March 15, 2010
I'm going to set aside the mind bottling fact that we are even discussing this option for a moment and focus on that question.
While my immediate response is hell yes, it's not that simple. The issue is whether or not such a signature would be a crime. I just managed to claw through crim law and have blessedly not done a damn thing with criminal law since then. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a statutory violation. A blatant violation of Constitutional requirements isn't actually a crime in the sense of there being a specific statute under which Obama could be charged. Depending on how the Supremes rule, it may fall under an Honest Services violation. But beyond that, I'm not sure such a signature would constitute a criminal violation.
There's also a distinction between illegal and criminal. This is clearly improper and any "law" passed in this fashion would be void ab initio. Again, that does not equate to criminality.
Now, that's not to say that Obama can't be impeached. Impeachment proceedings aren't precisely criminal. My position is that if this occurs, every single Senator, Congressman and Pres. Obama should be thrown out of office instantly for violating their oaths of office. It's the mechanism of that which is problematic. Actual arrests are rather horrifying to consider. But then again, so is the shredding of the Constitution.
So my analysis would be that this isn't a criminal action (and I'm really really not going down the treason road that way lies madness) but it would and should be impeachable.
You know, for all the Left shrieked about Bush shredding the Constitution, I seem to recall that all of those actions were actually voted on and proceeded through Congress in the proper way. Projection much?
h/t Alice H.
March 14, 2010
Contrast that with this piece of genius when Bush was President.
Yeah. No bias there.
March 13, 2010
TNOYF has a fun 'shop.
March 10, 2010
The tar, feathers and pitchforks would sure as hell become literal if this happens.
I must say, it's nice to see the happy happy fun fun mask of democracy get yanked off and the true face of liberal Dem tyranny be revealed.
Black liberal advocacy groups cry raaaaaaaaacist, black Barbie should cost as much as white Barbie!
Walmart apologizes and says, by all means, let me mark up those Barbie prices for you!
Liberal advocacy group cries Excess Profits! Raaaaaacist! Capitalist Greed!
Walmart says, fuck you, I'm Walmart, then visits People of Walmart for shits and giggles.
So, after that happens, a bunch of lefties, led by Obamaton Annabel Park form the Coffee Party movement.
And, now, the malcontents on the troofer fringe have decided that the latter isn't good enough (no link to the lunatic Alex Jones' prisonplanet site) and are forming the Real Coffee Party:
The fact that the Coffee Party was originally proposed as a reaction to the infiltration of the Tea Party by Alex Jones listeners and Ron Paul supporters weeks before the emergence of the establishment front Coffee Party led by Obama campaign operative Annabel Park goes to show once again that our efforts to form a non-partisan resistance movement against the big government agenda is under constant assault from a system desperate to uphold the integrity of the phony left-right paradigm.Oh, and the Alex Jones people are suggesting that the Tea Party has been subverted by the "neocons." Shocking, I know. Furthermore, the Tea Parties were originally about abolishing the Federal Reserve and getting our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. And helping Ron Paul. Yes, really.
I'm disinclined to believe anything that comes out of the Alex Jones camp, but if the Coffee Party idea came from them in the first place, it's even more ridiculous. And fun.
March 09, 2010
March 08, 2010
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Today, the people of Iraq went to the polls to choose their leaders in Iraq’s second national election. By any measure, this was an important milestone in Iraqi history. Dozens of parties and coalitions fielded thousands of parliamentary candidates, men and women. Ballots were cast at some 50,000 voting booths. And in a strong turnout, millions of Iraqis exercised their right to vote, with enthusiasm and optimism.And you did what, exactly to facilitate that process? Oh. Nothing. You opposed the war and the Surge, and you didn't bother to mention the word "victory," though you were good enough to mention the people who fought and died to make this happen.
Oh, and the despot who had ruled the country for decades before our troops went in there and plucked his murderous ass out of a fucking filthy hole? You know, the guy who ruled as a dictator there for decades? I didn't notice a mention of him in your speech. Or the multitude of people who he murdered.
You worked hard against this election, you fucking asshole. You should be apologizing to the people of Iraq.
March 07, 2010
"...US officials seem to know better than to indulge in the patriotic myth that our constitution is the greatest system of government ever devised."
