So when did they establish the "Energy Czar"? How about the "Drug Czar"?
Note also that it says "may by law vest the appointment", meaning that unless a law specifically states that the appointments may be made without their approval, then they have to confirm it.
That's a far cry from what has been happening since the Clinton administration (or was there precedent before that), where the president just decides he needs a new adviser, creates the position out of thin air, and sticks somebody in it.
Corruption is not an on/off bit. It is a matter of degree.
So a public official who requires a $50 bribe is corrupt but one taking $25 is not?
I think you've got it backwards, there. A public official that accepts a $25 bribe is probably more corrupt than one that capitulates for $50 - "every man has his price", as they say. If your price is high enough, maybe no one can afford to buy you off.
Unfortunately, our politicians in Washington are relatively cheap. AIG got, what, $170 Billion dollars? Or there about? That's quite a return on a measly $208,000 (although that only includes Obama and Chris Dodd).
DHS is already under the purview of the Whitehouse. The article doesn't discuss if the director of Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor would be subject to congressional confirmation (DHS is), but they could be.
If they are mostly advising the president on what other agencies should be doing (rather than implementing things), the change doesn't hurt anything at all (and not running everything through DHS is probably better).
All these appointments of any people to a offices and consul positions, reporting directly to the President, must by law be approved by the Congress (typically the Senate). That's right in the Constitution:
and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
I know Obama is not the first to appoint "Czars" and other "advisers" without any congressional involvement, and frankly I don't know how they got away with it in the past. It's clearly unconstitutional.
Now consider what happens under Obama.
The DHS will be quietly dismantled; every excuse to split power back up into different agencies will be taken.
That's a nice rosy view of the future, but not one with much credibility. I don't see any move toward dismantling the DHS, quite the contrary. What I'm seeing are moves to consolidate power into the (politically controlled) White House.
He is also planning on moving other traditionally non-partisan functions under control of the White House, Rahm Emanuel and other ideologues, such as
The US Census, which controls representation in Congress.
He's also busy building an army of activists that have pledged their allegiance to him, regardless of the details of his proposals might be.
This most recent proposal will basically put the Internet under the control of one party. This can easily start as a "cybersecurity" issue, then since they can do it they could say "well we want to block child porn" (because no one will defend child porn), and eventually they can shut down whatever they want, and you can't find out what's blocked because "it's a matter of national security".
Well, if participating in those projects is what you consider "teaching real science", then maybe you should think again. If you are teaching high-school physics, you should be covering... physics.
I had a wonderful physics teacher when I was in high school, but that seems to be a rare thing (these days, anyway). I'm very disappointed with the assignments my son brings home from his high school senior physics class. I have been teaching him some concepts instead, and many of his classmates tell him that he explains the topics are much better than the teacher!
Having students learn the parts of the eardrum (and take a quiz on it) doesn't really teach them anything about waves and particles. Although I guess if you don't understand it yourself it may be a way to claim to have "covered it". Also, calculating specific heat does *not* require *7 steps* !!
... like saying that it is immoral to assistant the suicides of terminally ill patients and keep comma victims on life support as long as possible), when they die and they are going to heaven anyways.
I, am, a, comma, victim, you, insensitive, clod!!,,
And it was because assholes like you who have been cheerleading them, giving them business while they have no interest in serving their customers. I will be really happy when they go down.
Hate all you want. If you don't like them, don't do business with them. I'm subscribed with Blockbuster because it works for me and I like the value. I tell you this much that's true: as soon as Blockbuster is gone and Netflix is the only game in town, prices will go up and service will drop into the toilet. Guaranteed.
I've been on the Blockbuster plan for years, and I love it! I've never been "throttled" like people on Netflix were, either.
No wonder they are closing stores and losing to Netflix! Needless to say I am canceling my account in protest.
Well that makes sense, I guess with Netflix you can take home as many DVDs from the store as you want! Uhhh... wait, what? Netflix doesn't have any stores? Well... um... so how is it better, again?
Actually, I don't have the "Total Access" plan. That's what I used to have, but then they went up on the price so I canceled. Well they immediately contacted me (I guess they figured I was probably ready to jump to Netflix, since it would be cheaper) and offered me a deal on the "mailer only" plan, which didn't include trips to the store, and was much less than I could get from Netflix, so I took it. I almost never used the store, anyway, it just wasn't convenient.
MOD PARENT UP!! Thanks for having the courage to talk about this. It's easy to dismiss as "conspiracy theory" or nutty, but it doesn't really require a conspiracy, just an understanding that certain people (and families) have common interests.
