I'm surprised Jim Webb didn't get more traction in the discussions. Seems like Trump needs to do two things, seal-up the Republican base and go to the middle, possibly even the left of Hillary. I don't feel like Gingrich or Cristy would have helped with either. Pence seems to be a reasonable signal to traditional Republicans, when probably few traditional Republicans wanted the job.
Coulter wrote a recent piece incorrectly assuming Lincoln had picked Hamlin as his Veep, and that the selection gave clarity of message because Hamlin was also opposed to slavery (zounds!!!). The Convention, not Lincoln, selected Hamlin as a means of reaching-out to the disgruntled New Yorkers who had supported runner-up Seward, but neither Seward nor anyone else from NY wanted to be Veep, and the Maine delegation approached the New York delegation and offered Hamlin, who wasn't as offensive to New Yorkers as others being considered.
Pence seems to fit that role, he's the conservative governor who represents the conservatives and governors that lost out on the nomination, none of whom wanted the job themselves.
Also as a practical matter, a politically viable movement to dismantle the Southern slave system only emerged in 1858/1860 because practical alternatives were proposed: colonization, compensation to slaveowners, apprenticeship and wage labor. Without alternatives, supporters of the status quo would have successfully demagogued that rootless negroes would steal jobs and possessions, rape and murder whites, etc.
I remember looking at a different, but similar issue under Illinois law, and the state party seems to be the entity that makes a lot of the decisions as a matter of course. Without looking back at it, I'd almost wager that the state party decides just about everything unless there is some specific prohibition, particularly since some of these provisions might even predate the modern primary system. But a drop dead date like Sept. 12 seems reasonable at least in terms of finalizing the ballot and time for any challenges to it. At some point, the vote slot would effectively have to be for the Veep or nobody.
BTW/ Not quite on point, but my preference would have been for His Accidency John Tyler to have lost his unmerited seizure of power and a tradition and legislation developed for special elections if someone dies.
To a great extent, the re-do push is built on empowering marginal voters: people who didn't vote the first time, but might this time, people who might change their mind or did not understand the issues, and voters in the wrong geographic areas to exert much influence.
That last point may not be clearly stated, but in a national referendum it doesn't matter where the voters reside, but when the parliament is asked to disregard or re-do a referendum, the parliament would be expected to care greatly where the votes are located.
That particular re-do referendum, calling for a super-majority, seems utterly politically tone-deaf. There was a reason the referendum was promised, and that was to marginalize the EU skeptics. They were not marginalized, and would not have been marginalized had those rules been in place. "Leave" would still be more popular than any politician or party, and every party and politician would have to bow to that reality.
No, American ratification was one-step removed from an outright referendum -- each state held a popular election for delegates to attend a state convention to vote on the new Constitution. Technically, it might be indirect democracy, but its similar to the electoral college.
The EU is similar to the US in that a treaty convention unexpectedly morphed into a federal government, but being more democratic (in the ratification and in the new government) gave it legitimacy for breaking a few rules.
Your reference to Khan was a trigger-warning? Wow, that was pretty much the opposite of my impression of what was intended. I have to assume your views of your followers are correct though.
"A failing state was unable to either stem illegal immigration, or to generate a business environment in which the private sector could create jobs for young second generation immigrants. They were left instead to fester in ghettos such as Molenbeek, marred by high unemployment, crime and an extensive drug economy."
Not a lot of good options here for drastic change, their immigration and economic policies are at the mercy of larger countries.
I tend not to vote in elections where there is no challenger, its my subtle and probably ineffective signalling. I think a lot of politicians in Illinois hire companies to gather the signatures for them, but its my understanding that some companies are better than others.
I certainly think that seeing a Spring-training game is part of a larger trip. But I remember that the Cubs were talking about leaving Arizona for Florida, and they were getting competing offers, and ended up staying in Mesa because the city built them a huge complex and an opportunity for the team to build an adjoining resort and entertainment district. Either the Cubs were really considering a move to Florida, to be ostensibly closer and more convenient for its fan-base, or they were playing the two locations off against each other. But they are all acting like Spring-training draws tourists, or that part of the purpose of Spring-training is to draw fans.
