Jump to content

James Madison

Member
  • Content Count

    2,988
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by James Madison

  1. My hope, perhaps perpetually optimistic, is Congress passes legislation ending the emergency, and then has enough votes for a veto. Trump needs a strong rebuke from the peoples house.
  2. Well, this is not a frivolous declaration by Trump. The federal statute he has invoked to declare an emergency, the NEA (National Emergency Act) does not define emergency. The plain text of the statute vests to the President wide latitude, practically absolute discretion, to determine when an emergency exists. There is simply no statutory language to guide the President or the courts as to what facts, circumstances, do or do not constitute as an emergency. However, declaring a national emergency is necessary to make accessible to Trump several federal statutes in which he is potentially given
  3. Well, this is not a frivolous declaration by Trump. The federal statute he has invoked to declare an emergency, the NEA (National Emergency Act) does not define emergency. The plain text of the statute vests to the President wide latitude, practically absolute discretion, to determine when an emergency exists. There is simply no statutory language to guide the President or the courts as to what facts, circumstances, do or do not constitute as an emergency. However, declaring a national emergency is necessary to make accessible to Trump several federal statutes in which he is potentially give
  4. You may be right. It was reported Paul was working on a compromise but Pence, through Trump, rejected the idea. The House Dems passed legislation opening parts of the government, but Trump vowed a veto, and the House legislation isnt immune to the veto. I would like to learn more about these, at the moment, obscure attempts to compromise.
  5. I'm not seeing the vast difference as a matter of Congress's inherent power not to spend money they don't want to spend. You seem to be on the side that Congress is obligated to fund the laws they pass, but only as long as it's a big enough segment of the law. I don't know where this obligation originates from. The fact remains that it is the law and Trump's demands fall well within the scope of funding it, even if his rhetoric demands more. The $5 billion won't go beyond the border of the Secure Fence Act anyway. That is not my argument. As a matter of fact, that would
  6. I don't know. If you think I'm in that vein, you should probably should talk to more conservative people. Then I wouldn't seem so odd. I live in a pretty liberal area and even I have to deal with people who would be much more likely to meet that criteria. Me, I'm a Romney-type squish according to a lot of Republicans these days. I'm not sure how part or full (particularly when the construction is the main aspect of the bill) makes any particular difference. Let's recall, the power of the purse is a very strong power, Congress's trump card really. It's strong enough that Congress co
  7. I don't know. If you think I'm in that vein, you should probably should talk to more conservative people. Then I wouldn't seem so odd. I live in a pretty liberal area and even I have to deal with people who would be much more likely to meet that criteria. Me, I'm a Romney-type squish according to a lot of Republicans these days. I'm not sure how part or full (particularly when the construction is the main aspect of the bill) makes any particular difference. Let's recall, the power of the purse is a very strong power, Congress's trump card really. It's strong enough that Congress co
  8. Eh, the Affordable Care Act was already law in 2013 when Obama threatened a veto of any law not funding the ACA. Many parts of the law would take effect without funding. The House passed legislation not funding the ACA and the Senate removed the provisions denying funding to the ACA. Those facts above, in the preceding paragraph, are not analogous to the current factual scenario surrounding the present government shutdown. Last I checked, the wall's construction is already a matter of law as well. It's been stopped, repealed as you put it, merely by a lack of funding. So I fail to see th
  9. I'm not saying that if Trump went on live TV and set a puppy on fire that you'd condone it, but you would bring up some obscure law pushed through by Democrats a hundred years ago that made puppy burning legal so that it was ultimately the left's fault. Your hatred runs soooo deep! Democrats treated Cruz, Paul, and House Republicans like crazed nihilistic maniacs for standing up for the principle that they don't have to fund something that the president demands just five years ago, not 100 years ago. Hell, fellow Republicans treated them like crazed maniacs. And, of course, they lost. So n
  10. Eh, the Affordable Care Act was already law in 2013 when Obama threatened a veto of any law not funding the ACA. Many parts of the law would take effect without funding. The House passed legislation not funding the ACA and the Senate removed the provisions denying funding to the ACA. Those facts above, in the preceding paragraph, are not analogous to the current factual scenario surrounding the present government shutdown.
  11. While suspending Congress's pay is appealing, it probably is not a wise idea. There may be too much inducement to hastily reach a deal that isnt good legislation.
