|
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.
#25, ‘tempt,
The right to bear arms express purpose is to make it possible for citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.
This is one of the misinformations, or lies, I was replying to Bobbo about. There is nothing in the Second Amendment that talks about “a tyrannical government.”
#28, ‘tempt,
There is strength in numbers. Citizens will do well to form into a militia if they want to have a chance against government soldiers sent to take, let us say their property.
ha ha ha, now that is a treasonous line. For one who thinks the Constitution is relevant than we are a nation of laws. If you get no satisfaction then you go to court. If the law is against you then you change the law. If that doesn’t work for you then you are not an American and don’t deserve to live here.
#43, goof,
That would be the 10th Amendment. It (the Constitution) doesn’t explicitly say Congress can regulate CEO pay, therefore that right is reserved for the States or the People.
Hey, the Constitution doesn’t also EXPRESSLY say the Navy can build aircraft carriers either. Yet, there is no one arguing that point.
In actual fact, you are not only wrong in your general thought requiring explicitly, but you are also wrong that the 10th Amendment applies. The main body of the Constitution already covers it in Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3
Clause 3:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
#63 – I’d really like to see where you can find precedent or case law which will support your wild ass assertion that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate pay rates of private companies.
#60, Cow-Paddy, Ignorant Shit Talking Sociopath, Retired Mall Rent-A-Cop, Pretend Constitutional Scholar, Fake California Labor Law Expert, Pseudo Military Historian, and Real Leading Troll Extraordinare,
Give it up. In order for someone to understand that answer they’d have to actually understand WHAT the Constitution is…
I guess that doesn’t include you. I said it before and I’ll say it again. You make all these phony claims then weasel out of backing them up.
Oh, bobbo. You really drank deep the anit-gun kool aid.
Oh, such a disappointment for someone so usually free-thinking.
I, on the other hand, have done my homework and learned from others who have researched these issues and came up with true results.
Here are some quotes from some of the many papers I have accumulated on this subject. They are all very well researched, professional, eye opening, and incontrovertible.
You also may want to pay close attention to the “Protection of Lawful Arms in Commerce Act”. This act is specifically designed to stop frivolous lawsuits which “attempt to use the judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative branch of government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce through judgments and judicial decrees thereby threatening the Separation of Powers doctrine and weakening and undermining important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between the sister States.”
Also from some of the other papers:
“While violent crime has dropped in the US, it has increased from 50% to over 400% in Australia and England AFTER they passed draconian gun laws. It has been conclusively proven the rise in violent crime dropped in the US because of the increased number of states which have allowed Conceal Carry permits in the US (from 12 states in the early 80’s to 40 today) while crime increased in these other countries because the felons were no longer afraid of running into a gun carrying law-abiding citizen.” (Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, 2003).
“Gun ownership does not increase murder or suicide rates. Factually, gun ownership has absolutely no effect on suicides (they find another way instead) and reduce murder by over 34%! (by increasing the risk of death to the potential killer)” (Yale Law School and USC study by Kates and Mauser)
Safe storage gun laws don’t work, and in fact they do exactly the opposite. They don’t protect kids because the vast majority of kids which were being harmed by unlocked guns are from the inner city where violence is a way of life and their parents aren’t going to lock up their guns anyway. Here is the real result of Gun Safe Laws:
“During the first five full years after the passage of the safe storage laws, the group of fifteen states that adopted these laws faced an annual average increase of over 300 MORE murders, 3,800 MORE rapes, 24,650 MORE robberies, and over 25,000 MORE aggravated assaults due to the victims unable to protect themselves in an expedient manner.)
(Yale Law School, working paper #237).
And let’s not forget multiple public shootings. Do stricter handgun controls lower this crime?
“our results find that the only policy factor to have a consistently significant influence on lowering multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws permitting concealed carry.”
(University of Chicago Law School, Oct 2003. Authors: Lott – Senior research fellow, Landis – Clifton R. Musser fellow.)
And I have lots more where that came from, but in a nutshell gun control is a complete failure. It does not now nor ever has worked.
