I can’t remember who said it first, but the GOP treats the Constitution (and the Bible, for that matter) like a license agreement on a piece of software. You don’t actually read it; you just click “I Agree.”

(And in the case of the Constitution and the Bible, you claim the other side didn’t.)

Love it, and it’s spot-on.

In your guts you know they’re nuts.

Time to issue copies of “Constitutional Law for Dummies” to all Republicans legislators. And one to Obama, who obviously needs brushing up.

I think that it will come to a matter of economics: will it be cheaper to corrupt 2/3 of the states or the congress?

When will people on the liberal/progressive/Democratic side simply call the Republicans out for the anti-American traitors that they are?

Good morning all,

I want, I want, I want typical republican answer to about anything.

The party on the right thinks that definition means they are always right not a location on the political spectrum.

You go to war with the constitution you have, not the constitution you might want or wish to have at a later time.

Following the Constitution and then ammending it when needed is superior to ignoring the Constitution and having an imperial executive and unaccountable legislature.

Good morning, pups. Computer gremlins yesterday made it impossible to get on the webz, but here we go today: Ms. Collins, in “Reading, ‘Riting and Revenues,” says a little learning is a profitable thing. Just look at a few examples from Texas and Ohio. Mr. Kristof, in “A Rite of Torture for Girls,” says let’s hope that female genital mutilation is the next cultural tradition to go the way of foot-binding.

Here they are.

The coffee and tea are ready, and I’ve got a variety of bagels with cream cheese today. Running a bit late, since I’m still kludging around the toobz since one browser won’t do everything for me. Have a great day.

I can’t remember a time when the South was not in control of the USG. And that includes the founding.

Good morning all.

Yeah, and if female genital mutilation doesn’t stop, O will prolly start another war over it.

Slave-holding, torture and murder work hand-in-hand (please see “Conditions of antebellum slavery,” PBS.Org).

The following pathetic excuses for U.S. Senators have introduced the “Detaining Terrorists To Secure America Act” (S. 944):

Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC),
Joseph I. Lieberman (I-CT)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Scott Brown (R-MA)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Please read more about this in Jeff Kaye’s post, “Making Guantanamo Permanent, and Other Portents” (May 11, 2011).

Also, please note that the PATRIOT Act expires this month (petition) so either Congress fixes it or we force the issue that it is allowed to expire.

One thing the TP has taught me is how easy it is for a small group of extremists to capture the entire govt. Of course, it helps if you have lots of money to back you up. But no one in congress has the balls to push back.

Vampires don’t like sunlight either: “David Koch Won’t Answer How Many Homes He Owns” (By: Robert Greenwald Wednesday May 11, 2011 1:15 pm). I think Greenwald’s work is worth supporting.

Like McCain, Koch prolly doesn’t know how many homes he owns.

I thought the same damn thing when I saw that: up is down, today’s Republicans are the opposite of 150 years ago. And the Democrats all want to pat themselves on the back for budget cuts and claim bonae fidae for negotiating like picket crossers.

Heard a joke the other day after a long silence with nothing said:
‘Why are we still talkin about bin Laden?’

Many liberals and progressives have in fact called out the Republicans. However, President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats remain in the slow learners’ class: they still think it possible to “reach out” to the GOP, and show no signs of wising up.

I think Koch does know but his employee was definitely uncomfortable with the question. Also see “The Roots of Stalin in the Tea Party Movement” (Alternet.Org, Apr. 17, 2010) on Koch family history building oil infrastructure for Stalin and the centrally planned economy of the Soviet Union.

Raising the age old Q of whether lip service is better than no service at all.

Re Stalin connection: whatever makes $$$$$$$$$$.

The massive crimes against humanity and war crimes against many groups of peoples “governed” by the USSR flashed before my mind’s eye. “Excursion to Gulag” by Filatova Elena Vladimirovna. “Putting Buryatia on the map” by Janis Cakars (Sept. 7, 2005). алмыкия (video tour of Kalmikiya)

But you see, USSR was just trying to prepare for the greater good and econ efficiency of collectivization.

Any excuse seems to be good enough to warrant slaughtering peeps, if you’re the govt.

Short of some unimaginable national calamity I can’t think of a situation where a Constitutional Convention would be called. There would be too many risks to vested interests, and the long knives would be unsheathed.

One could not predict where it would go, and once started it could not be stopped.

I find it hard to imagine any more Constitutional Amendments passing in the foreseeable future, either, even for the long term.

Nowadays the national democracy is constipated and replaced more and more by a broadness of the Constitution interpreted by Justices tenured for life. Anything goes, no? Likewise stovepipe agencies are seeming to take more and more controversial decision making away from the accountable Congress. This is, of course, for Congress’ own good, career wise, at the individual pol level.

