Weekly Open Thread – Ain’t Sarah Dumb Edition (Bumped)

Eric Holder is coming after your churches.
He called on ACS members and other progressive allies…..

“We’ve also expanded enforcement efforts to guarantee that in our work places, our military bases, in our housing and lending markets, in our voting booths in our border areas, in our schools and places of worship. And I mean all places of worship,” Holder also said.

“The Department filed a record number of civil rights criminal cases,” Holder added

In separate remarks at the same event, ACS Executive Director Caroline Fredrickson challenged those who would misrepresent the Constitution for political purposes.

“We are challenging the right wing’s effort to undermine our Constitution through misleading theories like originalism and hypocritical terms like strict construction,” Fredrickson said. “Today’s right-wing movement has been re-energized by Tea Party activists, who have wrapped themselves in the Constitution. But we all know the Tea Party does not truly support the Constitution – at least not as written.”

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/340843#ixzz1PrRL9QdN
Also link to video.

@Nan G:

Interesting information, particularly those comments from Ms. Fredrickson.

“We are challenging the right wing’s effort to undermine our Constitution through misleading theories like originalism and hypocritical terms like strict construction,”

Really now, Ms. Fredrickson. Misleading theories like originalism? As opposed to what, exactly? The theory of the Living Document?

Apparently, she has little knowledge of the the history regarding the Constitution, and of the meanings of the clauses, phrases, sections, etc.

Justice John Marshall, in Marbury vs. Madison, states;

“[T]he constitution] organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?”

The Constitution is the ‘Supreme Law of the Land‘, and as such, one must consider it the standard to which all legislative law must be compared to, and then determine whether or not a certain law is agreeable with it. With an ever changing “standard”, as is the case if the Constitution is considered a “living document”, there is no continuity of law, and in the end, the Constitution itself is rendered a simple document that means whatever the prevailing sentiment states that it means. In effect, the Constitution becomes null and void, and all law is simply the whims of men, of whichever party, or majority public opinion, wishes them to be.

As for ‘strict constructionism’, that term is often misused when discussing Originalism, and the two terms are not interchangeable. Strict constructionism applies to the thought process that the text of the Constitution must be interpreted strictly by the words used, and the meaning of the words. However, the term is hardly hypocritical, as Ms. Fredrickson states.

Her further statement;

“Today’s right-wing movement has been re-energized by Tea Party activists, who have wrapped themselves in the Constitution. But we all know the Tea Party does not truly support the Constitution – at least not as written.”

Yes, the Tea Party does tend to wrap themselves in the Constitution, but NO, she is wrong when she states that they do not support it as written. This is an entirely ambiguous claim by her, predicated upon her own ideas of what the certain clauses and phrases mean. For example, through reading related documents, such as the Federalist Papers, and some founding father’s quotes, I come to certain understandings of those clauses and phrases that differ quite a bit from the typical liberal politician’s understanding. It doesn’t mean that either myself, nor they, are particularly wrong to interpret the clauses or phrases the way we do. It does mean, however, that one of us extends greater power to the government than the original intent of the founding fathers is, or was.

This is the root of the entire debate between the “living document” crowd, and those who prefer a more original interpretation of the Constitution. In short, what exactly is the power of the government, concerning certain issues? Those who believe more as I do, believe that the federal government is more limited than is typically accepted amongst the liberal politicians. They, on the other hand, believe in expanded powers, and ofttimes read more into the clauses and phrases than was originally intended. And, as I discussed above, when they do that, they cause the standard, the Supreme Law of the Land, to continually change, and law becomes the whims of men, rather than a bedrock to which the laws are based. One side allows easily for tyrannical rule to take root, while the other prevents it by limiting the power the government has at its disposal.

I, myself, am of the originalism crowd, concerning the Constitution. I strive to understand what the founding fathers, particularly James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, say in their persuasive arguments for the adoption of the Constitution.

