to count their votes." To me, that is an easy call here.
ETA: But, ultimately, to circle back to the original question, I think the political party here has a strong independent power to decide qualifications. As a body with public overtones -- the election regulated by the state (e.g., banning black candidates would be a problem) -- their power is not unlimited. So, I'd be wary to say that the Republican Party has an unlimited power to declare him not a natural born citizen.
ReplyDeleteAlmost every second article talks about only two names that can be placed in nomination for President they are Trump and Cruz... I hope that www.proof-reading.services will be able to dilute your blog with rich keywords!
ReplyDeleteAmazing. That spam was so silly, it was almost poetry at the end.
ReplyDeleteJack Balkin's 4/13/16 post "To Alter or Abolish" provides a link to his and Sandy's article bearing that title, focusing on the Declaration of Independence. I have downloaded it on my desktop and read its Introduction. I'll get back to the article later today. In reading the Introduction, the 2nd A came to mind, as some commenters at this Blog have expressed views suggesting that the 2nd A fits the Declaration's "alter or abolish" concept. Perhaps Jack and Sandy address this. I'll find out later today.
ReplyDeleteShag:
ReplyDeleteI read the intro to the draft as well. I was amused that professors Balkin and Levinson sounded somewhat surprised that the Declaration's primary theme is that the people have the right to change a government which abridges their liberties. It would be useful to remember that the document was meant to provide the legal and moral basis for an armed revolution.
I feel that proofreading spam is specifically tied to me.
ReplyDelete4/9 is an apt date to release that article given it is the day Lee surrendered to Grant. It is an interesting discussion that takes the principles in the DOI seriously including the proper guideline for collective declarations of independence. Ultimately, though it assumes a certain natural law quality, the test is basically on the acceptance of others, be it on the battlefield or negotiating table.
I was amused how "kindly" Jack and Sandy skewered Randy Barnett's view of the DOI as libertarian as opposed to collective. Apparently Barnett is still frothing that that he did not get the support of originalist Justice Scalia in Barnett's Raich roach case. Barnett also thinks the Constitution is libertarian in design. That's pretty Rand-y.
ReplyDeleteI've read through Part I of the article and have 11 pages to go. Jack and Sandy raise a lot of question. Query: Does originalism apply to the DOI?
"Query: Does originalism apply to the DOI?
ReplyDeleteAnswer: Maybe.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2654408
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2539115
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2736922
I just finished Jack and Sandy's article on DOI. Very interest. Although there was a passing reference to the 2nd A, the article did not examine the 2nd A as a means to alter or abolish America's government. As I noted earlier, the article raises many questions abut the meaning of the DOI. Jack is a New originalist but I don't think Sandy is an originalist of any sort. The article concludes that the DOI is more "inspirational" than prescriptive (if that is a proper term, mine, not Jack and Sandy). Part III on Woodrow Wilson's views on "self-determination" points to his sympathies with the Confederate States regarding secession as perhaps supported by the DOI.
ReplyDeleteQuery: Does the DOI per se has the force of law post-Articles of Confederation/Constitution?
[I appreciate Joe's search on an earlier query of mine and will check them out later. Thanks.]
A couple observations on Jack and Sandy's excellent essay on the DOI:
ReplyDelete1) Generally, rights refer to individual liberties and powers refer to acts of government. As J&S correctly noted, the act of revolution to change a government is most definitely a collective rather than individual act of at least a critical mass of the people. Thus, although Jefferson uses the term "right of the people," the people's act of changing their government is better thought of as a collective power.
2) I do not see any real conflict between the twin duties of a legitimate government offered by the DOI - individual liberty and consent of the governed. The DOI is indeed a classical libertarian or libertarian documents in that it sees a legitimate government as one whose powers over our liberties are limited and which must seek the consent of the governed to exercise its remaining powers. In the long run, absolute power corrupts absolutely and there is no such thing as a benign despotism. Totalitarian governments will eventually and always take away our liberties.