I think it is insulting to the apes, to act all "Ooh, look, the can do basic stuff too, we're not that special anymore. I guess we have to find something else to show that we still are god's gift of perfection.".
I'm sorry. This galaxy is not special. It never was. Earth is not special. It never was. Humans are not special. They never were. The white man is not special. He never was.
Same shit, different times.
You have a point about all the newer safety features that the '84 CRX did not have. It does add weight and tougher emission standards affect gas mileage, too.
Performance does not suffer at all in that old car, though. I can even remember considering a trade-in at one point, and I think it was the '91 models I was looking at. This is when they had split the line into 3 types: a high mileage model, a mid-grade, and a performance model. The high mileage still didn't do as good on gas as my '84, and the others were much worse. So that's the one I test drove. This was a brand new car, mind you, and the pick-up was awful. Push the gas to the floor and the thing would slooooowly start to wind up to speed. Terrible. Made my '84 seem like a speedster.
Exactly. I see ads on TV for cars that say '31mpg' and are advertising it like it's amazing. My 1997 Cavalier gets that. Actually gets it, not just advertises it!
Bah! That's horrible. My 1984 Honda CRX gets 52 MPG. An that's with a supposedly less-efficient carburetor!
All recognized rights are stated in the constitution. Do not go outside of that document. You'll notice that none have been broken.
Arrgh! NO! Your rights DO NOT come from the government, or the Constitution. They are inherent. The Constitution limits the powers of the government, not of the people. The people grant certain powers as explicitly spelled out in the Constitution to the government. All other rights are "reserved" by the people, or by the states, as the people dictate. It's spelled out in the 10th amendment, but it needn't be. The bill of rights was just stating the most important of your inherent rights, because some of the states thought it was important that they were looked after closely.
You might notice that the executive branch is given a very open ended amount of power that is really only limited by congress.
[sigh] Why do people keep insisting that powers of the federal government (and the president, in this case) are "open ended"? They are not. His powers are very limited. Only the inherent rights of the people are open ended.
The President is sworn to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". That's a contract, and it says that the people are sovereign and the government is granted certain powers by the people.
The President is only allowed to do these things:
Command the armed forces
Grant pardons and reprieves
Make treaties with foreign governments (if approved by 2/3 of the senate
Make appointments to ambassadorships, ministers and consuls, and Supreme Court judges (again, with the approval of the Senate). (He can also make appointments unilaterally when congress is not in session).
Provide "state of the union" reports
Make recommendations to congress
Receive ambassadors
That's pretty much the full list, other than the one thing: "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed". That means he is in charge of enforcement of the laws that Congress passes. The "faithfully" part means that he needs to enforce laws as Congress intended them (unless they violate the Constitution, which overrides everything).
Now, that's not very "open ended". It's pretty specific and limited. He is not allowed to spy on citizens when the Constitution requires a warrant. He is not allowed to take land that doesn't belong to him. He is not allowed to violate treaties that he or previous presidents have signed and been ratified by Congress. He is not allowed to spend any treasury funds unless Congress gives it to him to enact their laws.
I wish I had mod points. Thank you for being a voice of reason among a throng of boisterous idiots.
For those people who disagree, I'd like you to do a few things for me.
Explain how the FCC, an executive agency, is the same as Congress ("Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech")
If congress allows the FCC to regulate speech, then they have defacto created a law abridging the freedom of speech. They are actually forbidden to do that, too. Check out, for instance, Taylor v Smithkline Beecham Corp and Field v Clark for the case law that covers this.
Explain how "the freedom of speech" is the same as "the freedom of speech in any medium you want, even one that isn't owned by you"
Because if not, it's an abridgment. Also, you don't own the airwaves, either, so why would you have a right to equal time? How about this: what this really comes down to is *funding* for speech. It's not like Murdoch (or anybody else, other than maybe Soros) is digging into his own pocket to fund FCC licenses and broadcasting equipment.
Without talk radio, AM radio stations would no longer exist. Leftist talk radio has been tried, but there wasn't enough listenership to fund it. So what you are asking for are speech subsidies, which seems, at the least, unbalanced.
Show me where the Constitution mandates a pure market economy
The Constitution doesn't madate any market forces, other than claiming the exclusive right to coin money to the United States, which is the point. It limits the authority of government and guarantees individual freedom, ensuring that power is vested in the people, not the government. It also allows the Federal government to regulate interstate commerce (commerce between the states, which implies some form of open market).
It also includes the phrase: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.", which basically disallows the United States to mandate any kind of market, leaving it to the states and the people to decide for themselves.