  12. What is meant by impartial? There are a few understandings of what the word means in relation to judges and justices. I understand the word to mean there is not a bias for or against any of the parties before the judge/justice. His remarks on 9/27 do not show him to lack that kind of impartiality.
  13. I assume she felt safe with the other boy(s) around. I was more questioning why she left her friend with two boys with rape on their mind. I too found this segment of her testimony interesting when I heard it. She is telling the listener the most traumatic part, including the face, the identity, of her attacker,was burned into her memory, and to suggest her absolute certainty, she invoked very arcane, esoteric, academic language. Possible, but those other boys were already downstairs, along with her friend, so why not flee downsrsors first instead of the bathroom? Thats what I cannot unde
  14. I would like to know why she chose to hide from Kavanaugh in the bathroom but, knowing she had to walk past him and others to exit the house, chose to exit the bathroom, go downstairs, and walk past them, or were they elsewhere?
  15. I agree in regards to the timeline comments, but I am not convinced there is not much of a re-election calculus involved. I think it is both.
  16. I agree. They are calculating they will alienate their base and evangelicals if he isnt sent to the floor for a vote, which is most likely a correct calculation.
  17. All very good points. I was thinking of another one. What if Trump and Republicans delay Kavanaugh, and use the delay to motivate evangelicals and others to get out and vote, warning of what is to come of Democrats prevail. Not likely but the thought crossed my mind.
  18. The one element that is some concern regarding Ramirezs allegation is, despite the double hearsay, the person with information about the incident matches some of Ramirezs account. I emphasize the phrase some concern because its double hearsay, from a person who didnt witness the account, and unclear if their source of information is from an eyewitness account or what someone else heard. Ms. Fords account, for me, her account doesnt make sense in some areas.
  19. Here's the problem. One has already testified under oath about this (Democrats didn't show up or even send staffers btw) and is willing to do it again in public at command. The other says she will, but then doesn't answer the phone when the chairman tries to make contact to arrange it and then makes multiple inappropriate demands that they know can't and won't be accepted. The date has been set twice now. The latest deadline to agree passed over an hour ago. Actually, no. Like I said at the beginning of this, I know that drunk kids do stupid things, Kavanaugh did get drunk as a kid
  20. Thats your opinion and belief. He has a different opinion and belief. All you have to impugn the integrity of Phillips claims is just your opinion, your own belief. That amounts to nothing more than dictating to him your own personal beliefs of the Bible. Theres no rational basis for your own belief of the Bible to be superior to Phillips. None. Poor argument. The use of horse drawn buggies as the primary mode of transportation is practiced almost entirely by the Amish but that hardly makes todays laws keeping them off of highways as discrimination against the Amish. So, the fact polygamyis
  21. Says you, but you tread in dangerous and perilous waters by telling other people what does or doesnt go against their principles. Simply, there is not a damn rational basis for you to tell other people what they believe is against their principles. Interesting point, tell me, what evidence exists today to support your inference polygamy remains illegal because of a desire to discriminate against Mormons? There are rational reasons, unrelated to any animus towards Mormons, that justify a prohibition of ploygamy. One such justification is single marriage family unit can be better provided f
  22. The problem of appointing conservative snowflakes to the Court dates back to Eisemhowers appointment of a Republican to the Court, Earl Warren. Earl Warren arguably presided over one of the most activist Supreme Courts. Years after his appointment, Eisenhower lamented they it was one of the dumbest things he had done, and Warren mockingly said, in reference to Eisenhower, Hes no lawyer. Reagan also suffered the appointment of ostensible conservatives to the Court to only discover they were liberals and moderates in sheeps clothing. So, Bush 43, perceptive of weak conservatives appointed t
  23. Blaming me for not understanding your nebulous phrase is tantamount to blaming me for any spelling errors you commit. Both are on you. Both can be addressed by you. I share no blame for those parts of your argument that require you to provide clarification.
  24. Fozzie, I did not suggest your use of the word "art" was inappropriate. Instead, what I said was whether an artist has engaged in expressive speech by their conduct, whether it is painting, sculpting, making a custom cake for a wedding, photography, etcetera, is determined under those legal tests I cited to regarding expressive speech. Indeed, Mr. Phillips attorney argued in their brief that Mr. Phillips, an artist, was engaging in expressive speech when he makes a custom wedding cake. Whether an artist has engaged in expressive speech by their actions in producing something, making somethin
×
×
  • Create New...