Cubs may be a little different. I'm told the new facilities are much nicer and convenient than Wrigley Field. (There are field-level infield seats available at Wrigley during the week of May 3, but not the weekend).
I guess that points to the question of what do the fans MLB is catering to with this rule want. I've watched some spring-training games on TV, and this is what I look for:
1. This year's facial hair. Always a source of amusement and delight.
2. Player reactions to what they've done. Does the fielder laugh-off a miscue like he know what he did wrong? Does the batter slam down his bat in self-disgust? I know a lot of these guys are working on "things," is Kershaw working on a cutter, and just throw four in a row? Did Kershaw grimace when it was hit out of the park, or did he shout an obscenity into his glove?
3. What do the new guys look like. What are my first impressions.
4. Manager decisions. Are any players fielding different positions this Spring? Are there a lot of bunts or stolen basis attempted? Usually means almost nothing for the regular season though.
I've not heard of this rule before, and find it odd that it is directed towards road trips. I would assume that a team's fans, excited to see its star, would naturally go to that team's home field. I don't know how many teams do this, but the Cardinals invite back many former fan-favorites and Hall-of-Famers to coach and assist during Spring Training. They don't have anybody on the roster that really compares with the opportunity to see Bob Gibson, Lou Brock, Ozzy Smith, or Bruce Sutter. I suppose there is the McCutchen factor, that a fan will favor a game in which his team is playing the Pirates for a chance to see a player that is widely admired and probably wouldn't be a jerk when you ask him to sign something. I don't think there are that many players. Moreso than football, baseball with its regional TV networks, seems to cater and support the local team.
Merritt's pretty cool. Love the Moon Pool and the Ship of Ishtar. Haven't read Dwellers, but I've run across this situation a lot in pulp fiction from that era -- public domain there, but not here. I assume its solely a matter of international treaty. I don't like to read fiction on-line, so don't follow that aspect too closely.
I think this gets to an underlying misunderstanding Will might have here. It would be quite easy to revise election laws to allow an established state party's committee to designate a candidate in the event nobody runs in the primary. I think the reason this has not happened is that the parties are tacitly in agreement that there should be some safe seats, and that a candidate that cannot summon the resources to get enough signatures is a waste of everyone else's resources.
Btw/ did your dad consider fraud? I live in a heavily Republican district, moreso because the Democrats made it a sinkhole last redrawing to improve Democrat outcomes in neighboring districts. But 90% of the time there is a Democrat on the ballot. And I've come to the speculative conclusion that if one candidate submits pages of signatures from "Alan Scott," and no competing Democrat challenges this, that candidate will be on the ballot. Fraud may not be the right word, but Kasich was on the ballot in Illinois in districts where he turned in zero signatures and nobody challenged him.
Mormons are a subset of Yankee culture. Yankees don't like Jacksonian types. Trump is a Jacksonian type. More broadly speaking though, Trump is least popular among Republicans in states West of the Mississippi.
I'm not sure its even grounded much on antiquarian thought at all to the extent it is claiming the mantle left by an historic party:
the “Federalists” became the name for America’s first organized political movement and the republic’s most prominent architects. The Federalist Party was the party of George Washington, and the first party secretary was Alexander Hamilton.
I don't think those Federalists would agree with this conception of themselves as a political movement at all, and the role ascribed to Hamilton suggests that the author's real sympathies lie with the Democratic-Republicans, and those names have been taken.
An investigation is required under that particular statute. Phillip Russel was an attorney, whose client (a church) contacted him after discovering someone had downloaded child porn on their computer, and they brought the computer to him to seek his advise on what to do. Since the mere possession of these images was a crime, the attorney erased them and returned the computer to his client. For that he was charged by the DOJ for tampering with evidence under Sarbanes-Oxley (facing up to 20 years), pled down to six months, and suspension of law license.
There was no investigation, nor any magical wand that turned the hard drive into "evidence." The trial judge explained: “a lawyer certainly could see that an official proceeding would ensue. He knew this computer contained images of children engaged in terrible acts.”