I'm afraid you're actually quite wrong, there. The president's job is to do what he was elected to do. Given that the president's entire campaign was based around the word 'change,' you might want to consider that the majority of voters apparently agreed. Therefore it could easily be argued that Obama's job, literally, IS to change that which America has become.
Sorry, I guess I'm just blind.
No. Read the Constitution. The president's job is spelled out right there. He's not allowed to go beyond the responsibilities and authorities that have been granted to him. It doesn't matter what he said during the campaign. America is a Republic, not a democracy. Voters aren't allowed to trample individual, inherent rights of the people, no matter how many of them vote to do so.
I don't know why you were marked a troll. You just seem terribly misguided to me.
Anyone can repeat the definitions of a Republic and a Democracy. Remember, people advocated a republic instead of a democracy because they thought slaves, women, and non-land owners were too stupid and not invested enough to be allowed to vote.
I see you have been properly indoctrinated by one of the progressive schools. Your argument makes no sense with regards to the form of government, since they *still* could have formed a democracy, just set land-owning white men as the only voters. A Republic means that *every person* is sovereign. It means that the plurality, or the collective, or whatever you call it *cannot* impose its will on individuals, because individuals are sovereign, and their rights are *inherent*, not granted by the state, as you would like it to be.
Furthermore, I looked up the quote. Did you read the rest of that paragraph?
"The Americans, on the other hand, are fond of explaining almost all the actions of their lives by the principle of self-interest rightly understood; they show with complacency how an enlightened regard for themselves constantly prompts them to assist one another and inclines them willingly to sacrifice a portion of their time and property to the welfare of the state." --Alex de Tocqueville
How did you end up believing the exact opposite of what that quote actually meant?
You have missed an important part of the quote: the "willingly to sacrifice a portion of their time and property" part. It's an important distinction. You seem to think that congress spending other people's money that they confiscate at gunpoint somehow as generosity or compassion. That, however, is corrupt self-interest rather than the "self-interest rightly understood" that motivates people to help their neighbor. Take a look at New Orleans today. Compare the federal programs involved in repair and renovation to the Habitat for Humanity (kudos to Carter for his involvement there, BTW) and other private programs. Which ones are working?
Just how did you get such a twisted viewpoint of reality?
I actually already know. Through propaganda,
Ah, of course. Your state-run education and the drooling-over-socialism mainstream media.
They have convinced low income midwesterners that cutting the taxes for the rich will somehow result in a better economy for them.
Sigh. You're like a parrot. It's really about what drives the economy. Is it government confiscating money from private citizens to spend it on a $40 billion program that benefits a few, or is it people deciding for themselves how to invest their money? History is pretty clear that government is wasteful, corrupting, fraught with inefficiency, and produces absolutely $0 in new wealth.
As far as your hatred of Carter, that's a pretty standard parroting. I'd be interested if you could name any specific policies that you believe led to the economic conditions of that era.
First, presidents don't really have a lot of impact on the economy. They can either interfere (FDR) or get out of the way (Reagan). This can have some impact, but none have had the kind of impact that FDR's ruinous policies did.
Still, Carter's policies were horrible:
He instituted several price controls that (predictably) resulted in shortages, including the gasoline shortage.
His appointment of Miller to the Fed meant a huge increase in monetary supply, which led to massive inflation.
The top tax rate of 70 percent meant that investors had very little incentive to pursue money-making (prosperous) ventures.
The Department of Education - An agency that has received hundreds of billions in funding and overseen the educational system in the U.S. drop from #1 in the world in most categories to being near the bottom among all the other industrialized nations.
The Department of Energy - Received billions of dollars with the mission to make the US "energy independent". How's that working?
that ruling actually makes sense. there is no way that it will be allowed to stand!
I disagree. It sets a dangerous precedent that allows judges to decide whether to expose a citizen to the wrath of bureaucracies and deep-pocketed interests that wish to silence them.
The "balance" in free speech that the judge should have been looking at is that everyone gets it (free speech, that is), and are free to reply with their own rebuttal. If it's a lie, the truth will out. It's difficult enough exposing the truth about the big corporations and multi-millionaire lobbyists and legislators without the bludgeon of lawyers seeking to expose the whistle-blowers to financial ruin or worse.
They are also the company that is basically taking over all of the IT functions for the Commonwealth of Virginia. It's working about as smoothly as you would expect.
I'm sure once all the agencies have turned over all their equipment, applications, and network services to Northrop-Grumman to be run from their new high-efficiency data center, that It service will improve, security will be rock-solid, and costs will drop like a stone.