3) J&S pose the question: If the right to abolish a tyrannical government is a collective right of the people, who counts as the People? I would amend that question to how many of the people does it take to exercise that collective right of abolition? The answer then becomes, as many as it takes to win the revolution. War is a very practical matter. If you win, you are successful patriots. If you lose, you are likely dead or imprisoned traitors.
4) J&S then ask: Who decides whether the existing government has been sufficiently tyrannical? The answer, of course, would be the critical mass of the people who are revolting.
5) A more interesting question is what alternative remedies must the people pursue before they turn to revolution? This is a variation on the idea of a just war. What are the preconditions of a just revolution? Let us take today's totalitarian political economy where an unelected bureaucracy exercises absolute power (legislative, executive and judicial) and imposes most law by decree and that law increasingly reduces the people's liberties. Such a regime most certainly meets the DOI's definition of a "form of government destructive of [the] ends} of individual liberty and consent of the governed. If the people are not reasonably able to reverse this regime constitutionally, democratically or judicially, then you arguably have met the prerequisites for a just revolution.
6) The DOI is far more than "a source of inspiration for political reform," it offered a universal the legal and moral justification for armed revolution.
Very interesting topic.
Such a regime most certainly meets the DOI's definition of a "form of government destructive of [the] ends} of individual liberty and consent of the governed. If the people are not reasonably able to reverse this regime constitutionally, democratically or judicially, then you arguably have met the prerequisites for a just revolution.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 6:59 PM
Elections have consequences, you imbecile.
Jack and Sandy's article runs 28 very readable pages, a quick read if not much time is spent on footnotes. SPAM I AM! rants with his comments on the article, particularly his 5th comment. SPAM I AM! twists with his rants with his reference to "today's totalitarian political economy .... " Is SPAM I AM! referring to America? He doesn't say it specifically. But SPAM I AM! has been on a total totalitarian rant regarding President Obama. SPAM I AM!'s comments do not reflect the context of the article. And he ignores completely that Jack and Sandy politely skewered Randy Barnett's libertarian claims for the DOI.
ReplyDeleteSo once again SPAM I AM! demonstrates he is a troll at this Blog. Perhaps he is relying upon his 6th comment when he joins the Bundys with Brett as his sidekick.
The article is indeed very interesting. But SPAM I AM!'s comments do not reflect its contents.
By the Bybee [expletives deleted], I just read an item at Daily Kos on the TX dildos case that Cruz commenced when he was TX Solicitor General. Trump might have some fun with that story in their tit-for-tat exchanges.
Of course a "just revolution" is "just" only if it succeeds. If it doesn't, it's treason.
ReplyDeleteBD: Such a regime most certainly meets the DOI's definition of a "form of government destructive of [the] ends} of individual liberty and consent of the governed. If the people are not reasonably able to reverse this regime constitutionally, democratically or judicially, then you arguably have met the prerequisites for a just revolution.
ReplyDeletebb: Elections have consequences, you imbecile.
Indeed they do. Ask any nation who has elected fascists and socialists.
Shag: "today's totalitarian political economy .... " Is SPAM I AM! referring to America?
ReplyDeleteEvery OECD nation, including now the US, has some measure of a totalitarian political economy which does not recognize any natural limits on government power, directs the economy, redistributes wealth, and is primarily governed by an absolute bureaucracy.
The British Crown against which the colonists waged armed revolution was FAR less invasive than today's American government. The American Revolution was largely triggered by an excise tax. Today's tax code and regulations alone are well over 10,000 pages long.
Indeed they do. Ask any nation who has elected fascists and socialists.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 7:55 PM
We already voted our fascists out of power in 2008. Hopefully they don't return.
"The British Crown against which the colonists waged armed revolution was FAR less invasive than today's American government."
ReplyDeleteThe American colonists had no representation in that government, the American people are in total control of our government and could have it changed tomorrow if they wanted it. The fact that they have chosen different things in their government than you would is hardly a sign of tyranny.