He was not held criminally liable retroactively, he was held criminally liable for what he knew or should have known at the time he destroyed the images.
You went way too far in your hypothetical with conceding specific intent to your actions: "the *specific* purpose of destroying the record of me committing the crime." Most people destroy records innocently, and its the burden of the prosecutor to prove they knew the significance of their actions.
As a practical matter in your hypothetical, it may not be charged. The murderer is not charged with an extra count of jaywalking. That does not tell us that jaywalking is not a crime.
I was more narrowly dealing with the case. I think bad facts can make bad law, or good facts can make good law, however one sees it. A judge can always refuse to consider implications of his ruling on other cases by pointing out that he is just ruling on this warrant today. That prosecutors purportedly have tons of locked phones waiting for the rulings shows that they recognize that their cases may not warrant the inconvenience.
This is a bad case for Apple because it involves national security, and the owner of the phone has agreed to its search. The main factual issue appears to be the reasonableness of the burden on Apple to comply, and once Apple develops the necessary software update, that burden in future cases on this type of system goes to nearly zero. Law enforcement then takes all of their locked phones to courts for lesser crimes and argues that all Apple has to do now is flip a couple of switches.
Tampering with evidence is a crime. State and federal law vary on the elements, but the question is usually whether a criminal investigation was reasonably anticipated. This sounds like it would be charged: "if the government later can *prove* I erased the tape, for the *specific* purpose of destroying the record of me committing the crime." He knows that its a record of a crime, and it was reasonable for him to foresee a criminal investigation.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Morning Ed: World {2016.07.14.Th}”
It would have to be on particular issues like war/military or trade.
"
I'm surprised Jim Webb didn't get more traction in the discussions. Seems like Trump needs to do two things, seal-up the Republican base and go to the middle, possibly even the left of Hillary. I don't feel like Gingrich or Cristy would have helped with either. Pence seems to be a reasonable signal to traditional Republicans, when probably few traditional Republicans wanted the job.
"
Coulter wrote a recent piece incorrectly assuming Lincoln had picked Hamlin as his Veep, and that the selection gave clarity of message because Hamlin was also opposed to slavery (zounds!!!). The Convention, not Lincoln, selected Hamlin as a means of reaching-out to the disgruntled New Yorkers who had supported runner-up Seward, but neither Seward nor anyone else from NY wanted to be Veep, and the Maine delegation approached the New York delegation and offered Hamlin, who wasn't as offensive to New Yorkers as others being considered.
Pence seems to fit that role, he's the conservative governor who represents the conservatives and governors that lost out on the nomination, none of whom wanted the job themselves.
On “Second and Main”
Also as a practical matter, a politically viable movement to dismantle the Southern slave system only emerged in 1858/1860 because practical alternatives were proposed: colonization, compensation to slaveowners, apprenticeship and wage labor. Without alternatives, supporters of the status quo would have successfully demagogued that rootless negroes would steal jobs and possessions, rape and murder whites, etc.
On “Morning Ed: Politics {2016.07.13.W}”
I remember looking at a different, but similar issue under Illinois law, and the state party seems to be the entity that makes a lot of the decisions as a matter of course. Without looking back at it, I'd almost wager that the state party decides just about everything unless there is some specific prohibition, particularly since some of these provisions might even predate the modern primary system. But a drop dead date like Sept. 12 seems reasonable at least in terms of finalizing the ballot and time for any challenges to it. At some point, the vote slot would effectively have to be for the Veep or nobody.
BTW/ Not quite on point, but my preference would have been for His Accidency John Tyler to have lost his unmerited seizure of power and a tradition and legislation developed for special elections if someone dies.
On “Second and Main”
Wasn't it BLM's responsibility to put up ropes and signs saying "No concern trolls past this point."?
On “Morning Ed: Brexit III {2016.07.10.Su}”
To a great extent, the re-do push is built on empowering marginal voters: people who didn't vote the first time, but might this time, people who might change their mind or did not understand the issues, and voters in the wrong geographic areas to exert much influence.