@Ivan:

It’s self-evident, don’t you think? She ditches the people of Alaska half-way through her only term to cash in on her celebrity status. Duh!

Nope, not really getting the self-evident feeling on that. What I do know is that she stated her resignation from the governorship of Alaska was to spare the state the expense of the frivolous court cases thrown at her. Being that there was, in fact, numerous such frivolous cases, can you not admit that her stated reason might be, in fact, the truth?

Well…let’s see her step up to the plate and take the tough questions like Bachmann is doing, instead of riding around on her love-bus on her tour only taking questions from Fox reporters.

So let me get this straight. She hasn’t announced a run for the nomination, yet you wish her to stop what she is doing and step up to answer questions from a provably hostile media, all for the sake of proving to the country whether she, or Bachmann, is the better conservative woman? Really, it’s not as if there isn’t room for more than one, or even two. The facts are, Bachmann has announced, Palin has not. So Bachmann then is somewhat obligated to open herself up to the media, while Palin is just, essentially, a private citizen who is traveling the country stirring up the conservatives.

Also, none of what you stated discounts Palin as being a real conservative. Offer us facts that show the contrary, instead of your simple opinion that she isn’t.

@johngalt:” Nope, not really getting the self-evident feeling on that. What I do know is that she stated her resignation from the governorship of Alaska was to spare the state the expense of the frivolous court cases thrown at her. Being that there was, in fact, numerous such frivolous cases, can you not admit that her stated reason might be, in fact, the truth?”

Well, you can include yourself in the cast of FR sychophants then for believing that load of horsecrap. She either:

A. Was chased from office-which it appears you accept.

B. Ditched the American Penal colony (who would in their right mind want to live there full-time?) to cash in on her newly found celebrity status. I accept this explanation.

Dear lord, if you can see that her excuse as a load of crap then you really have lost the ability to engage in critical thinking.

John, the “proof” is her lame excuse. No unbiased observer accepts that as her reason for leaving office. Only the most dyed-in-the-wool Palin apologist accepts her excuse.

Ain’t Somebody dumb?….that’s for sure.

Obama pushed his convict-friend’s ObamaCare bill through the Dem-controlled House and Senate then signed the puppy before anyone could read it.

Now it is even keeping his own chief actuary Richard Foster up at night!

Obama’s health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.

The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department.

Up to 3 million more people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 as a result of the anomaly. That’s because most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility. It might be compared to allowing middle-class people to qualify for food stamps.

LOLOL!

Pelosi once said, ”we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

I guess so.
And we are still uncovering more expensive unintended consequences buried in ObamaCare.

Obama lyingly told the CBO that only 7% of all American employees currently covered by employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) will have to switch to subsidized-exchange policies in 2014.
That was a big fib.
It was obviously based on the Mass. plan that resulted in a 7% drop rate, but the Mass. plan has a completely different arrangement for penalties.
OOPS!

Obama doubled down:

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people,” Obama said addressing the American Medical Association. “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.” He didn’t let up.”If you like what you’re getting, keep it,” Obama said. “Nobody is forcing you to shift.”

Source

But recent studies are finding out just how bad it really is for American workers under ObamaCare.

30 percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering ESI in the years after 2014.

It gets worse….

Among employers with a high awareness of reform, this proportion increases to more than 50 percent, and upward of 60 percent will pursue some alternative to traditional ESI.

SOURCE: https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/How_US_health_care_reform_will_affect_employee_benefits_2813

@Nan G:

Pelosi once said, ”we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Anyone with common sense should have immediately dropped any support for the bill, if they had any to begin with, at the moment of that utterance from Pelosi. Of course, common sense isn’t so common anymore.

@johngalt:

So, you still claim that your “proof” is simply your opinion, based on your belief that her stated reason is a “lame excuse”.

So you actually buy that excuse? she’s innocent of what ever charges are leveled against her, yet she had to resign to “save Alaska (Penal colony) taxpayers some coin”?????

Wow, that’s quite a suspension of disbelief you have going there.