But, the indirect benefit I hope to get is that, if more people can keep their homes rather than being foreclosed on, the housing market will hopefully not completely bottom out to where my place will be worth less than I paid for it and to where if I do want to sell it I won't be able to do so without taking a large loss.
How do you feel about paying for (and having your kids and grandkids pay for) the irresponsible people that hocked their houses to the hilt during the bubble, and used the inflated equity as an ATM to spend freely? Do you think it's okay that the grasshoppers played all summer while you and the other ants worked and saved for winter, that since winter has come the government is raiding your savings to help the grasshoppers? I mean, where do you think the money is ultimately going to come from?
Personally, I knew (as did most people) that the housing market was a bubble, and would eventually crash. I couldn't afford a house where I wanted to live because the prices inflated so fast, so I was actually looking forward to the time when the bubble burst, the prices came down to a reasonable level, and I could afford to buy one. Unfortunately, now that it's happened, the government is trying to prop up the market like Richard and Larry having a weekend at Bernie's. And the bill will come to me and my kids.
I don't personally think it's the job of governments to support open source software financially.
I do! I do!
Am I the only one here who can see how the "free market" capitalism we have in the US is just a dodge by rich folk to make sure there's plenty of cheap labor?
Shhh... don't tell everyone. But please keep spreading the myth about the US having free market capitalism, though. We don't want anyone to know that it's a fiction.
25 cent an hour labor from funny-looking little dark people
What, are you racist or something? I am trying to be fair to everyone, regardless of skin color. I pay my Wetbacks same as I pay my Indians.
We wouldn't want to live like those craven Swedish after all, who for all we know have reverted to eating each other because their horrible "European-style Socialism" was such a terrible failure.
Well we have to do something to keep the Swiss happy. Where else are we supposed to hide all our riches from the IRS?
That's like an ANTI-Stimulus to us software developers trying to make a living.
Get used to it. The stimulus (and, it seems, many of the Obama administration's policies) are designed to reward failure. Not that he started that trend - the big wall street bailout (TARP #1) rewarded all the banks that were failing, too.
Just as an example, the stimulus provides tax breaks to workers that amounts to about $8 a week, while providing $25 a week more for unemployment compensation payments. The failing auto industry got billions as soon as the Dems took over, and they're now at the door asking for more.
Obama's mortgage assistance program will reward people that are significantly behind in their mortgage payments. There will be no incentives for people that are on time, or for people interested in buying foreclosed properties. It's good to reduce the number of foreclosures happening, but it doesn't do anything to help move families into those foreclosed houses that are now sitting empty.
Maybe you should look into health care information systems, I hear there will be a lot of jobs there, soon. You may have to learn to program with something other than Visual Studio, though, because I imagine the new Health Information Network will use a lot of open source software.
Saying every time "those ignorant buffoons who don't understand squat about climatology but feel like they are entitled to contest world-leading researchers because the latter ones' conclusions threaten the former ones' god-given right to $1/gal. gasoline" is kind of cumbersome. "Deniers" is a good description, which also captures the irrationality of climate-change deniers: you are yourself a good example of that:
I guess you're right. Stereotyping and dismissing your critics is much easier if you can use 1 word instead of a run-on sentence. But you can include multiple assaults on their character and motivations with a long description, as you have clearly demonstrated. Using that many words, though, you should have been able to mention something about SUVs and killing kittens.
the kind of science you support is to cherry pick unrelated events from around the world and scare people into agreeing with them for the purposes of making money off such schemes as carbon off setting.
That's quite some cloak-and-dagger Illuminati conspiracy theory you have there. If climatologists were that greedy, they would:
The OP said the kind of science you support, not that any large group supports. You are the one trying to put everybody into either the "altruistic brilliant scientists and supporters" or the "ignorant greedy superstitious hick" group.
The scientific consensus is that global warming is real and anthropogenic.
Clearly, that's just wrong. There seems to be a consensus that:
global warming is real (BTW: get on board, dude, it's called "climate change" now)
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a significant source "greenhouse" warming of the earth
human activity and industry have increased the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
The rest is up for debate. In fact, in recent months many studies have demonstrated that it is likely that the largest source of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is methane from animals (primarily livestock like cows, pigs, sheep). Sure, that's because of human activity, too, but would you advocate cutting back on our food supply to (maybe) slow global warming? Because carbon taxes won't reduce methane.
