|
Barack Obama got a global standing ovation long before he was elected president. But in a fickle and fast-moving world, the overseas reviews are already turning mixed.
A deepening global recession, new hostilities in the Middle East, complications in closing the Guantanamo Bay prison, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan – an impatient world has a stake in all of them and is asking how much change Obama can deliver.
“The idealism has diminished,” said Samuel Solvit, who heads an Obama support network in France. “Everyone was dreaming a little. Now people are more realistic.”
Said Reginald Dale, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, “People everywhere simply expect too much, practically ensuring Obama will disappoint.”
“The United States can’t solve all the world’s problems,” he said in an interview. “It doesn’t have enough money or military power. And the president is constrained by Congress and the constitution. The founding fathers wanted to stop someone from being like a monarch.”
Looks like the row to hoe is even more difficult than anticipated. And a monarch? Even with the Constitution under siege, let’s hope not.
#92, The last I checked, wages were a part of commerce.
That’s where you are wrong.
You asked, “What part of the Constitution forbids Congress from regulating CEOs wages?”
It has been answered time and again. Just because SCOTUS chose to ignore that amendment does not change the writing of the Constitution.
Good friend of Pres elect Obama kept from entering Canada due to being, well, a nut.
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/573462
Yes, the bloom is off the skunkweed.
#95, Loser,
Ya jes can’t put it away, can ya?
It has been answered several times and the answer keeps coming back “Yes Congress has the authority to regulate wages”.
It doesn’t matter if you think the Supreme Court ignored an amendment. They didn’t. They DEFINED the law. So when you consider your (actually geofgibson) earlier assertion that the 10th Amendment stops Congress, you haven’t read Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. Because that already gave Congress the power.
Ignoring or dismissing the law, as defined under the Constitution, by the Supreme Court shows you don’t care about America. If you are unwilling to follow the laws of the land maybe it is time for you to move somewhere that they have anarchy and don’t have a Constitution. I hear Antarctic is nice this time of year.
#93, goof,
Still trying?
True, after his humiliating defeats in the early Thirties,
In 1936 elections, Roosevelt and the Congressional Democrats won a landslide victory. Mostly due to the obstructionist Republicans and the Supreme Court decisions. The people wanted change and they got it. In the first “New Deal” case to hit it, the Supreme Court backed down from it’s previous stand and accepted the law Congress passed as good law. Thus, the people’s will was done and a Constitutional stand off defused.
Try actually learning some history instead just spouting what Rush Limbaugh shouts.
#85 bobbo, Lol! Good response!
As far as “How do they control for the 145 other relevant variables?”
The papers cited have reams of data which covers this down to the minutest detail.
#97, Poison Twin,
What part of “it’s not written in the Constitution so they can’t do it” don’t you understand?
Maybe this will help. http://tinyurl.com/p6mrd
Put the following phrase, without the double quotes” in the red box and hit translate:
“The 10th Amendment Forbids It”
They DEFINED the law.
No they didn’t. They MISINTERPRETED the law.
If you are unwilling to follow the laws of the land maybe it is time for you to move somewhere that they have anarchy and don’t have a Constitution.
If you want to live in a country where those in power wipe their ass with the Constitution, perhaps you should move somewhere with an oligarchic government. I hear Chavez is looking for some more sheep.
I am not going to support a government that permits this to happen.
Thus, the people’s will was done and a Constitutional stand off defused.
Free Ice Cream for Everyone!
#100, Loser,
What part of “it’s not written in the Constitution so they can’t do it” don’t you understand?
What part of “it’s not written in the Constitution that the Navy has aircraft carriers” either.
Make up your mind. It either has to be explicit or it doesn’t. Plus I think “regulating commerce” is explicit enough for any sane, normal, reasonably cogent, person to understand
Get a life loser. The Libertarian bullshit you’ve been pounding your meat to is only a reality in Ron Paul’s dreams.
#101,
Poison Twin,
What part of “it’s not written in the Constitution that the Navy has aircraft carriers” either.
Carriers are required for national defense. The constitution gives broad guidelines to what is required for national defense.
Regulating CEOs salaries are NOT required for interstate commerce to be profitable. No sane person could possibly see that unless they wanted to loot the business or control it.
Big difference. Equating needing an AC to regulating CEO salaries is asinine.
The first is a deterrent. The second is a jealous action.
Get a life loser. The Libertarian bullshit you’ve been pounding your meat to is only a reality in Ron Paul’s dreams.
And that is why this country is in the crapper. Morans like you think the constitution is something to be re-interpreted at their whim.
How does it feel to know that the Chimperor in Chief-elect, Obamessiah, is already pulling an IHOP and he isn’t even sworn in yet?
#102, Loser,
The part you fail to grasp is no one is saying the Navy can not have aircraft carriers. Only there is nothing in the Constitution explicitly stating they can have them. That is the exact same argument you are using to say the Commerce Clause can not be used here.
