Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
I predict Mr. O goes tieless on Jan. 20.A secret message to Ahmadinejad and layoffs for the cravat industry.
One ever thinks of H.L. Mencken: democracy, he said, is the theory that the common man knows what is good for him, and deserves to get it - good and hard.
Nice that at least one Senator broke his oath of office while he was there, too. One does not support and defend the Constitution by calling for the repeal of a central part of its design.
My fave HLM quote is: the black cloak of fascism is always settling over America and landing on Europe.May that also be true for the next four or more years.-XC
As Alec Baldwin remarked on tonight's episode of 30 Rock: "You just told me something I already know. Perhaps you should write for the Huffington Post."
Peter, that was a terrific line. Baldwin does that part so well.
Hoover's great grandaughter is an analyst on Fox. She is very good looking in a cool, reserved way. Not as flawless as Grace Kelly but definitely in that weight class. Herbert Hoover and cool blondes don't belong in the same sentence, much less the same blood line, but there you are.
Meanwhile, those - unlike Althouse - who actually want the truth no matter what, should see and fully understand this.Nothing in there is meant to imply that he wasn't born in HI, that he's a space alien, or all the other strawman arguments that hacks use.However, the fact remains that BHO has never provided definitive proof of where he was born, despite what you've heard. And, yes: FactCheck has been lying to you.As a (supposed) law professor, Althouse should know all that and have a keen interest in making sure that the truth gets out rather than a convenient untruth.And, once again, watch out for sockpuppets who'll mislead about what my claims at the link consist of.
LonewackoDotCom said..."As a (supposed) law professor, Althouse should..."Yes, a supposed law professor! Those who actually want the truth should see and fully understand this: The fact is that Althouse has never provided definitive proof of her being a law professor, despite what you've heard. And, yes: UW has been lying to you. Althouse is, in fact a space alien made of straw used by hacks.Or something.It's like those people who use "literally" or "that's a fact" to describe something that is not in fact literal and is, literally, not a fact.
Simon:I'm sure that Althouse is actually a law professor. I meant that more in the sense that most of the posts here read like they were written by a Goldie Hawn knock-off.In this case, perhaps instead of simply linking to the NYT, Althouse might consider looking into what we know and what we don't know (see the link I left above), and demonstrating her (no doubt keen) ability to differentiate between the truth and assumptions.
My vote for graf of the day (1-08 edition): But today's news is that Obama, often treated by the national media as the gentle Mr. Tumnus of American politics, got privately hardball with Reid over the Tombstone issue.Source.(Mostly, these days, I keep my private little ticks and nominationss to myself. But I just thought that sentence, quite apart from any partisan & etc. stances & etc., was quite remarkable and delicious, and even redolent. I mean: How dripping and ripping!)Ok. Enough. Just hafta share, every now and again.
I'll put this here since it's so damn funny, it had to go somewhere.John Podesta has sent a letter to congress on behalf of the Obama team requesting that they postpone the DTV switchover on February 17 stating, in part: "With coupons unavailable, support and education insufficient, and the most vulnerable Americans exposed, I urge you to consider a change to the legislatively-mandated analog cutoff date."Obama is now officially the most retarded politician in America, perhaps the world.
Joe said..." Obama is now officially the most retarded politician in America, perhaps the world".I am afraid you might be right. The scary thought is that to have voted for him the voter would have to be even more retarded than O! Four years from now how many voters will admit they voted for him? An even scarier thought is that W might get the last laugh in the future when compared to O! he comes looking like a rocket scientist.
"It's official"Oh well.
Simon said... Nice that at least one Senator broke his oath of office while he was there, too. One does not support and defend the Constitution by calling for the repeal of a central part of its design.That's a new one, as Simons brainless worship of the Holy Parchment and not changing a single sacred word of it - reaches new heights. Now he believes that if any legislator, tasked with Amending it under Article 5, DOES suggest an Amendment that the people might back as needed - they break their oath of office to the inviability of each directive of the Holy Parchment. And so violate his own Veneration of the perfect Gospel best left forever unaltered because 225 years ago, people who he thinks are Infallible, put ink to paper.William said... Hoover's great grandaughter is an analyst on Fox. She is very good looking in a cool, reserved way. Not as flawless as Grace Kelly but definitely in that weight class. Herbert Hoover and cool blondes don't belong in the same sentence, much less the same blood line, but there you are.Guess you never heard of Herbert Hoover's wife - the slim, elegant one that travelled the world with him in danger and adventure until he began government work. Grew up a tomboy and outdoorswoman. Named "Lou" not Louise (because her Dad was convinced he was having a boy and announced that would be the name..) Then settled down to social activism, helping run the Girl Scout organization, war relief. Fluent in Chinese, familiar with Japanese, Burmese, Spanish and an awarded, expert Latin translator. Designed a couple of modern houses in the Santa Fe style. A brunette, unlike her great grand daughter - but similarly intellectually gifted, opinionated, strong personality, and very pretty. And, as her biographers note - the "starter" 1st Lady qualifying as an accomplished in her own right, truly modern woman, with apologies to Dolly Madison...