This whole thing really has gotten too much like a religious debate (or a political debate, or abortion debate, whatever). It's really very frustrating. And it seems the two sides either want to stop burning fossil fuels or just do nothing. Since the prevalent opinion seems to be that warming is happening, maybe we should be thinking about how to prepare for that inevitability. I mean, isn't that a more reasonable approach than to undertake a massive effort to try to change the climate (or stop it from changing). Nobody is even sure if it can be done. But we can prepare. Humans have adjusted to changing climates before, and can again.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that it would cost Dell more to offer a "blank hard drive" option, since with that option Dell would actually have to spend less time on those machines (not having to install an OEM copy of Windows).
Not hard-pressed at all. Without an operating system, they can't install all of the crapware. And if they can't install the crapware, they don't get kick-backs from the crapware companies for putting the advertising on all the computers they sell.
Slashdot Mirror
So when did they establish the "Energy Czar"? How about the "Drug Czar"?
Note also that it says "may by law vest the appointment", meaning that unless a law specifically states that the appointments may be made without their approval, then they have to confirm it.
That's a far cry from what has been happening since the Clinton administration (or was there precedent before that), where the president just decides he needs a new adviser, creates the position out of thin air, and sticks somebody in it.
Corruption is not an on/off bit. It is a matter of degree.
So a public official who requires a $50 bribe is corrupt but one taking $25 is not?
I think you've got it backwards, there. A public official that accepts a $25 bribe is probably more corrupt than one that capitulates for $50 - "every man has his price", as they say. If your price is high enough, maybe no one can afford to buy you off.
Unfortunately, our politicians in Washington are relatively cheap. AIG got, what, $170 Billion dollars? Or there about? That's quite a return on a measly $208,000 (although that only includes Obama and Chris Dodd).
DHS is already under the purview of the Whitehouse. The article doesn't discuss if the director of Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor would be subject to congressional confirmation (DHS is), but they could be.
If they are mostly advising the president on what other agencies should be doing (rather than implementing things), the change doesn't hurt anything at all (and not running everything through DHS is probably better).
All these appointments of any people to a offices and consul positions, reporting directly to the President, must by law be approved by the Congress (typically the Senate). That's right in the Constitution:
I know Obama is not the first to appoint "Czars" and other "advisers" without any congressional involvement, and frankly I don't know how they got away with it in the past. It's clearly unconstitutional.
Now consider what happens under Obama. The DHS will be quietly dismantled; every excuse to split power back up into different agencies will be taken.
That's a nice rosy view of the future, but not one with much credibility. I don't see any move toward dismantling the DHS, quite the contrary. What I'm seeing are moves to consolidate power into the (politically controlled) White House.
He is also planning on moving other traditionally non-partisan functions under control of the White House, Rahm Emanuel and other ideologues, such as The US Census, which controls representation in Congress.
He's also busy building an army of activists that have pledged their allegiance to him, regardless of the details of his proposals might be.
This most recent proposal will basically put the Internet under the control of one party. This can easily start as a "cybersecurity" issue, then since they can do it they could say "well we want to block child porn" (because no one will defend child porn), and eventually they can shut down whatever they want, and you can't find out what's blocked because "it's a matter of national security".
Go ahead and say "It can't happen here".
Well, if participating in those projects is what you consider "teaching real science", then maybe you should think again. If you are teaching high-school physics, you should be covering ... physics.
I had a wonderful physics teacher when I was in high school, but that seems to be a rare thing (these days, anyway). I'm very disappointed with the assignments my son brings home from his high school senior physics class. I have been teaching him some concepts instead, and many of his classmates tell him that he explains the topics are much better than the teacher!
Having students learn the parts of the eardrum (and take a quiz on it) doesn't really teach them anything about waves and particles. Although I guess if you don't understand it yourself it may be a way to claim to have "covered it". Also, calculating specific heat does *not* require *7 steps* !!
... like saying that it is immoral to assistant the suicides of terminally ill patients and keep comma victims on life support as long as possible), when they die and they are going to heaven anyways.
I, am, a, comma, victim, you, insensitive, clod!! ,,
Blockbuster doesn't have any instant watching service?
Actually, they do.
And it was because assholes like you who have been cheerleading them, giving them business while they have no interest in serving their customers. I will be really happy when they go down.
Hate all you want. If you don't like them, don't do business with them. I'm subscribed with Blockbuster because it works for me and I like the value. I tell you this much that's true: as soon as Blockbuster is gone and Netflix is the only game in town, prices will go up and service will drop into the toilet. Guaranteed.
I've been on the Blockbuster plan for years, and I love it! I've never been "throttled" like people on Netflix were, either.
No wonder they are closing stores and losing to Netflix! Needless to say I am canceling my account in protest.
Well that makes sense, I guess with Netflix you can take home as many DVDs from the store as you want! Uhhh... wait, what? Netflix doesn't have any stores? Well... um... so how is it better, again?