That last point may not be clearly stated, but in a national referendum it doesn't matter where the voters reside, but when the parliament is asked to disregard or re-do a referendum, the parliament would be expected to care greatly where the votes are located.
"
That particular re-do referendum, calling for a super-majority, seems utterly politically tone-deaf. There was a reason the referendum was promised, and that was to marginalize the EU skeptics. They were not marginalized, and would not have been marginalized had those rules been in place. "Leave" would still be more popular than any politician or party, and every party and politician would have to bow to that reality.
On “Relationship Status: It’s Complicated”
No, American ratification was one-step removed from an outright referendum -- each state held a popular election for delegates to attend a state convention to vote on the new Constitution. Technically, it might be indirect democracy, but its similar to the electoral college.
The EU is similar to the US in that a treaty convention unexpectedly morphed into a federal government, but being more democratic (in the ratification and in the new government) gave it legitimacy for breaking a few rules.
On “Linky Friday #159: Dolphins & Killer Whales”
Your reference to Khan was a trigger-warning? Wow, that was pretty much the opposite of my impression of what was intended. I have to assume your views of your followers are correct though.
On “Belgium, My Country, Is in Denial”
This seems to be the key point:
Not a lot of good options here for drastic change, their immigration and economic policies are at the mercy of larger countries.
On “Why the looming Trumpocalypse hasn’t yet put the House in play (and may not ever) – dKos”
I tend not to vote in elections where there is no challenger, its my subtle and probably ineffective signalling. I think a lot of politicians in Illinois hire companies to gather the signatures for them, but its my understanding that some companies are better than others.
On “Mississippi Governor Signs Bill Increasing School Choice for Special Needs Students – Opportunity Lives”
One theory: Compliance with No Child Left Behind is easier if kids with learning disabilities can be offloaded into private schools. (Speculative)
On “Spring Training Roster Rules”
But if Dodgers fans show up in the 3rd or 4th inning and leave in the 6th or 7th, then its effectively three times the cost of other baseball tickets.
"
I certainly think that seeing a Spring-training game is part of a larger trip. But I remember that the Cubs were talking about leaving Arizona for Florida, and they were getting competing offers, and ended up staying in Mesa because the city built them a huge complex and an opportunity for the team to build an adjoining resort and entertainment district. Either the Cubs were really considering a move to Florida, to be ostensibly closer and more convenient for its fan-base, or they were playing the two locations off against each other. But they are all acting like Spring-training draws tourists, or that part of the purpose of Spring-training is to draw fans.
Cubs may be a little different. I'm told the new facilities are much nicer and convenient than Wrigley Field. (There are field-level infield seats available at Wrigley during the week of May 3, but not the weekend).
"
I guess that points to the question of what do the fans MLB is catering to with this rule want. I've watched some spring-training games on TV, and this is what I look for:
1. This year's facial hair. Always a source of amusement and delight.
2. Player reactions to what they've done. Does the fielder laugh-off a miscue like he know what he did wrong? Does the batter slam down his bat in self-disgust? I know a lot of these guys are working on "things," is Kershaw working on a cutter, and just throw four in a row? Did Kershaw grimace when it was hit out of the park, or did he shout an obscenity into his glove?
3. What do the new guys look like. What are my first impressions.
4. Manager decisions. Are any players fielding different positions this Spring? Are there a lot of bunts or stolen basis attempted? Usually means almost nothing for the regular season though.
"
I've not heard of this rule before, and find it odd that it is directed towards road trips. I would assume that a team's fans, excited to see its star, would naturally go to that team's home field. I don't know how many teams do this, but the Cardinals invite back many former fan-favorites and Hall-of-Famers to coach and assist during Spring Training. They don't have anybody on the roster that really compares with the opportunity to see Bob Gibson, Lou Brock, Ozzy Smith, or Bruce Sutter. I suppose there is the McCutchen factor, that a fan will favor a game in which his team is playing the Pirates for a chance to see a player that is widely admired and probably wouldn't be a jerk when you ask him to sign something. I don't think there are that many players. Moreso than football, baseball with its regional TV networks, seems to cater and support the local team.
On “Sunday!”