"The DOI is indeed a classical libertarian or libertarian document"
If you read the list of grievances, you'll find about as many (maybe more) complaints about the Crown obstructing the colonist's governments in making laws than you will complaints about the British government's actions.
"I just read an item at Daily Kos on the TX dildos case that Cruz commenced when he was TX Solicitor General."
ReplyDeleteHere's Cruz, the guy who holds himself out as for a smaller, less intrusive government, arguing that the government has in interest in regulating the "stimulat[ion] of one's genitals for nonmedical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of a personal relationship."
"stimulat[ion] of one's genitals for nonmedical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of a personal relationship."
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Mista Whiskas : 8:48 PM
Sounds like the definition of a libertarian.
Ted Cruz's college roommate has responded to the "dildo case".
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/clmazin/status/720259227067920385
Craig Mazin @clmazin 11h11 hours ago
Ted Cruz thinks people don't have a right to "stimulate their genitals." I was his college roommate. This would be a new belief of his.
"smaller, less intrusive government"
ReplyDeleteMaybe he says that sometimes, but like Brett of late, he self-identified as a conservative when he was running for the Senate. Conservatives aren't libertarians though some frame things that way when it suits them.
There were a range of sex toy lawsuits & in one sense he was just doing his job defending the law. But, his conservative ideology is only selectively for smaller, less intrusive government.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJoe: There were a range of sex toy lawsuits & in one sense he was just doing his job defending the law. But, his conservative ideology is only selectively for smaller, less intrusive government.
ReplyDeleteThe solicitor general's only job is to defend the laws of his state.
As a senator, Cruz has not been filing bills to outlaw sex toys.
Mr. W: The American colonists had no representation in that government, the American people are in total control of our government and could have it changed tomorrow if they wanted it.
ReplyDeletePlease.
Even though the regulatory bureaucracy has never enjoyed majority support of the voters, show me any example where our elected representatives ever reversed a significant rule decreed by or eliminated any significant part of the regulatory bureaucracy during our lifetimes.
There have been three major conservative electoral waves in my lifetime (80, 94 and 10-14) where voters swept out governments who supported the bureaucracy and replaced them with governments promising regulatory reform. The net result? Nothing, nada, zippo.
Show me where any elected government in the OECD has ever reversed a significant rule decreed by or any significant part of the regulatory bureaucracy during our lifetimes.
By random chance, this should have occurred somewhere in the OECD by now
Now ask yourself why?
And please do not offer the patent nonsense that this is what the voters want.
SPAM I AM! comes up with "just revolution" as perhaps somewhat similar to "just war" to justify his many suggestions over the years of "armed revolution," which he thinks is supported by the 2nd A. Imagine a libertarian revolution - the crossfire might actually be effective by collectively self-eliminating libertarians. Actually, SPAM I AM! is "just revolting." William Bendix in The Life of Riley was prescient of SPAM I AM! with his "What a revoltin' development this is."
ReplyDelete"show me any example where our elected representatives ever reversed a significant rule decreed by or eliminated any significant part of the regulatory bureaucracy during our lifetimes."
ReplyDeleteBart, it's comments like that that tempt to me to think you're not just hyperbolic, but don't know much at all about what you're talking about. It's quite common for an incoming administration to reverse the regulations of the previous one. Here's a description of the Bush administration doing it to Clinton administration rules.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/18/politics/18ENVI.html
And here's the Obama administration giving it right back to the Bush administration.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/03/obama-bush-endangered-species-act-us
Mr. W:
ReplyDeleteI am referring to our elected Congress enacting laws reversing a rule or eliminating a part of the bureaucracy.
Presidents do not have the power to enact these laws. Bush's appointees to the bureaucracy attempted to have the bureaucracy rewrite its own rules. The bureaucracy resisted and the courts halted the Bush efforts. By the end of the second Bush term, the bureaucracy was expanding again.
After he lied in his campaigns promising to cut red tape, Obama then drove the largest peacetime expansion of the government bureaucracy and its decreed rules since at least the New Deal.