Actually, I don't have the "Total Access" plan. That's what I used to have, but then they went up on the price so I canceled. Well they immediately contacted me (I guess they figured I was probably ready to jump to Netflix, since it would be cheaper) and offered me a deal on the "mailer only" plan, which didn't include trips to the store, and was much less than I could get from Netflix, so I took it. I almost never used the store, anyway, it just wasn't convenient.
Wake up, people!
I think it is insulting to the apes, to act all "Ooh, look, the can do basic stuff too, we're not that special anymore. I guess we have to find something else to show that we still are god's gift of perfection.".
I'm sorry. This galaxy is not special. It never was. Earth is not special. It never was. Humans are not special. They never were. The white man is not special. He never was. Same shit, different times.
Kill yourself
You have a point about all the newer safety features that the '84 CRX did not have. It does add weight and tougher emission standards affect gas mileage, too.
Performance does not suffer at all in that old car, though. I can even remember considering a trade-in at one point, and I think it was the '91 models I was looking at. This is when they had split the line into 3 types: a high mileage model, a mid-grade, and a performance model. The high mileage still didn't do as good on gas as my '84, and the others were much worse. So that's the one I test drove. This was a brand new car, mind you, and the pick-up was awful. Push the gas to the floor and the thing would slooooowly start to wind up to speed. Terrible. Made my '84 seem like a speedster.
Exactly. I see ads on TV for cars that say '31mpg' and are advertising it like it's amazing. My 1997 Cavalier gets that. Actually gets it, not just advertises it!
Bah! That's horrible. My 1984 Honda CRX gets 52 MPG. An that's with a supposedly less-efficient carburetor!
If Vivek Kundra is involved, then it's corrupt. Guaranteed.
Anybody else that has worked with this guy want to chime in? I can't believe I'm the first one on here to point that out.
All recognized rights are stated in the constitution. Do not go outside of that document. You'll notice that none have been broken.
Arrgh! NO! Your rights DO NOT come from the government, or the Constitution. They are inherent. The Constitution limits the powers of the government, not of the people. The people grant certain powers as explicitly spelled out in the Constitution to the government. All other rights are "reserved" by the people, or by the states, as the people dictate. It's spelled out in the 10th amendment, but it needn't be. The bill of rights was just stating the most important of your inherent rights, because some of the states thought it was important that they were looked after closely.
You might notice that the executive branch is given a very open ended amount of power that is really only limited by congress.
[sigh] Why do people keep insisting that powers of the federal government (and the president, in this case) are "open ended"? They are not. His powers are very limited. Only the inherent rights of the people are open ended.
The President is sworn to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". That's a contract, and it says that the people are sovereign and the government is granted certain powers by the people.
The President is only allowed to do these things:
That's pretty much the full list, other than the one thing: "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed". That means he is in charge of enforcement of the laws that Congress passes. The "faithfully" part means that he needs to enforce laws as Congress intended them (unless they violate the Constitution, which overrides everything).
Now, that's not very "open ended". It's pretty specific and limited. He is not allowed to spy on citizens when the Constitution requires a warrant. He is not allowed to take land that doesn't belong to him. He is not allowed to violate treaties that he or previous presidents have signed and been ratified by Congress. He is not allowed to spend any treasury funds unless Congress gives it to him to enact their laws.
I wish I had mod points. Thank you for being a voice of reason among a throng of boisterous idiots.
For those people who disagree, I'd like you to do a few things for me.
If congress allows the FCC to regulate speech, then they have defacto created a law abridging the freedom of speech. They are actually forbidden to do that, too. Check out, for instance, Taylor v Smithkline Beecham Corp and Field v Clark for the case law that covers this.
Explain how "the freedom of speech" is the same as "the freedom of speech in any medium you want, even one that isn't owned by you"
Because if not, it's an abridgment. Also, you don't own the airwaves, either, so why would you have a right to equal time? How about this: what this really comes down to is *funding* for speech. It's not like Murdoch (or anybody else, other than maybe Soros) is digging into his own pocket to fund FCC licenses and broadcasting equipment.
Without talk radio, AM radio stations would no longer exist. Leftist talk radio has been tried, but there wasn't enough listenership to fund it. So what you are asking for are speech subsidies, which seems, at the least, unbalanced.
Show me where the Constitution mandates a pure market economy
The Constitution doesn't madate any market forces, other than claiming the exclusive right to coin money to the United States, which is the point. It limits the authority of government and guarantees individual freedom, ensuring that power is vested in the people, not the government. It also allows the Federal government to regulate interstate commerce (commerce between the states, which implies some form of open market).