Now to actually get these articles you will have to actually:
A) care enough to try, and
B) use google.
C) find a way to contact me so I can email these articles directly to you. Be happy to do it.
Here are the titles of some of the articles. Don’t dismiss them because they don’t say what you want them to, because they are from the Chicago Law School, Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and the California University System. Reputable institutions.
“Banning firearms reduce murder”
“Gun safes don’t work”
“Protection in Firearms Act”
“Self Defense the Equalizer”
“Human rights and Gun Confiscation”
I have lot’s more, but this will get you started.
#63 – I’ll expand by saying that there is the precedent of a minimum wage, which is completely unconstitutional, as is most of the rest of the New Deal, even though FDR managed to pack the SCOUTUS to allow it. If, however, you read the Constitution as it is written, you would see that these federal power grabs are against the letter as well as the spirit of the Constitution.
#67 – John Lott has written multiple books on the subject which research clearly show the benefits to society of free and unrestricted gun ownership. It doesn’t matter. Anti-gun policies are like the rest of the religion of the Far Left, one must only have faith. Of course, they hate religion too … ironic, isn’t it?
#67–Ah Yea==thats a lot of reading. Why the interest? My only interest is how the issue provides a window into how certain people, normally extremists, “think.” and that certainly leads to how societies work/don’t work. How single issue special interest groups affect our democracy is also interesting.
It comes back to what I said above: do we want to talk philosophy, or what the law IS as announced by the SCOTUS? Two entirely only slightly connected subjects.
Before I consider your offer further, does gun ownership make sense because America has become an Alice in Wonderland culture just a bit too far gone so that the chimera of “self protection” makes a warped kind of sense, or is the paranoia of defending one’s self against an out of control government sufficient in itself?
#68, goof,
#63 – I’ll expand by saying that there is the precedent of a minimum wage, which is completely unconstitutional,
What an idiot !!!
I just posted and linked the relevant portion of the Constitution that allows Congress to regulate commerce, and that includes wages. Instead you come back with this stupid “the minimum wage is unconstitutional” crap.
As bobbo said earlier, read the entire section, not just the words you want. Here, I suggest, you just read the Constitution because it is obvious you haven’t. What can be so hard to understand about
<blockquoteTo regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
#61–Fusion==confrontation or learning. Both have their pro’s and con’s. Confrontation is mostly emotional, learning is learning. So, learning certainly trumps all except for those that can’t control their emotions.
#63,
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Baulderdash and you know it. This clause has been abused for decades. What does regulating the pay of a CEO have to do with regulating the trade between the states? You’re stretching the interpretation quite far here.
Re: Aircraft carriers.
That’s one of the stupidest arguments against the 10 Amendment I’ve ever heard!
Section 8:
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
You need to read it before you start bashing it.
#69, goof,
John Lott has written multiple books…
So has Isac Asimov, Arthur C. Clark, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, Pierre Burton, Milton Friedman, Merriweather Lewis, and Stephan Ambrose. What is your point?
Isn’t John Lott the guy that falsified a survey as a proof for his pro gun book? Great source there.
#70, bobbo. I don’t know where you live but you are either in Europe somewhere or a crazy night owl like myself…
My interest? Good question. I’ve had (notice – had) friends who were on the wrong end of a gun without being able to protect themselves because they decided to obey the law. And this was in California where the true Alice in Wonderland “if we ban guns we ban murder” mentality dominates.
Additionally, as we have seen in the last 8 years, reinterpreting the Constitution as one pleases – “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” – is dangerous to us all.
Believing the Constitution to be a “living document” subject to the whims of whomever is in power at the moment is the absolute worse policy one can have. There needs to be SOMETHING to keep power hungry politicians in line.
Imagine what King George could have done except for that goddamned piece of paper!
The Commerce Clause has been interpreted to impact just about EVERY aspect of life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
about 75% down the page:
“If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”==which is exactly what the SCOTUS did and does.
A usurpation of state and individual rights? Most people think so===but its the law.