So there’s plenty of fodder for Attaturk to write a good novel. He might need a collaborator from the right, however, to figure out a scenario which might plausibly include reinstituting slavery. Aside from the moral taboos, the economic disadvantages would have to be overcome as well — a right winger could help figure out that part of it.

Rand Paul thinks slavery HAS been reinstated already.

On edit: It occurs to me that Rand Paul’s using this language to give the PTB the jump on regular workers by capturing the “slavery” language before regular workers get around to figuring it out.

Swim is up.

I think “government” in the way you and I think of it is a label applied generously to a ruthless feudal aristocracy of which Alisa Zenovievna (also know as “Ayn Rand”) apparently aspired to be included. As for the Chinese version of these contemptible caste system, as one scholar once put it to me (paraphrase), “China has always been on the Emperor system.” It’s the 21st century and I think we can do far better.

It never fails to gnaw at me how much the GOP claims to love the Constitution, so much, in fact, that they constantly endeavor to change it.

Bingo!

Yes, he and his dad are two peas in a pod.

I think Attaturk’s point had more to do with the Confederate version, which has some formidable hurdles to overcome, yet there are still some examples lurking around the world.

Both Pauls libertarian bent seems to apply to anything the Feds tell anyone to do. Aside from the healthcare mandate, it would logically apply to even the possibility of conscription especially when applied to males alone. Also, paying taxes, not pouring engine oil down the drain, etc.

I think Paul’s “healthcare slavery” is a wishful prediction that SCOTUS will chuck it out as it is now. My hunch is that will become the end game, for other reasons, but who knows?

OOPS! Spelling & edit didn’t work. Should be, “formidable”

It was my keyboard actuator. . .

“It never fails to gnaw at me how much the GOP claims to love the Constitution, so much, in fact, that they constantly endeavor to change it.”

to abolish it.

There, fixed.

I read the article Turk. It doesn’t say anything about slavery or civil war. I’m beginning to realize that progressives have a fetish for centralized power. It is precisely monolithic, omnipotent Washington that is enslaving us all under a Fascist Police State. Yet any attempt to restore federalism is – Jeff Davis and black slavery?

If you don’t see this as hypocrisy then clearly you aren’t paying attention. I don’t remember any of these yoyos complaining about the balance of Federal power and states’ rights when it was George Bush insisting that he had the right to usurp decisions made in the states on medical marijuana or the right of individuals to die with dignity.

What were Hatch and Enzi asleep for that portion of American history?

This is political posturing plain and simple. Restore Federalism my backside.

Didn’t realize this had become a blog of moonbats railing against anything with a conservative label. Guess I’ve been away too long.

Seems not that long ago I was reading about democrat representatives wanting to do away with the super majority requirement to pass legislation. Were you all upset about it then too?

Regarding where power is intended to reside, and how seemingly small changes can have horrendous consequences. . .

Here’s a link to a line by line comparison between the Confederate Constitution and the US Constitution. There are about a half dozen very significant differences which involve a small amount of wordsmithing. Most of the text is the same.

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/csa.htm

There was a better source for this in the NYT or WSJ a few months ago, including an interesting photocopy — can’t find it now.

The 60-vote “supermajority” requirement to pass legislation has nothing to do with the Constitution. It is a U. S. Senate procedural rule, and hasn’t really even been in effect that long.

The Dems’ proposal was made in response to the change in the way Republicans act in that body. Up until just a few years ago, U. S. Senators were known for exercising independent judgment, despite their party affiliations. Now, Republicans all act in lockstep, which makes it all but impossible to not only pass legislation, but also to confirm appointments to the court system and other federal posts.

I guess you have been away too long. There were plenty opposed on this website.

The filibuster has survived because it can benefit the majority, on occasion, as well as usually the minority.

As far as the benefit to the majority is concerned. . . from time to time proposed legislation may be necessary solely to satisfy an activist base. Such legislation may be understood to be counterproductive by more moderate elements in the majority.

So the filibuster rule allows the minority just enough leverage to kill such legislation and act as a foil for criticism for doing so. The (apparent)opponents in this collusion have both found it useful for maintaining the buisness-as-usual center, be they Dems or Repubs.

Also my hunch is that the filibuster’s real purpose, creative collusion, has outlived its usefulness to help maintain the center because the center, itself, has shrunk and outlived its usefulness to the country as a whole. I hope that’s temporary.

The best recent example of the new regimen would be the Senate’s use of the reconciliation process to force-pass an initiative as large as healthcare, without a block by filibuster. It was a maneuver around filibuster, and a symptom of things to come. Each party learns procedural lessons, as new precedents, from the other party.

It is plausible that the GOP could take the Senate in 2012 with a low 50′s count, but enough to allow a small handful of RINOs to demure without stopping the sterner types. If that’s the case it’ll be a wild ride going forward.