"Whatever the common judgment of the whole of a great people may be, that judgment will be right."Are we still a great people? Syndrome: *Everyone* can be super! And when everyone's super-- [chuckles evilly] --no one will be.
Cedarford said..."Now he believes that if any legislator, tasked with Amending it under Article 5, DOES suggest an Amendment that the people might back as needed - they break their oath of office to the inviability of each directive of the Holy Parchment."No; the problem doesn't arise when amendments are suggested, per se, it arises when amendments that fundamentally alter the structure and operation of the system created the Constitution. The Seventeenth Amendment is an apt example: it is legally enforcable, of course, but those who voted for it violated their moral obligations under their oath, in a way that amendments that fixed operational problems (12th), corrected erroneous interpretations (11th), subtracted from the scope of delegated powers (1-8), and so forth did not. Proposing to abolish the electoral college is a direct assault on federalism, similar to the Seventeenth Amendment; it is beyond the scope of what can in good faith be proposed by one who has taken the oath in a way that, to give another example, the 20th amendment was not. Your reference to the framers is particularly ironic, because the purpose the electoral college now serves in the federal system is not the one anticipated by the framers. Thus, complaints that I'm paying too much deference to the framers are misplaced.
What doesn't make any sense about what Simon is arguing is that legislators take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. They do not take an oath to support and defend federalism. Federalism is one proposed solution to the public choice and collective action problems any society faces, and in particular, a large, heterogeneous society that existed as discrete political units prior to its national consolidation (such as ours). Nothing in the Constitution obligates fealty to federalism; only fealty to the Constitution as the ultimate law of the land.Your argument is particularly wrong-headed since that ultimate law of the land incorporates an amendment procedure into it. And it is especially bad since the amendment procedure has built into it certain limitations (no State shall be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate without its consent). A canon of statutory interpretation is "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another). The expression of one limitation excludes other limitations, particularly a limitation like you are suggesting, since the one existing limitation clearly has federalism concerns in mind, yet was not worded to more broadly protect it as much as you would like.
Adam, with respect, I disagree. Public officials take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and in doing so, they do take an oath to support and defend federalism, because federalism is the underlying organizing principle of the Constitution. You can no more support and defend the Constitution while rejecting federalism than you can be a vegetarian and reject not eating meat. While I agree that, in abstracto, "[f]ederalism is one proposed solution to the public choice and collective action problems any society faces," federalism is also the Constitution's solution to shoe problems.Your second paragraph likewise misses the mark in invoking expressio unius. I'm not suggesting that an amendment that thwarts federalism (or separation of powers, the rule of law, or any of the other broad-scale structural principals undergirding and presupposed by the Constitution) is void. That would indeed be wrong-headed and untenable, for the reasons you mention (not to mention the obvious reason: an amendment cannot be unconstitutional). I'm not suggesting the Jason Mazzone thesis. I was referring to the moral duty that arises from the oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. That moral duty does not prevent the proposal of amendments by those who have taken the oath, and it would be particularly preposterous for me to suggest that, given that I have advocated an amendment myself. There is, to my mind, a very clear difference between the amendment that I proposed (or, for that matter, the clear majority of amendments that have been passed that harmonize well with the Constitution; the Fourteenth Amendment, I suppose, could be cited as a borderline case, although I would argue that it survives scrutiny provided one is concerned with federalism rather than states' rights, see Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44-5 (1971)), on the one hand, and on the other, the proposal to remove or effectively bypass the electoral college. A proposal that stands squarely athwart federalism, that unbalances the federal structure and indeed threatens to upend it, is not morally reconcilable with the oath, to my mind. It's one of those things - I've identified other examples in past comments - that they have the power to do, but not the right.
Addenda to previous comment: some examples of the last thing referred to here (abolition of the electoral college), here (extortion of state policy by Congress), here (Chief Justice as an independent office) and here (court packing). Other examples that spring readily to mind are jurisdiction stripping and politically-motivated impeachments.
William said...Hoover's great granddaughter is an analyst on Fox. She is very good looking in a cool, reserved way. Not as flawless as Grace Kelly but definitely in that weight class. Herbert Hoover and cool blondes don't belong in the same sentence, much less the same blood line, but there you are. Margaret Hoover
Post a Comment