It also includes the phrase: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.", which basically disallows the United States to mandate any kind of market, leaving it to the states and the people to decide for themselves.
Thank you.
You're Welcome
I'm afraid you're actually quite wrong, there. The president's job is to do what he was elected to do. Given that the president's entire campaign was based around the word 'change,' you might want to consider that the majority of voters apparently agreed. Therefore it could easily be argued that Obama's job, literally, IS to change that which America has become. Sorry, I guess I'm just blind.
No. Read the Constitution. The president's job is spelled out right there. He's not allowed to go beyond the responsibilities and authorities that have been granted to him. It doesn't matter what he said during the campaign. America is a Republic, not a democracy. Voters aren't allowed to trample individual, inherent rights of the people, no matter how many of them vote to do so.
Anyone can repeat the definitions of a Republic and a Democracy. Remember, people advocated a republic instead of a democracy because they thought slaves, women, and non-land owners were too stupid and not invested enough to be allowed to vote.
I see you have been properly indoctrinated by one of the progressive schools. Your argument makes no sense with regards to the form of government, since they *still* could have formed a democracy, just set land-owning white men as the only voters. A Republic means that *every person* is sovereign. It means that the plurality, or the collective, or whatever you call it *cannot* impose its will on individuals, because individuals are sovereign, and their rights are *inherent*, not granted by the state, as you would like it to be.
Furthermore, I looked up the quote. Did you read the rest of that paragraph?
"The Americans, on the other hand, are fond of explaining almost all the actions of their lives by the principle of self-interest rightly understood; they show with complacency how an enlightened regard for themselves constantly prompts them to assist one another and inclines them willingly to sacrifice a portion of their time and property to the welfare of the state." --Alex de Tocqueville
How did you end up believing the exact opposite of what that quote actually meant?
You have missed an important part of the quote: the "willingly to sacrifice a portion of their time and property" part. It's an important distinction. You seem to think that congress spending other people's money that they confiscate at gunpoint somehow as generosity or compassion. That, however, is corrupt self-interest rather than the "self-interest rightly understood" that motivates people to help their neighbor. Take a look at New Orleans today. Compare the federal programs involved in repair and renovation to the Habitat for Humanity (kudos to Carter for his involvement there, BTW) and other private programs. Which ones are working?
Just how did you get such a twisted viewpoint of reality?
I actually already know. Through propaganda,
Ah, of course. Your state-run education and the drooling-over-socialism mainstream media.
They have convinced low income midwesterners that cutting the taxes for the rich will somehow result in a better economy for them.
Sigh. You're like a parrot. It's really about what drives the economy. Is it government confiscating money from private citizens to spend it on a $40 billion program that benefits a few, or is it people deciding for themselves how to invest their money? History is pretty clear that government is wasteful, corrupting, fraught with inefficiency, and produces absolutely $0 in new wealth.
As far as your hatred of Carter, that's a pretty standard parroting. I'd be interested if you could name any specific policies that you believe led to the economic conditions of that era.
First, presidents don't really have a lot of impact on the economy. They can either interfere (FDR) or get out of the way (Reagan). This can have some impact, but none have had the kind of impact that FDR's ruinous policies did.
Still, Carter's policies were horrible:
that ruling actually makes sense. there is no way that it will be allowed to stand!
I disagree. It sets a dangerous precedent that allows judges to decide whether to expose a citizen to the wrath of bureaucracies and deep-pocketed interests that wish to silence them.
The "balance" in free speech that the judge should have been looking at is that everyone gets it (free speech, that is), and are free to reply with their own rebuttal. If it's a lie, the truth will out. It's difficult enough exposing the truth about the big corporations and multi-millionaire lobbyists and legislators without the bludgeon of lawyers seeking to expose the whistle-blowers to financial ruin or worse.
They are also the company that is basically taking over all of the IT functions for the Commonwealth of Virginia. It's working about as smoothly as you would expect.
I'm sure once all the agencies have turned over all their equipment, applications, and network services to Northrop-Grumman to be run from their new high-efficiency data center, that It service will improve, security will be rock-solid, and costs will drop like a stone.
But, the indirect benefit I hope to get is that, if more people can keep their homes rather than being foreclosed on, the housing market will hopefully not completely bottom out to where my place will be worth less than I paid for it and to where if I do want to sell it I won't be able to do so without taking a large loss.
How do you feel about paying for (and having your kids and grandkids pay for) the irresponsible people that hocked their houses to the hilt during the bubble, and used the inflated equity as an ATM to spend freely? Do you think it's okay that the grasshoppers played all summer while you and the other ants worked and saved for winter, that since winter has come the government is raiding your savings to help the grasshoppers? I mean, where do you think the money is ultimately going to come from?
