Technically, the Congress couldn't sue. It was the City of New York that sued because a budget item that would have benefitted them was line-item vetoed. The case is Clinton v. City of New York.
You won't get that much information, then. The spending bills are a broad brush, and there are already watchdogs who present information based on the bills. This database would, theoretically, go to a much finer level: any contract or grant over $25,000.
I suppose that makes sense. Described that way, though, I think it would still be found unconstitutional. The Constitution is pretty clear that the actions of approving and vetoing are done to whole bills.
At that point, why have a line item veto? In the traditional veto, the bill is returned to Congress with the President's remarks. If the President has a problem with the budget, they can veto it, and return it to Congress with their changes. The Congress can then pass it, override the veto, or drop it (which would eventually lead to a government shutdown).
Some of it was pushing things a little, like computers are alive and one them has been put in charge of the nuclear button.
You're forgetting the first scene of the movie. A nuke attack drill is run, but the operators have second thoughts and fail to launch. This leads to WOPR being put in charge of the missiles.
The people who died in 9/11 are used as pawns. We all know that the real outrage is the loss of money due to the destruction of the towers and the resulting economic downturn.
Seriously, if we cared that much about 3,000 people dying, we would have outlawed tobacco long ago. But that would have cause people to lose money....
Similarly, can you retroactively make something legal?
Yes. The case which outlines what ex post facto really means is Calder v. Bull and it gives 4 situations of ex post facto laws:
1st. Every law that makes an action , done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.
Every ex post facto law must necessarily be retrospective; but every retrospective law is not an ex post facto law.
You know, I'd like to vote for a lawremover, not a lawmaker. Ever think someone will win running on that platform?
Yeah, they're called Republicans. They don't seem to have actually acted on that platform, but there's no denying that the GOP platform is "less government, less regulation, less taxes".
That's not 100% accurate. Yes, FISA allows for a 72-hour grace period. But before any monitoring can take place, the AG has to certify that there is probable cause, etc. Then they still have to go before the court to get the warrant. If the warrant was denied, the intelligence captured has to be destroyed.
The 72-hour provision doesn't really allow them to snoop at-will, which is what they really want, and are doing, apparently.
"..[I]t wouldn't have been front-page news anywhere only because you're a Rep and not a Dem?"
Nope, I am not claiming that at all.
[OP:]If I were a Democrat and he a Republican, chances are, this would be front-page news everywhere.
You can't change your story when it's permanently recorded for all to see...
"you hint that it may be some grand conspiracy"
No, I do not.
[OP:]And my name was the only one this happened to: me, the guy in the paper that day criticizing the Auditor. [Journal:]my name -- the name of the guy who was in the paper this very morning criticizing the County Auditor's office -- was the only one affected by whatever the problem is. Of all the names that would fail to display, it was mine. That seems very suspicious, though I think it is merely an incredibly embarrassing coincidence.
Despite your final claim that it's "an incredibly embarrassing coincidence," your wording stongly implies that you may believe otherwise or that it would be rational to believe otherwise.
But there was no legal basis for Torricelli to withdraw.
And there was no legal basis for him not to withdraw. In light of this, the court ruled in favor of the voters: someone who wants to serve should be on the ballot rather than someone who no longer wants the position.
So, you're claiming that you didn't make a big deal about it -- but if you had, it wouldn't have been front-page news anywhere only because you're a Rep and not a Dem? Based on what evidence... ?
Look, if you had actually made a big deal about it, you might have a point. But right now, your argument is nothing but guesses and assumptions. Show me a precinct-level race that makes press anywhere and you might even have a point..
Maybe you didn't make a big deal out of it because it's an obvious flaw in electronic voting and according to the link you provided, you seem to be pimping e-voting? And reading your journal, you hint that it may be some grand conspiracy.. and in the interview, you state "The touch-screen voting machines are more accurate and less prone to fraud and error than using paper ballots, Nandor said." Ha! I've seen enough.
Confronted with your irrationality, you're changing your story. You said "front-page news everywhere" and now its only liberal and Dem blogs, and local papers.
Maybe the reason why it wasn't "front-page news everywhere" or anywhere was because you didn't bother to make a stink about it in the first-place ("I just post about it, but don't make it into a big deal."). How do you expect the public or press to find out about it if your publicity is limited to your Slashdot journal? Again, I submit that you're deluded.
And I won't even get into the NJSC replacing Torch with Lautenberg.
I will. First off, the election law wasn't 100% clear for the situation that occurred. "The Court agrees with plaintiffs that the statute simply does not contain a legislative declaration that the filling of a vacancy within forty-eight days of the election is prohibited." The jurisprudence in New Jersey regarding election law, otoh, is very clear. "Election laws are to be liberally construed so as to effectuate their purpose. They should not be construed so as to deprive voters of their franchise or so as to render an election void for technical reasons."
The court determined that the voter was better served by allowing a replacement candidate than upholding a vague and arbitrary deadline for changes on the ballot due to withdrawl of a candidate. Why don't you read the decision for yourself.
Except that most of the Hezbollah offensive was rocket attacks. Pretty hard to find out where a rocket landed 10-30 miles away.. A bunch of the tanks were destroyed by mines. You generally place mines and don't stick around to watch the action.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically, the Congress couldn't sue. It was the City of New York that sued because a budget item that would have benefitted them was line-item vetoed. The case is Clinton v. City of New York.
You won't get that much information, then. The spending bills are a broad brush, and there are already watchdogs who present information based on the bills. This database would, theoretically, go to a much finer level: any contract or grant over $25,000.
I suppose that makes sense. Described that way, though, I think it would still be found unconstitutional. The Constitution is pretty clear that the actions of approving and vetoing are done to whole bills.
