dayman

Of course it's political that's what I thought we were discussing here. That's his value, VP on a ticket, pray to God Huntsman lives. We can go on and pretend VPs are picked solely as the second most qualified person be President from the party...but we would just be pretending.

I think Bachman found out he spoke Mandarin and had him blacklisted. Agree though, Huntsman good GOP candidate IMO. It makes the laugh when people talk about "we need Rubio"...Rubio is terrible and when people learn more about him they'll realize that. Maybe he could work as a VP pick. He's no President.

Mitt should have played it like this: https://www.youtube....h?v=n3OBCzVTYkM

do you need traditional manual trans or will a automatic w/ the hybrid manual feature work?

because babies man, babies We really don't need abortion debate in this topic so please edit your post

free love man, not judging

you asked...

don't leave out the part where you proceeded to engage w/ no condom ...

While I like Rob's list this should be on it. This is important. There are "very" right wing people, and "very" left wing people...but the attitude of the tea party and the "we're always right and we won't compromise and the other side are moochers, parasites, and idiots" won't woo any new followers. Republicans will have to understand that there are a lot of non-moochers who have been voting Democratic lately...and they don't like being called idiots and moochers by what has become a group of angry finger pointers. The tone of the discourse and approach to government generally needs to wind down a bit.

Without nationalizing it it just won't do much. Alaska produces more gas than they can ever use and the price at the pump is about $4...

Well I wouldn't call it "changing" or "living" it's just clear that there are some vague concepts that are ideas...or values...embodied in the constitution. These values do not change or evolve necessarily. But you must apply them to new situations as they come up. The question then is what approach do you take to do this. If you think that at the time of the framing there was wide consensus among all who signed/contributed to it as to what exactly the establishment clause, the freedom of speech, "liberty," ...what all that meant and that you can know this through an extensive historical view...then you can be my guest. I just think that all things considered the people who sit on the Supreme Court are appointed and hold that position for a reason...they have an understanding of what those values are and how the document works and they apply that understanding to the cases before them. They are not IMO appointed b/c they know what the "correct history" was as too the exact meaning of various things as of the 18th century to a group of people who disagreed on many issues and compromised a working document. edit: And that isn't to say that sometimes history is not one of the tools that should be used along with others

Worthy of debate but not absurd. Regulating things substantially affecting interstate commerce and the things necessary to prevent that authority from being undercut...as modern society grows closer this naturally means that the federal government will become more expansive. But it's inherent in our constitution that this is the case. They did not try to conceive all the wild possibilities of future commerce. They recognized a principle that there will be issues, and state protectionism was certainly one of them (probably thought by many at the time to be an "unreasonable" prohibition on state sovereignty itself). But there it is, in the constitution. Obviously the history of the development of this clause was a bit crazy...but that's OUR history. It doesn't mean that each policy is wise, or that oppressive policies cannot be enacted under this power. But the Constitution isn't a shield against oppressive federal policy. It's a shield against unconstitutional overreach. It's a fuzzy line and we struggle with it. I wouldn't be shocked if something happens where we swing a little more conservative with it in the next 10 years...and I wouldn't mind. But my point stands, to say that we have constructively abolished state sovereignty is I think overly dramatic. As for the divisive politics question. The short answer is yes. Our politics are more superficially divisive right now than anything else and largely for political reasons IMO. There have been much worst substantive differences in the past. Obviously there are some real differences but the commerce clause is not the reason Congress is gridlocked.

Well now that you mention the 10th amendment it got some love w/ that Medicaid holding (for whatever weight it carries). So it is still popping up in meaningful ways that some governors find helpful. And there are commerce cases, while rare, that reverse the trend. So IDK about "all but abolished." And in any event, even Scalia will concede that interstate commerce is quite a different matter today that it was then. The founders had no interstate highway system w/ trucks, or fed-ex plains, and certainly no internet. The idea that federalism, in modern times is inherently weakened as the course of history connects us more, isn't something I see as abolishing the basic bargain in the constitution. To be sure I think there are some issues, most notably in regulatory law and the deference agencies get interpreting their statutes and promulgating more rules that apply to very new areas of concern (relative to the founders day)..and it's always easy to find someone battling with the EPA, or even a more straightforward commerce clause issue like what most people thought the ACA would have originally been. But to say that it is not perfect and we are struggling with it, does not IMO mean we have abolished federalism. That's a bit dramatic for my taste.