Personally, I knew (as did most people) that the housing market was a bubble, and would eventually crash. I couldn't afford a house where I wanted to live because the prices inflated so fast, so I was actually looking forward to the time when the bubble burst, the prices came down to a reasonable level, and I could afford to buy one. Unfortunately, now that it's happened, the government is trying to prop up the market like Richard and Larry having a weekend at Bernie's. And the bill will come to me and my kids.
Is that really fair?
I do! I do!
Am I the only one here who can see how the "free market" capitalism we have in the US is just a dodge by rich folk to make sure there's plenty of cheap labor?
Shhh... don't tell everyone. But please keep spreading the myth about the US having free market capitalism, though. We don't want anyone to know that it's a fiction.
25 cent an hour labor from funny-looking little dark people
What, are you racist or something? I am trying to be fair to everyone, regardless of skin color. I pay my Wetbacks same as I pay my Indians.
We wouldn't want to live like those craven Swedish after all, who for all we know have reverted to eating each other because their horrible "European-style Socialism" was such a terrible failure.
Well we have to do something to keep the Swiss happy. Where else are we supposed to hide all our riches from the IRS?
You seem to be believing the "rational consumer" theory of economics. Please wake up to reality.
Reality is that Walmart and McDonald's are doing really well in our depressed economy. So there seems to be something to it.
That's like an ANTI-Stimulus to us software developers trying to make a living.
Get used to it. The stimulus (and, it seems, many of the Obama administration's policies) are designed to reward failure. Not that he started that trend - the big wall street bailout (TARP #1) rewarded all the banks that were failing, too.
Just as an example, the stimulus provides tax breaks to workers that amounts to about $8 a week, while providing $25 a week more for unemployment compensation payments. The failing auto industry got billions as soon as the Dems took over, and they're now at the door asking for more.
Obama's mortgage assistance program will reward people that are significantly behind in their mortgage payments. There will be no incentives for people that are on time, or for people interested in buying foreclosed properties. It's good to reduce the number of foreclosures happening, but it doesn't do anything to help move families into those foreclosed houses that are now sitting empty.
Maybe you should look into health care information systems, I hear there will be a lot of jobs there, soon. You may have to learn to program with something other than Visual Studio, though, because I imagine the new Health Information Network will use a lot of open source software.
Saying every time "those ignorant buffoons who don't understand squat about climatology but feel like they are entitled to contest world-leading researchers because the latter ones' conclusions threaten the former ones' god-given right to $1/gal. gasoline" is kind of cumbersome. "Deniers" is a good description, which also captures the irrationality of climate-change deniers: you are yourself a good example of that:
I guess you're right. Stereotyping and dismissing your critics is much easier if you can use 1 word instead of a run-on sentence. But you can include multiple assaults on their character and motivations with a long description, as you have clearly demonstrated. Using that many words, though, you should have been able to mention something about SUVs and killing kittens.
That's quite some cloak-and-dagger Illuminati conspiracy theory you have there. If climatologists were that greedy, they would:
The OP said the kind of science you support, not that any large group supports. You are the one trying to put everybody into either the "altruistic brilliant scientists and supporters" or the "ignorant greedy superstitious hick" group.
The scientific consensus is that global warming is real and anthropogenic.
Clearly, that's just wrong. There seems to be a consensus that:
The rest is up for debate. In fact, in recent months many studies have demonstrated that it is likely that the largest source of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is methane from animals (primarily livestock like cows, pigs, sheep). Sure, that's because of human activity, too, but would you advocate cutting back on our food supply to (maybe) slow global warming? Because carbon taxes won't reduce methane.
This whole thing really has gotten too much like a religious debate (or a political debate, or abortion debate, whatever). It's really very frustrating. And it seems the two sides either want to stop burning fossil fuels or just do nothing. Since the prevalent opinion seems to be that warming is happening, maybe we should be thinking about how to prepare for that inevitability. I mean, isn't that a more reasonable approach than to undertake a massive effort to try to change the climate (or stop it from changing). Nobody is even sure if it can be done. But we can prepare. Humans have adjusted to changing climates before, and can again.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that it would cost Dell more to offer a "blank hard drive" option, since with that option Dell would actually have to spend less time on those machines (not having to install an OEM copy of Windows).
Not hard-pressed at all. Without an operating system, they can't install all of the crapware. And if they can't install the crapware, they don't get kick-backs from the crapware companies for putting the advertising on all the computers they sell.