#75 –Ah Yea==crazy sleep pattern here.
You sure are mixing up about 5 different things. That may even be a simplified reflection of reality, but it makes a discussion difficult.
Its “philosophical” isn’t it?==or maybe not if “facts” are given appropriate respect. Time frames are certainly a problem as well. Long term solutions don’t have impacts tomorrow. Zealots call this a failure when it is just part of the process.
Likewise, we are all egotistical enough to think “we” stand outside group statistics, and thats true or false depending on how you evaluate risk: “The Prisoner’s Dilemma.”
So many variables, so little time.
#73, Loser,
Once again we have another poster that can’t take the time to read something.
Congress has the power and authority to regulate commerce. It doesn’t say “trade”. It says COMMERCE. That includes wages.
I realize you don’t like living in America. Maybe it is time to find somewhere else, maybe Venezuela.
#71 – Aside from insulting those with whom you disagree, something at which you seem to excel, why don’t you provide something to back up your wild ass claim?
What examples in law or history allow you to extend the regulation of commerce, meaning trade, between States and Indian tribes, to setting pay rates of private companies? You are always telling people to “back it up.” Well, practice what you preach.
Not until FDR packed the court to pass his New Deal was the Clause invoked for more than regulating foreign trade and navigational issues. Read Federalist 44, amongst others, on the need for a Federal Court to resolve issues of trade.
Then see how the Rehnquist court tried to reign in the excesses of previous courts abuse of the Clause, like trying to use the Clause to limit 2nd Amendment rights and basically stick the Federal government’s nose everywhere politicians wanted to control the people’s lives.
Your statements indicate you are merely trying to be combative and demonstrate a perceived superiority which is not supported by facts or history. Get yourself some learning, or, if you already have it, try sensible argumentation. The facts are out there and they do not support your assertions.
#78 – OED says,
“commerce
• noun 1 the activity of buying and selling, especially on a large scale. 2 dated social dealings between people.
— ORIGIN Latin commercium ‘trade, trading’, from merx ‘merchandise’.”
Commerce is trade. Quit being ignorant.
Well, you know, corporations must comply with the rules established by the states in which they incorporate. There is nothing that says states can’t make any rule they wish to make regarding CEO compensaton.
But is the Federal Government expressly prohibited or permitted to establish rules regarding CEO pay?
The Feds certainy hit all around it what with Federal Minimum Wages, Federal tax treatment of executive compensation as part of benefits programs as well as the available business tax deduction for same.
The problem as I quoted in Post #76 above is that the Feds can do just about anything if the Courts broadly interpret the Commerce Clause. Reading the clause/Constitution itself is NO GUAGE OF WHAT IT MEANS. The SCOTUS does that, quite often to the mystification of all the experts.
#65, goof,
I’d really like to see where you can find precedent or case law which will support your wild ass assertion that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate pay rates of private companies.
There is ample authority to demonstrate that Congress has the authority to regulate all aspects of companies doing interstate business. Blockquotes are from the Court decision while italic quotes are from a summary.
Gibbons v Ogden, 1824
Granting State patent on waterway
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation , 1937
RE: National Labor Relations Act
Wickard v Filburn
Agricultural Production Regulation
Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 1964
Civil Rights
The Court held that Congress acted well within its jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce clause in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thereby upholding the act’s Title II in question. While it might have been possible for Congress to pursue other methods for abolishing racial discrimination, the way in which Congress did so, according to the court, was perfectly valid. It found no merit in the arguments pursuant to the Thirteenth Amendment, finding it hard to conceive that such an Amendment might possibly be applicable in restraining civil rights legislation. Having observed that 75% of the Heart of Atlanta Motel’s clientele came from out-of-state, and that it was strategically located near Interstates 75 and 85 as well as two major U.S. Highways, the Court found that the business clearly affected interstate commerce. As such, it therefore upheld the permanent injunction issued by the District Court, and required the Heart of Atlanta Motel to receive business from clientele of all races.