Well that's good enough for me to vote you in Congress as a conservative re: tax negotiation. My basic point was just that I don't like the idea that any growth not occurring was a result only of the time limit. But ultimately the reason I feel that way is basically b/c I agree tax policy is over emphasized by some conservatives as to the economy and growth specifically.

What I believe is that even the truth of the intent at the time of the framing likely meant something different in different spots to different signatories. And ultimately the negotiation of various concepts ended up serving as a workable document they could all live with, not some lock solid clear script for all problems in the future. Brilliant men doing the best they could (a damn good job) but not brilliant men creating something more than that. Also, like justice Thomas I think to be a true originalist you really can't believe in stare decisis and if originalism is thought of as a more workable approach to interpretation...given (as I feel) that the truth behind various "hot spots" of the constitution may have been the areas of most contention in some circumstances and most ambiguity...then as the court changes and each judge holds to their own originalist interpretation w/ no adherence to past holdings....you end up with a fluctuating constitution all the same.

Wasn't thinking of anything in particular more so just the historical fact that basically right after they signed the thing they started arguing about it themselves as did others. One of the reasons I don't buy originalism as necessarily superior to what Scalia would derogatively call "constitutional consequentialists" Ah, medicaid expansion. Forgot exactly what happened there but ya coming back to me. Can't coerce to the point of not having a choice or something along those lines? Was it solely tax and spend there though? IDK one day I'll glance over it again...Either way that's pretty shaky IMO for the future I think that part of the opinion was all over the map in terms of split opinions running rampant. There is no doubt, whatever it is, each justice must have some deep understanding of the basic mechanical workings of the structure...but what is such an altering of your idea of the basic balance? Just the court being comprised of "consequentialists?"

Just to write off any concerns over growth based solely on the expiration date.

New limits on Commerce ... been a while since I read it but basically no limits on tax. Anyway am I to read the first paragraph as you being an originalist? More appropriate to rule based on the current court thinks it meant at the time to a group of men to didn't agree and compromised than to just call it as they see it since they are actually on the court?

Putting the growth solely on the expiration date alone is disingenuous IMO but to each his own. And I won't go off on the Obama package but it was more than a stimulus IMO and it wasn't a miracle bill but it was good as we've discussed.

Well, I know you study law. I get the tax and spend power of Ron Paul but the argument is over and I see almost no limits on taxing and spending now. Vote is basically it. Also, not to just be a prick but I really disagree that everything was specific and easily understood as of the date it was signed. Squabbles emerged instantly. Very famous ones.

They both need to acknowledge where they were at the closest point they have been, and what will be a good enough "working spot" on either end to build a coalition of their minions. Cuz they aren't just negotiating...it would be done if that was the case. All the loons in Congress have to vote on it. So while he won't start at the absolute most dire position, and neither will Obama, they both do need to start closer to the middle before the negotiations really get going to subdue the loud mouths on either side and figure out who will get on board and if they have the numbers.

As a known Obama over Romney poster I approve of this post. 250K in a year is in no way a "rich" person.

These analogies are stupid b/c negotiating a car price is not the same as compromising something as complicated as our national budget priorities in today's climate. There are all kinds of approaches that can produce compromise the more complicated the subject matter, and that's important. As for the basic idea of buying a car, it's always worth it to start low even if your heart isn't in it just cave more quickly. They start high.

I don't care to explain it b/c I don't care to think about it and it doesn't matter. I do somehow, for no real reason, find Mormonism to be extra ridiculous. Maybe the more recent the religion the more ridiculous it is simply b/c it had more developed people when it was first pitched (theoretically of course) and it had less of a time to be ingrained into that "just always was true" status that grants cover for deserved skepticism. Doesn't really mean I don't respect people's ability to believe whatever of course. Just my take on various levels of "what slack something deserves" ...

Have 6 real quick then read while doing a handstand.