What I'm seeing is your and Jaybird's appeal to BSDI is evidence that the principled stands taken when legislation was being passed that Republican felt was unconstitutional were just window dressing. If you have genuine principles in 2009, they ought to remain the same in 2025, no?
For the record, as evidence of my bona fides, I voted for BHO in 2008 but not in 2012 for actions he took in office that I felt were out of constitutional bounds.
Not sure if I understand how citing the U.S. Constitution in the United States of America can be evincing cynicism. And the Constitution of not merely a declaration of principles, but the law of the land. If that's cynical, then let's throw in the towel and have a coronation.
You're absolutely right. Does that make it any less outside the bounds of the Constitution?
Part of the problem with Congress is we've frozen it in amber as of 1929. The U.S. population that year was 122 million people. Each rep had about 280K people in his district. In 2024 the population was about 341 miliion, rendering each district about 784K people. I'd argue that even in 1929 the people's house was too small, but in 2024 we're looking at districts that are almost as big as San Francisco. How can one person be responsive to that many people?
Coupled with the disastrous Citizens United decision that has allowed anyone with enough money to buy however much government he (mostly) could afford, the people's voice has been lost in America.
Fortunately, the Constitution has provided a remedy for this, namely governmental terms. Don't like your rep? Vote him/her out. Or run yourself! Freelancing the rules of government because it feels good is a path we should don't want to tread.
This will prove to be the least surprising bit of news for the entirety of DJT’s 2nd term: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-office-of-government-ethics-director/
Part of the reason I've been following this site for so many years is the generally good quality of the discussion. Let's see if we can keep the standards up.
Wouldn't one think the case had been made when the funding legislation was first passed? Subsequent appropriations would then rely on the assumption that whoever got the thing funded in the first place had done his/her due diligence. It's fine if a subsequent Congress wishes to alter or remove funding for this or that program, but it is not the executive's place to question the bill once it's signed.
I played simulator golf with my brother and nephew this morning. Not nearly as good as real golf but it's February in Chicago, so whaddya gonna do?
Sunday is church, some handyman work around the house, and the Super Bowl. I don't really have a rooting interest, so I'll just hope for a competitive game.
If you're looking for an interesting, and topical, novel, I can't recommend Lionel Shriver's The Mandibles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mandibles
People of a certain political persuasion have been saying that government needs to be "ran" like a business (I can't tell you how much the use of the wrong tense in this phrase grates on my ears.), which is fine on the face of it. Everyone knows running a business entails growing revenue, right? Then you ask them what needs to be cut and it's always a program that doesn't touch them and which amounts to 0.000000001% of the budget. Every day, Gene Wilder's little soliloquy in Blazing Saddles becomes truer and truer.
https://youtu.be/KHJbSvidohg?feature=shared
The bottom line is if we want a CEO in the White House, DJT is about the last guy I'd pick.
One would hope. Status quo ante goes back 235 years. There's a right way and a wrong way to do things that's spelled out quite clearly for all to see, especially those that take an oath to the damn thing.
"Take the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and annexed East Jerusalem. Long pages in “The Message” are devoted to the (unfortunately very real) horrors of the occupation – the humiliating roadblocks, where Palestinians traveling to visit relatives, go to work, or see a doctor, are forced to spend hours by the wayside, imploring indifferent or sadistic soldiers to be allowed to pass; home searches in the middle of the night; home destruction (even of poor cave-dwellers, as in Susiya); mass arrests and the occasional killing, usually unintended, of innocents; no-go areas for Palestinian vehicles.
I, too, lament these often draconian, always oppressive measures. But..."
On “The USAID Fight Is About Power, Not Spending”
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1161
$174,000 a year for this.
"
Throwing up my hands here. Bad faith arguing like this is how we end up with a useful idiot like Donald Trump in the Oval Office.
A rule of men it is.
"
What I'm seeing is your and Jaybird's appeal to BSDI is evidence that the principled stands taken when legislation was being passed that Republican felt was unconstitutional were just window dressing. If you have genuine principles in 2009, they ought to remain the same in 2025, no?
For the record, as evidence of my bona fides, I voted for BHO in 2008 but not in 2012 for actions he took in office that I felt were out of constitutional bounds.
"
Not sure if I understand how citing the U.S. Constitution in the United States of America can be evincing cynicism. And the Constitution of not merely a declaration of principles, but the law of the land. If that's cynical, then let's throw in the towel and have a coronation.
As for the rest of your response, I'm all for it.