In totalitarian political economies, bureaucracies only grow.
No, no. You said "show me any example where our elected representatives ever reversed a significant rule decreed by or eliminated any significant part of the regulatory bureaucracy during our lifetimes" in response to my comment that the American people retain control over the bureaucracy, and I gave you multiple examples of the American people choosing a different administration which then changed the rules of the federal bureaucracy. The last I checked the President was an elected representative of the people too.
ReplyDeleteBut Congress gets in on the act too at times. For example, when it used the CRA to overturn Clinton era ergonomic rules during the Bush administration. Another example can be found in the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act of 2010 which overturned an executive Department of Defense directive issued by the Clinton administration.
Additionally, when Congress passes a law which repeals another law or changes the tax code, many of the regulations based on the now repealed law get changed to make them congruent with the new features in the new law.
You're just demonstrably wrong.
As to your comment about bureaucracy always growing, that begs the question. 'Bureaucracy' is just how modern industrial governments govern (show me one without it), that there's more of it as a nation further industrializes and modernizes is as unremarkable as saying there are more and more roads in such countries (because that's just how people in industrialized and modern nations travel).
SPAM I AM! relies on his expertise in lying with this:
ReplyDelete"After he lied in his campaigns promising to cut red tape, Obama .... "
SPAM I AM! follows Seinfeld's George Costanza's "It's not a lie if you believe it." SPAM I AM! believes a lot of crapola.
Mr. W: No, no. You said "show me any example where our elected representatives ever reversed a significant rule decreed by or eliminated any significant part of the regulatory bureaucracy during our lifetimes" in response to my comment that the American people retain control over the bureaucracy, and I gave you multiple examples of the American people choosing a different administration which then changed the rules of the federal bureaucracy.
ReplyDelete1) Once again, Presidents cannot issue an executive order reversing any rule or eliminating any bureaucracy, no matter how significant. Only Congress can do this. Bush's presidential appointees attempting to convince his bureaucrats to reverse their own rules is not the same thing and, in any case, failed.
2) I am speaking of reversing (not rewriting) a significant rule or bureaucracy and thus rolling back the reach of the bureaucracy and expanding liberty in some consequential way. Bureaucracies rewrite rules continuously. For example, the Obamacare bureaucracies rewrote their rules concerning contraceptive mandates from compelling employers to pay directly for contraceptive coverage to paying indirectly. The mandate and resulting reduction of individual liberty remained, only the approach changed.
Additionally, when Congress passes a law which repeals another law or changes the tax code, many of the regulations based on the now repealed law get changed to make them congruent with the new features in the new law.
About the only power Congress has not expressly delegated to the bureaucracy is the power to tax, although the Obamacare bureaucracy has begin seize that power by renaming the taxes it is imposing as fees. Congress has yet to reverse any of these usurpations.
But Congress gets in on the act too at times. For example, when it used the CRA to overturn Clinton era ergonomic rules during the Bush administration. Another example can be found in the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act of 2010 which overturned an executive Department of Defense directive issued by the Clinton administration.
Congress will sometimes tweak some minor regulation like ergonomic standards or some personnel standard within the bureaucracy.
When I used the term "significant rule," I meant what the bureaucracy calls an "economically significant rule" or "significant regulatory action" which has "an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities"
http://www.fedregsadvisor.com/2013/08/09/economically-significant-a-threshold-shapshot-of-ombs-regulatory-docket/
As to your comment about bureaucracy always growing, that begs the question. 'Bureaucracy' is just how modern industrial governments govern (show me one without it)
An executive governing anything larger than a tribe will generally need an executive bureaucracy to enforce the law efficiently.
I am discussing a bureaucracy exercising absolute power with legislative, executive and judicial powers. Every totalitarian political economy does employ an absolute bureaucracy ruling by decree to bypass democratic accountability. There is no evidence this exercise of absolute power is at all necessary to run an economy and reams of evidence that it instead destroys economic productivity.