At that point, why have a line item veto? In the traditional veto, the bill is returned to Congress with the President's remarks. If the President has a problem with the budget, they can veto it, and return it to Congress with their changes. The Congress can then pass it, override the veto, or drop it (which would eventually lead to a government shutdown).
That's easy. The Government Accountability Office.
And no doubt he's included a Signing Statement exempting himself from the bill..
I believe you mean Senator Ted "$315 million dollar bridge to nowhere" Stevens.
Even so, coal mining in its current form is extremely destructive. See here.
I am old enough to remember city streets in places with overhead power lines for this.
Uh.. we're all old enough. They still exist. Philly, Seattle, Vancouver, Newark/Jersey City, Houston, Dallas, Baltimore.. there are many others.
Some of it was pushing things a little, like computers are alive and one them has been put in charge of the nuclear button.
You're forgetting the first scene of the movie. A nuke attack drill is run, but the operators have second thoughts and fail to launch. This leads to WOPR being put in charge of the missiles.
The people who died in 9/11 are used as pawns. We all know that the real outrage is the loss of money due to the destruction of the towers and the resulting economic downturn.
Seriously, if we cared that much about 3,000 people dying, we would have outlawed tobacco long ago. But that would have cause people to lose money....
Yes. The case which outlines what ex post facto really means is Calder v. Bull and it gives 4 situations of ex post facto laws:
You know, I'd like to vote for a lawremover, not a lawmaker. Ever think someone will win running on that platform?
Yeah, they're called Republicans. They don't seem to have actually acted on that platform, but there's no denying that the GOP platform is "less government, less regulation, less taxes".
That's not 100% accurate. Yes, FISA allows for a 72-hour grace period. But before any monitoring can take place, the AG has to certify that there is probable cause, etc. Then they still have to go before the court to get the warrant. If the warrant was denied, the intelligence captured has to be destroyed.
The 72-hour provision doesn't really allow them to snoop at-will, which is what they really want, and are doing, apparently.
"..[I]t wouldn't have been front-page news anywhere only because you're a Rep and not a Dem?"
Nope, I am not claiming that at all.
[OP:]If I were a Democrat and he a Republican, chances are, this would be front-page news everywhere.
You can't change your story when it's permanently recorded for all to see...
"you hint that it may be some grand conspiracy"
No, I do not.
[OP:]And my name was the only one this happened to: me, the guy in the paper that day criticizing the Auditor.
[Journal:]my name -- the name of the guy who was in the paper this very morning criticizing the County Auditor's office -- was the only one affected by whatever the problem is. Of all the names that would fail to display, it was mine. That seems very suspicious, though I think it is merely an incredibly embarrassing coincidence.
Despite your final claim that it's "an incredibly embarrassing coincidence," your wording stongly implies that you may believe otherwise or that it would be rational to believe otherwise.
But there was no legal basis for Torricelli to withdraw.
And there was no legal basis for him not to withdraw. In light of this, the court ruled in favor of the voters: someone who wants to serve should be on the ballot rather than someone who no longer wants the position.
So, you're claiming that you didn't make a big deal about it -- but if you had, it wouldn't have been front-page news anywhere only because you're a Rep and not a Dem? Based on what evidence... ?
Look, if you had actually made a big deal about it, you might have a point. But right now, your argument is nothing but guesses and assumptions. Show me a precinct-level race that makes press anywhere and you might even have a point..
Maybe you didn't make a big deal out of it because it's an obvious flaw in electronic voting and according to the link you provided, you seem to be pimping e-voting? And reading your journal, you hint that it may be some grand conspiracy.. and in the interview, you state "The touch-screen voting machines are more accurate and less prone to fraud and error than using paper ballots, Nandor said." Ha! I've seen enough.
Confronted with your irrationality, you're changing your story. You said "front-page news everywhere" and now its only liberal and Dem blogs, and local papers.
Maybe the reason why it wasn't "front-page news everywhere" or anywhere was because you didn't bother to make a stink about it in the first-place ("I just post about it, but don't make it into a big deal."). How do you expect the public or press to find out about it if your publicity is limited to your Slashdot journal? Again, I submit that you're deluded.
And I won't even get into the NJSC replacing Torch with Lautenberg.
I will. First off, the election law wasn't 100% clear for the situation that occurred. "The Court agrees with plaintiffs that the statute simply does not contain a legislative declaration that the filling of a vacancy within forty-eight days of the election is prohibited." The jurisprudence in New Jersey regarding election law, otoh, is very clear. "Election laws are to be liberally construed so as to effectuate their purpose. They should not be construed so as to deprive voters of their franchise or so as to render an election void for technical reasons."
The court determined that the voter was better served by allowing a replacement candidate than upholding a vague and arbitrary deadline for changes on the ballot due to withdrawl of a candidate. Why don't you read the decision for yourself.
If I were a Democrat and he a Republican, chances are, this would be front-page news everywhere.
I'm sorry.. you think some story about a Precinct officer would be front-page news? You're deluded.
Such infrastructure could create the population centers, much like the transcontinental railroads did.
Except that most of the Hezbollah offensive was rocket attacks. Pretty hard to find out where a rocket landed 10-30 miles away.. A bunch of the tanks were destroyed by mines. You generally place mines and don't stick around to watch the action.
I'd think that cigarettes are near carbon-neutral. The CO2 released is theoretically reclaimed by the next crop of tobacco.
If people would stop doing the things that the contract AIDS from, it would go away, right?
Yeah. Damn those dirty babies being born with AIDS. Don't they know better?
Their voting machine group is completely unrelated to the ATM group. In fact, they bought out some other company to make their voting machine group.