"
You're absolutely right. Does that make it any less outside the bounds of the Constitution?
Part of the problem with Congress is we've frozen it in amber as of 1929. The U.S. population that year was 122 million people. Each rep had about 280K people in his district. In 2024 the population was about 341 miliion, rendering each district about 784K people. I'd argue that even in 1929 the people's house was too small, but in 2024 we're looking at districts that are almost as big as San Francisco. How can one person be responsive to that many people?
Coupled with the disastrous Citizens United decision that has allowed anyone with enough money to buy however much government he (mostly) could afford, the people's voice has been lost in America.
Fortunately, the Constitution has provided a remedy for this, namely governmental terms. Don't like your rep? Vote him/her out. Or run yourself! Freelancing the rules of government because it feels good is a path we should don't want to tread.
"
Heh, but in keeping with the spirit of the times.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/10/2025”
This will prove to be the least surprising bit of news for the entirety of DJT’s 2nd term: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-office-of-government-ethics-director/
On “The USAID Fight Is About Power, Not Spending”
Part of the reason I've been following this site for so many years is the generally good quality of the discussion. Let's see if we can keep the standards up.
"
Let me commend Article 1, Section 1 to you.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
"
Perhaps, but I'm not sure throwing the Constitution in the garbage because someone is pissed off about the process is going to prove to be worth it.
"
We have 2 whole debating chambers where this conversation constitutionally can take place. Why not use the proper forum?
"
Wouldn't one think the case had been made when the funding legislation was first passed? Subsequent appropriations would then rely on the assumption that whoever got the thing funded in the first place had done his/her due diligence. It's fine if a subsequent Congress wishes to alter or remove funding for this or that program, but it is not the executive's place to question the bill once it's signed.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/10/2025”
Was there supposed to be a link?
On “Kansas City wants to Score the first Threepeat against the Philadelphia Eagles in New Orleans”
That last meaningless KC TD made people with 2-0 squares extremely happy.
On “Keynesian Beauty Contests, Schelling Points, and the Omnicause”
It is kind of embarrassing that the American people have allowed Congress to reduce itself to a sycophantic rubber stamp over the years.
On “Weekend Plans Post: The Longest Month”
Can't recommend highly enough! Oy.
"
I played simulator golf with my brother and nephew this morning. Not nearly as good as real golf but it's February in Chicago, so whaddya gonna do?
Sunday is church, some handyman work around the house, and the Super Bowl. I don't really have a rooting interest, so I'll just hope for a competitive game.
If you're looking for an interesting, and topical, novel, I can't recommend Lionel Shriver's The Mandibles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mandibles
On “Keynesian Beauty Contests, Schelling Points, and the Omnicause”
People of a certain political persuasion have been saying that government needs to be "ran" like a business (I can't tell you how much the use of the wrong tense in this phrase grates on my ears.), which is fine on the face of it. Everyone knows running a business entails growing revenue, right? Then you ask them what needs to be cut and it's always a program that doesn't touch them and which amounts to 0.000000001% of the budget. Every day, Gene Wilder's little soliloquy in Blazing Saddles becomes truer and truer.
https://youtu.be/KHJbSvidohg?feature=shared
The bottom line is if we want a CEO in the White House, DJT is about the last guy I'd pick.
"
It is every American’s 1st Amendment right to advocate for a king, sir.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/3/2025”
One would hope. Status quo ante goes back 235 years. There's a right way and a wrong way to do things that's spelled out quite clearly for all to see, especially those that take an oath to the damn thing.
"
"Take the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and annexed East Jerusalem. Long pages in “The Message” are devoted to the (unfortunately very real) horrors of the occupation – the humiliating roadblocks, where Palestinians traveling to visit relatives, go to work, or see a doctor, are forced to spend hours by the wayside, imploring indifferent or sadistic soldiers to be allowed to pass; home searches in the middle of the night; home destruction (even of poor cave-dwellers, as in Susiya); mass arrests and the occasional killing, usually unintended, of innocents; no-go areas for Palestinian vehicles.
I, too, lament these often draconian, always oppressive measures. But..."
There's always one of those.
On “Keynesian Beauty Contests, Schelling Points, and the Omnicause”
Damn, the Nuremberg defense already?
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/3/2025”
Just a subset of those who are shaking their heads.
Is there a legal explanation for how Trump amassed his fortune?
"
Maybe I'm just out of the loop here, but the cited reason is Mexican drug cartels. Are they really that big a problem for this country?
"
FAA
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.