No, Bart. You said
ReplyDelete"show me any example where our elected representatives ever reversed a significant rule decreed by or eliminated any significant part of the regulatory bureaucracy during our lifetimes."
The repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act of 2010 which overturned an executive Department of Defense directive issued by the Clinton administration is such an example. You have tried to move the goalposts:
"When I used the term "significant rule," I meant what the bureaucracy calls an "economically significant rule" or "significant regulatory action" which has "an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities""
Well, I gotcha.
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/21/news/mn-40656
From the story: "President Bush on Tuesday signed a bill repealing new workplace safety regulations, saying they posed "overwhelming compliance challenges" for businesses.
The measure, revoking rules issued late in the Clinton administration, was the first substantive policy Bush signed into law.
The rules from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration were aimed at preventing carpal tunnel syndrome, tendinitis and other health problems associated with repetitive motion, awkward postures, contact stress and the like. If such injuries were reported, adjustments to work stations would have been required.
Businesses, which were given until October to comply, said the required changes would cost them as much as $100 billion a year."
I win, endgame.
Of course, I could also point to the W. Bush rewrites of many of the Clinton administration's environmental regulations or President Obama's subsequent re-writes of many of Bush's environmental regulations. Heck, what do you think the vaunted deregulation efforts of the Reagan administration in areas like trucking and airlines was about? *DE-REGULATION* was the reversing and rewriting of previously existing regulations.
That's checkmate.
Jack Balkin has been keeping me busy with his recent posts and delving into his articles, solo and with Sandy. Take a peek at Jack's post of April 14, 2016 "Randy Barnett's Reublican Constitution with a link to Jack's "Which Republican Constitution?" that critically reviews in 27 pages Barnett's recent book "Our Republican Constitution." Here's a portion in Part IV on page 23:
ReplyDelete'Barnett’s description of republicanism, in short, is a remarkable act of
historiographical chutzpah. He takes a few features of republican ideology, staples
them onto classical liberalism, and then calls the result “republicanism.” It is a
little like creating a fantasy baseball team that takes a few of the Yankees’ best
players, adds most of the Boston Red Sox, and calls the team “the New York
Yankees.” You can call your fantasy baseball team whatever you like. But the
people in New York and Boston, at least, will not be fooled."
And the closing Part V is a real rouser that incorporates the current political scene. It'a great read.
By the Bybee [expletives deleted], those who believe that The Gilded AGE were America's best days would probably agree with Barnett.
"That's checkmate."
ReplyDeleteCalvinball makes you winning impossible. Silly.
That's checkmate.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Mista Whiskas : 9:40 PM
On Bartworld you just admitted that you're wrong.
Mr. W:
ReplyDeleteVery good! Go "got me." You found one example of Congress repealing a significant rule:
Voting largely along party lines, Congress exercised the Congressional Review Act of 1996 to repeal the standard — this is the first time the act has been used. The act allows Congress to dissolve executive branch rules that it doesn’t support.
http://www.cleanlink.com/sm/article/OSHA-Ergonomics-Regulation-Killed-By-Congress-Bush--496
You do know that this is the single exception which proves my point. All other CRA attempts have failed.