Sorry Ivan, but I believe you would fail any debate class in school with that reasoning. Just as you are failing here.

No, actually, you would fail as all you have is some convoluted “excuse” for some lightweight failing to serve out her term.

If she wasn’t guilty, why did she quit? Where there is smoke, there is fire. Of course, you don’t accept anything negative about the lady so you’ll just say that little saying doesn’t apply.

In the land of the sycophant, all reality is suspended.

@johngalt:

Actually, Ivan, what I have presented here is a verifiable statement made by Sarah Palin on why she resigned.

Palin offered few clues about her ambitions but said she arrived at her decision in part to protect her family, which has faced withering criticism and occasional mockery, and to escape ethics probes that have drained her family’s finances and hampered her ability to govern.

Again, “Duh”. It’s called an excuse, an alibi. Every perp has one.

If someone subjected me to an “ethics probe” I’d be more than happy to drain the state coffers to defend my name- IF I WAS NOT GUILTY.

And you fell for the “Drained my famlies finances” crock-of-shit defense. Ever heard of a “Legal defense fund”???? The Clintons were masters at defending themselves with this perfectly legal vehicle. All Palin had to do-if she was innocent- was set up one of those and have all her lemmings donate their hard-earned cash to it.

It’s called “Hardball politics” and that is what one does in modern politics. Sorry, she’s either too unsophisticated to know about the LDF, thus excluding herself from consideration for the highest office in the nation, or she was guilty as the day is long on the summer solstice-or she wanted to cash in while she was red-hot.

Again, you fall for some simplistic alibi which I shot full of holes in about 2 minutes.

;->

The NLRB strikes again!

Oh, snap: NLRB shortens union election campaign period

…………………
Most labor elections currently take place within 45-60 days after a union gathers enough signatures to file a petition, a time many companies use to discourage workers from unionizing. The new plan could cut that time by days or even weeks – depending on the case – by simplifying procedures, deferring litigation and setting shorter deadlines for hearings and filings. …
………………..
Not surprisingly, the four-member NLRB decided this by a partisan vote of 3 to 1. The only GOP member of the board, Brian E. Hayes, was also the lone objector.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/22/oh-snap-nlrb-shortens-union-election-campaign-period/

So, not only does the NLRB issue a directive essentially preventing a company from moving one of it’s manufacturing centers to a non-union friendly state, but they now issue an edict that favors the formation of unions within a workplace.

Can someone explain to me exactly where it is located, within the Constitution, the clause or phrase that gives the federal government the power to insinuate themselves into a private companies workplace, that allows them to, in effect, veto any proposed changes or moves by a private company?

The NLRB was set up by presidential edict, an issuance of an Executive Order, in 1934 by FDR after the failure, and striking down, of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. The board has powers that are not granted to the executive branch of the federal government by the Constitution. Their main concern has always been the welfare of unions, ofttimes at the expense of the welfare of non-union workers. As such, it is an organization that is not concerned with the equality of opportunity, but rather, the advancement of pro-union causes, whether they result in equal opportunity or no. In essence, it’s just one more unConstitutional organization within our federal government promoted by progressives, and accepted by today’s populace by the sole fact of it’s longevity, and not it’s actual usefulness, or allowance by the Constitution.

@Aye:

I’m still waiting for some actual facts about Sarah Palin from Ivan, instead of innuendo and unsupported opinion. Will I have to wait long, do you think?

@johngalt:

I’m still waiting for some actual facts about Sarah Palin from Ivan, instead of innuendo and unsupported opinion. Will I have to wait long, do you think?

John,

Always good to chat with you, buddy.

An alibi isn’t “proof” or “evidence”, it’s an “excuse.” You accept her at her word-a politician’s word-and I don’t (she is in fact a politician).

Why is this so difficult to understand? Given how she’s turned herself and her family into a money machine (poor Bristol, so sad how Sarah did that to her), the preponderance of evidence is with me, not her lame alibi.