Merritt's pretty cool. Love the Moon Pool and the Ship of Ishtar. Haven't read Dwellers, but I've run across this situation a lot in pulp fiction from that era -- public domain there, but not here. I assume its solely a matter of international treaty. I don't like to read fiction on-line, so don't follow that aspect too closely.
On “Why the looming Trumpocalypse hasn’t yet put the House in play (and may not ever) – dKos”
I think this gets to an underlying misunderstanding Will might have here. It would be quite easy to revise election laws to allow an established state party's committee to designate a candidate in the event nobody runs in the primary. I think the reason this has not happened is that the parties are tacitly in agreement that there should be some safe seats, and that a candidate that cannot summon the resources to get enough signatures is a waste of everyone else's resources.
Btw/ did your dad consider fraud? I live in a heavily Republican district, moreso because the Democrats made it a sinkhole last redrawing to improve Democrat outcomes in neighboring districts. But 90% of the time there is a Democrat on the ballot. And I've come to the speculative conclusion that if one candidate submits pages of signatures from "Alan Scott," and no competing Democrat challenges this, that candidate will be on the ballot. Fraud may not be the right word, but Kasich was on the ballot in Illinois in districts where he turned in zero signatures and nobody challenged him.
On “Polish-Chrome Cyborg America’s Freudian Ego-Ideal”
Mormons are a subset of Yankee culture. Yankees don't like Jacksonian types. Trump is a Jacksonian type. More broadly speaking though, Trump is least popular among Republicans in states West of the Mississippi.
On “Paul David Miller: Let’s Resurrect The Federalist Party”
I'm not sure its even grounded much on antiquarian thought at all to the extent it is claiming the mantle left by an historic party:
I don't think those Federalists would agree with this conception of themselves as a political movement at all, and the role ascribed to Hamilton suggests that the author's real sympathies lie with the Democratic-Republicans, and those names have been taken.
On “Why the President Is Wrong on Encryption”
An investigation is required under that particular statute. Phillip Russel was an attorney, whose client (a church) contacted him after discovering someone had downloaded child porn on their computer, and they brought the computer to him to seek his advise on what to do. Since the mere possession of these images was a crime, the attorney erased them and returned the computer to his client. For that he was charged by the DOJ for tampering with evidence under Sarbanes-Oxley (facing up to 20 years), pled down to six months, and suspension of law license.
There was no investigation, nor any magical wand that turned the hard drive into "evidence." The trial judge explained: “a lawyer certainly could see that an official proceeding would ensue. He knew this computer contained images of children engaged in terrible acts.”
He was not held criminally liable retroactively, he was held criminally liable for what he knew or should have known at the time he destroyed the images.
"
You went way too far in your hypothetical with conceding specific intent to your actions: "the *specific* purpose of destroying the record of me committing the crime." Most people destroy records innocently, and its the burden of the prosecutor to prove they knew the significance of their actions.
As a practical matter in your hypothetical, it may not be charged. The murderer is not charged with an extra count of jaywalking. That does not tell us that jaywalking is not a crime.
"
I was more narrowly dealing with the case. I think bad facts can make bad law, or good facts can make good law, however one sees it. A judge can always refuse to consider implications of his ruling on other cases by pointing out that he is just ruling on this warrant today. That prosecutors purportedly have tons of locked phones waiting for the rulings shows that they recognize that their cases may not warrant the inconvenience.
This is a bad case for Apple because it involves national security, and the owner of the phone has agreed to its search. The main factual issue appears to be the reasonableness of the burden on Apple to comply, and once Apple develops the necessary software update, that burden in future cases on this type of system goes to nearly zero. Law enforcement then takes all of their locked phones to courts for lesser crimes and argues that all Apple has to do now is flip a couple of switches.
"
Tampering with evidence is a crime. State and federal law vary on the elements, but the question is usually whether a criminal investigation was reasonably anticipated. This sounds like it would be charged: "if the government later can *prove* I erased the tape, for the *specific* purpose of destroying the record of me committing the crime." He knows that its a record of a crime, and it was reasonable for him to foresee a criminal investigation.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.