S.J.Res. 6, 107th Congress (2001), providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to ergonomics (became Pub.L. 107–5 on March 20, 2001);
S.J.Res. 17, 108th Congress (2003), disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to broadcast media ownership (passed Senate 55-40 on September 16, 2003; not acted on by the House);
S.J.Res. 4, 109th Congress (2005), providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Agriculture relating to risk zones for introduction of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (passed Senate 52-46 on March 3, 2005; not acted on by House);
S.J.Res. 20, 109th Congress (2005), disapproving a rule promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to delist coal and oil-direct utility units from the source category list under the Clean Air Act (failed in Senate 47-51 on September 13, 2005);
S.J.Res. 30, 111th Congress (2010), disapproval of the rule submitted by the National Mediation Board relating to representation election procedures (motion to proceed not agreed to in the Senate 43-56 on September 23, 2010);
S.J.Res. 39, 111th Congress (2010), providing for congressional disapproval of the rule relating to status as a grandfathered health plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (motion to proceed not agreed to in the Senate 40-59 on September 29, 2010);
S.J.Res. 36, 112th Congress (2012), providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the National Labor Relations Board relating to representation election procedures (motion to proceed not agreed to in the Senate 45-54 on April 24, 2012);
S.J.Res. 8, 114th Congress (2015), providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the National Labor Relations Board relating to representation case procedures (passed Senate 53-46 on March 4, 2015; passed House 232-186 on March 19, 2015; vetoed by President Obama through a memorandum of disapproval);
S.J.Res. 22, 114th Congress (2015), providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the definition of "waters of the United States" under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (passed Senate 53-44 on November 4, 2015)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act
If the voters elect Cruz and reelect the GOP Congress, the CRA may actually be used again, maybe, but I am not holding my breath.
BTW, the bill allowing homosexuals to serve in the military was a reversal of the prior statute prohibiting that service. Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" did not change the prior prohibition, it was simply an executive direction on how to enforce (or not enforce) the statutory prohibition. This is not a reversal of a significant rule.
Shouldn't someone being preparing for his oral argument?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/argument-preview-warrantless-dui-tests-and-the-fourth-amendment/
SPAM I AM! 's response to Mr. W includes this:
ReplyDelete"You do know that this is the single exception which proves my point."
This appears to be a not so so subtle variation of the "Exception proves the rule."
But check out Wikipedia at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule
for testing purposes. "Loose Lips Sink Ships" as well as SPAM I AM!'s efforts to challenge Mr. W's checkmate. Let's reset the board for another game to give SPAM I AM! a chance to get off the snide.
Joe:
ReplyDeleteI suspect that the Supremes will rule that state laws criminalizing refusal of breath and probably also a blood test are reasonable, minimally intrusive searches to obtain evidence before it disappears. CO does not have one of these laws...yet.
SPAM I AM!'s:
ReplyDelete"CO does not have one of these laws...yet."
perhaps explains CO being the Mile High State (of mind) permitting libertarian alleged drunk drivers an easy Get Out of Jail Card that helps to line the pockets of DUI legal specialists. [MADD, take note and get MAD!] I'll ignore for the time being the CO HIGHlites of the CO legalization of recreational Ganja and driving.
Shag:
ReplyDeleteCO has some of the toughest DUI and DUID laws in the nation and is the second or third state to create a scientifically baseless 5 nanogram legal limit for pot.
I would not advise toking and driving here.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/14-1468_amicus_resp_NewJersey.authcheckdam.pdf
ReplyDelete[page 30]
http://www.dui.co/statutes/235379/42-4-1301.1-Expressed-consent-for-the-taking-of-blood-breath-urine-or-saliva-sample-testing.html
Should be an interesting case. Scalia was one of the strongest supporters of a firm line here, dissenting in a DNA swab case. Expect a narrow ruling to get five votes.
Joe:
ReplyDeleteIn CO, they revoke your driving privileges for refusal, but refusal is not a crime.
Joe commented in the past week on my being blue not only politically. Perhaps I have company with this TPM headline:
ReplyDelete"Blown Budget Deadline Shows Paul Ryan's Got A Boehner-Sized Problem"
Now, a word from Cruz on the evils of dildos: ....
Shag:
ReplyDeleteDuring an election year, the GOP is at loathe to tell the 60% of earners and myriad of politically connected businesses who get more (often far more) government cash and benefits that they pay in taxes that they are part of the problem and the government needs to stop charging on the national credit card to fill the pig tough before it goes insolvent.
This is the moral hazard presented to a democracy by a progressively punitive tax code which places over 3/4 of the tax burden on 1/5 of the people so the government can pay off 3/5 of the rest of the people with a means tested welfare state.