United States v Lopez, 1990
Gun Regulation in schools (overturned)
.First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of Interstate Commerce.
Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of Interstate Commerce, or persons or things in Interstate Commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities;
Finally, Congress’s commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to Interstate Commerce i.e., those activities that substantially affect Interstate Commerce,
#77 bobbo.
Yes, absolutely. Real solutions take real discussion, and patience is a virtue.
The issues surrounding gun control are emotional, and therefore finding the facts from disinterested 3rd parties is paramount. Hence the references.
As gun control goes, how much more time is needed to see that more guns = less murder? I’d say the evidence of the last 30 years is more than enough.
BTW, so you’re sleep “challenged” as well?
#79, goof,
Not until FDR packed the court to pass his New Deal
You must be getting all your information from the right wing outlets. Roosevelt never packed the courts to have anything passed.
#83–Ah Yea==I’m sleep challenged enough to want to miss your humor, but awake challenged enough to see it.
So, you’ve got a study showing more guns = less murder? How do they control for the 145 other relevant variables? And thats why there is only a moderate positive correlation between number of guns and number of murders.
Within the variations of a positive correlation, yes, anything can be shown.
Regarding sleep–I’m ungodly healthy so I don’t think “its a problem.” There just aren’t enough hours in the day to get everything done, so I stay awake until I pass out===like I feel like doing right about now.
#78, Poison Twin,
Here is the legal definition of Commerce:
COMMERCE – The exchange of commodities for commodities.
The definition of trade:
The business of buying and selling commodities; commerce.
Hence, trade between the states is commerce.
Buy a dictionary.
Good news. Israel has decided to give Obama an inauguration present.
#83, Ah Yea,
The issues surrounding gun control are emotional, and therefore finding the facts from disinterested 3rd parties is paramount.
I agree 100%. Where we know we will disagree is where are those “disinterested 3rd parties”
*
If guns reduce crime so much, why does the US have more people in jail than any other industrialized / democratic country? Why is the crime rate so high, again in comparison.
These are rhetorical questions and I don’t expect you to answer because many criminologists have spent decades trying to find the answer.
#86, Loser,
Read the WHOLE section, not just one word. The courts have defined the Commerce Clause to pertain to anything dealing with interstate commerce. Included laws are:
National Labor Relations Act,
Civil Rights Act, Title II,
Occupational Safety and Health Act,
The Minimum Wage,
Agriculture for sale,
The Pure Food and Drug Act,
Sarbannes-Oxley,
Sherman Anti-Trust Act,
While there are many more, this should suffice that Congress has enacted, and the Courts have upheld the right of Congress, under the Commerce Clause, to regulate the internal machinations of interstate businesses, even if the subject does not include trade.
Do you ever get the feeling you are just pissing into the wind? A strong wind?
#82, You are taking those quotes out of context and you know it. They are all related to businesses doing business with each other or their consumers. Not capping what compensation employees receive.
However, I will agree that setting a minimum wage has regulated commerce – it’s made things more expensive which jacks up the sales and income taxes looted.
#89, Poison Twin,
And NONE of them state they can cap wages. They can set a minimum wage (which is baulderdash but another argument), but they can’t come in and say, “You are making too much money.”
#91, Loser,
The question put to Cow-Paddy was:
“What part of the Constitution forbids Congress from regulating CEOs wages. ”
This was posed after Cow-Paddy claimed that it was unconstitutional for Congress to regulate CEO’s wages.
That Congress has not regulated wages directly (they have to some very small degree in securities and reporting regulations) does not mean they do not have the authority to do so.
None of the quotes I mentioned above were taken out of context. They are all quotes I found on Wikipedia under each specific case as that is usually the most important and quoted portion of the decision. Supreme Court decisions may be, and always are, quoted by the short passages as I have done. If the Court says the Commerce Clause is relevant in regulating commerce, it is. Period. The last I checked, wages were a part of commerce.
Note, I did not link to each case as the spam filter doesn’t like it when you do that. Each case may be found on Wikipedia by pasting the case name in the Wikipedia search box.