The fact that this piece stayed up over at the the Podesta-Soros funded Think Progress tells me what they think of the Constitution, which is scary. And which prompts me to say:
March 05, 2010
March 04, 2010
Are we about to have to add a WTF is wrong with Louisiana tag, too?
A Lafayette lawmaker is reviving a failed bill that would make it illegal for people to wear low-riding pants that expose underwear.
Democratic Rep. Rickey Hardy has proposed the bill for the legislative session that begins later this month. The measure would outlaw sagging pants or any other clothing style that "intentionally exposes undergarments" or more.
Violators would be fined up to $500 for a first offense and ordered to perform 40 hours of community service.
Although not mentioned in this article, the local news broadcast today said that you could face jailtime by your third offense.
The biggest problem I'm having with this is I don't know which joke to go with. Do I go for a stupid fashion police dig? Go for the, But if we make'em put on normal pants, we won't know who to profile as dumb gangsta kids? Plus, think of all the whores and their thongs - Britney Spears won't be able to come back to her hometown! Sadly, this has all ready made it to law form in a few Cajun towns here in the bayou. A few others shot it down, and, of course, the state shot it down 2 years ago.
If at first you don't succeed, fail, fail again!
I don't get worked up about these silly honorary PhDs that colleges give to VIPs. But the fact that the U of Tennessee wants to award one to Manbearpig is quite humorous.
March 03, 2010
A couple in California cannot get their names off the list of child abusers even though they've been found factually innocent.
It appears that California, For The Children, created a system where anyone accused of abuse, note that's accused, not convicted, is listed on a state list as a child abuser. What the state didn't do is establish any way to get off the list if/when the accusations are found false. Kafka would be proud.
The article doesn't being to approach the reality of how bad this is. The Ninth Circuit, in a rare display of competence, found that the parents' civil rights were violated, found that the county can be liable for damages (shocker, apparently cert. just got granted on that)* and ordered that the state change the system.
I tracked down the Ninth Circuit's opinion and here's how it starts:
Notwithstanding the findings of two California courts that the Humphries were “factually innocent” and the charges “not true,” the Humphries were identified as “substantiated” child abusers and placed on California's Child Abuse Central Index (“the CACI”), a database of known or suspected child abusers. As the Humphries quickly learned, California offers no procedure to remove their listing on the database as suspected child abusers, and thus no opportunity to clear their names. More importantly, California makes the CACI database available to a broad array of government agencies, employers, and law enforcement entities and even requires some public and private groups to consult the database before making hiring, licensing, and custody decisions.
This is incredibly strong language for any court to use, let alone a federal circuit court. Also a finding of "factually innocent" is profoundly difficult to obtain. This isn't a case where there's some question. They. Didn't. Do. It.
Every court involved says they didn't do it. All the charges were dropped. They were found innocent. The Ninth Circuit ordered the state to get their names off that list. To date? No changes. Their names are still on there. And there's absolutely no one who seems able to just freaking go into the computer and take their names off. It is completely and totally insane that their names are still out there. But there you have it.
Welcome to the power of the government. These are people who did the right thing. They were falsely accused. They went through the system and were found innocent. They went back to court to clear their names. The court told the state to clear their names. But yet, there their names remain.
I cannot think of a greater illustration of the dangers of government. The state set up a system that puts names on without an process for getting names off. The courts can tell the state what to do but if the state doesn't do it, well, that's that. The Court made a ruling. Now enforce it.
This is a perfect illustration of government out of control. These people did nothing wrong. But they're On The List and can't get off, no matter what. It's this type of sheer utter brutality that makes normal people become enraged.
*I'll admit, I'm fascinated to find out what will happen with the county being open to liability. The county's position is that there's no discretion about adding the names to the list and so it can't be liable. It's an interesting legal dilemma, who is liable when a local entity is obeying a state mandate.
March 02, 2010
Saddest (sic) campaign-finance-report entry I've seen in a long time: Martha Coakley for Senate Committee, $1165 expenditure on Jan. 19, 2010 (election day) for "confetti machine"
For future reference there Mr. Bernstein, even though spell check allows it, "Funniest" isn't spelled the same as "saddest".
60 queries taking 0.2192 seconds, 169 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.