Several Supreme Courts decisions have said Congress has the authority to use the Commerce Clause in which ever way it deems necessary to regulate commerce. I gave you five of them.
125 years ago most people would have been appalled if it was suggested that employees earn at least a minimum wage or that health and safety in the workplace was the employer’s responsibility. Yet these areas are recognized today as valid intrusions into otherwise State business and they both use the Commerce Clause.
Profitability has nothing to do with it. Ask a bankruptcy Judge if he can regulate the wages of a company in protection. He not only can, they do that every day. If Congress decides to regulate Bank CEOs that took bailout money, that is their perogative
We don’t get to pick and choose which laws we will obey. Congress makes the laws and the Supreme Court tells us if they are legal. If you are unhappy either start partaking of the democratic process and run for Congress or move to Antarctica.
#103, Poison Twin,
The part you fail to grasp is no one is saying the Navy can not have aircraft carriers. Only there is nothing in the Constitution explicitly stating they can have them. That is the exact same argument you are using to say the Commerce Clause can not be used here.
No, it isn’t. You are still trying to compare the defense of the nation to regulating CEO salaries. Regulating a CEO’s salary has absolutely nothing to do with interstate commerce. The purpose of that clause is not to give the government the power to dictate how a business does business, but to ensure one state doesn’t take advantage of another state due to natural resources or location or population. Limiting the compensation of a business’s executives has absolutely nothing to do with that.
Explain to me how limiting a CEO’s salary is beneficial to the overall well being of the nation.
Several Supreme Courts decisions have said Congress has the authority to use the Commerce Clause in which ever way it deems necessary to regulate commerce. I gave you five of them.
Unintended consequences. It started out small and gradually expanded to cover things it was never meant to cover. Just because it is, doesn’t mean it should be.
125 years ago most people would have been appalled if it was suggested that employees earn at least a minimum wage or that health and safety in the workplace was the employer’s responsibility. Yet these areas are recognized today as valid intrusions into otherwise State business and they both use the Commerce Clause.
People are still appalled today. Minimum wages do nothing but increase the overall cost of goods manufactured. Do you really think that businesses eat the extra cost they have to pay their employees in profit? Of course, not. They pass it it on to their consumers. And those consumers might also be their own employees. So, you have to ask yourself — are these employees really increasing their their standard of living or paying more for their goods and paying more in taxes (income and sales).
Profitability has nothing to do with it. Ask a bankruptcy Judge if he can regulate the wages of a company in protection. He not only can, they do that every day. If Congress decides to regulate Bank CEOs that took bailout money, that is their perogative
In that instance, the commerce clause shouldn’t even be in play. They shouldn’t have taken the bailout money. As soon as you take money from someone, they become boss.
We don’t get to pick and choose which laws we will obey.
Actually, we do. Unfortunately, the government puts a gun to your head if you refuse to pay up.
Congress makes the laws and the Supreme Court tells us if they are legal. If you are unhappy either start partaking of the democratic process and run for Congress
I have.
or move to Antarctica.
You like penguins or something? You keep referring to that place.
#104, Loser,
Explain to me how limiting a CEO’s salary is beneficial to the overall well being of the nation.
It doesn’t have to be. The fact is Congress has the power and authority to limit a CEO’s wages if they think it is in the nation’s best interest.
Unintended consequences. It started out small and gradually expanded to cover things it was never meant to cover. Just because it is, doesn’t mean it should be.
Ahhh, just because it shouldn’t be doesn’t mean it can’t be. On the whole though, starting small and becoming big is completely in line with our whole technological advancement as a nation.
200 years ago they never thought many of the chemicals known today being dumped in the water would actually kill people. Or that nuclear power plants could self destruct killing millions. Or we could transfer money through a wire.
People are still appalled today. Minimum wages do nothing but increase the overall cost of goods manufactured.
I think 90%+ of Americans would disagree with you. But again, mere profit should never be the sole determination if something is good. Businesses survive in society at the will of society. If the business decides not to follow the whims of society, be it slavery, equal opportunity, non-discrimination, etc, they won’t be allowed to partake of society.
In that instance, the commerce clause shouldn’t even be in play. …
True. However, that is what started this whole thing. Cow-Paddy claimed it was unconstitutional for Congress to regulate a CEO’s wages. He is wrong.
Actually, we do. Unfortunately, the government puts a gun to your head if you refuse to pay up.
If you choose not to be a member of our society, then you do not get to pick and choose which laws you will obey. I guess I don’t need to explain what an “outlaw” is. If, on the other hand, you choose not to be a member of our society then there is nothing holding you back from the Antarctic.
You like penguins or something? You keep referring to that place.
It is far away from here. They have lousy internet connections. There is very little government or society. You can shoot off your guns without hurting anyone, except maybe yourself. And you can raise your own little hatch of penguins that think in black and white like you and don’t really care if they are left out in the cold.
The perfect place for those who hate America and what she stands for.