Its also why all thee coastal wetland restoration programs down here are so expensive. All that land - while submerged - is in private hands and you can't turn it back into emergent wetland without compensating land owners . . .
Same thing in statistics - knowing how two write a two factor ANOVA is less useful now then knowing why your data needs one, since all the good stats programs are essentially drag and drop or pull down menus. Some of the data visualization programs still require programming skills, but the SAS I learned in grad school in 1993 has long passed its usefulness.
My federal land management colleagues universally hate practicing in Louisiana. During Deep Water Horizon we had a small army of attorney's working 24-7 getting access rights and temporary easements because land that has become permanently submerged is still considered private land. So we'd be running across an open bay, miles from shore, and hit a line of pipes sticking up out of the water with No Trespassing signs on them. Absent written consent, we couldn't go look for oil much less send clean up crews.
I don't know the criminal side, but I do know my several friends who are practicing attorneys had to take two bar exams after law school to admitted at bar anywhere else.
Well many of us are sure of that, but the economists quoted in the MSM don't want to be sure of that because it impacts their ability to garner huge corporate consulting fees.
Most federal statutes actually have to be renewed periodically - remember the kerfuffle when Obama supported renewal of the Patriot Act? Congress has to vote on the renewal, whet they don't usually do is a full committee mark up or any analysis of effectiveness.
And again they can't pass appropriations on a deadline they have given themselves (and moved at least once) - an Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 duty assigned to Congress:
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;
My preference is still that we reduce the power of the federal government to the point that those officeholders I can’t vote for have minimal influence on my life.
How very Libertarian of you. Now, would accept them having minimal influence on the live of others, say by not being able to strike down Roe? Because the office holder of say Texas sure seem to think they can have an impact on my daughters lives by forcing the SCOTUS to toss Roe and Republican senators sure seem to want to prevent it from becoming federal law and thus a national standard.
This is kind of the same thing as getting rid of the filibuster: whether or not it’s a good idea seems to be largely based on what one tribe or the other wants to do right now and the other side who is currently getting their way despite a minority of votes gets to say “Do it and you’ll be very unhappy with what happens when we inevitably take the majority in the future.” But the filibuster isn’t a Constitutional rule (yet, y’all might decide to make it one).
Well given that we know what Republicans will can off the filibuster whenever they think it stands in their way as the majority I think this horse is well away from its barn.
with the exception of Georgia and Florida, the southern states don't have "large" cities. Our state capitol - the blue city - is 166,383. Our next largest city is Gulfport at 72,926. Baton Rouge, LA is 227,470 and New Orleans - which is quite liberal - is only 388,424. Alabama's largest city is Huntsville at 215,006; the state capitol is third largest at 200,603.
So no, southern states aren't split between urban and exurban environments politically in any meaningful way.
Texas for one - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/05/texas-republicans-endorse-legislation-vote-secession
But equally as worrisome is this polling:
A Bright Line Watch/YouGov poll of 2,750 Americans taken in late June 2021, revealed that a jaw-dropping 66 percent of Southern Republicans indicated a willingness for their State to secede from the United States and join other seceding States.
Exactly. Congress won't pass a budget on time. They've punted on immigration reform numerous times. And on and on. SCOTUS keeps slapping down the follow-on executive actions and telling Congress to act, but it doesn't. And too many Americans seem to think this is ok.
The states in the civil war didn't secede from a standpoint of good will. They wanted to continue enslaving other humans. They deserve the a$$ kicking they got.
Modern red states proposing seceding do so to keep the vestages of Jim Crow intact. Should they go that road they will deserve the a$$ kicking they will get.
The Southern states used secession as a vehicle to try and keep the "states right" to enslave Africans and others to provide labor for their plantations. So when someone says "state rights" I always ask rights to what . . .
The current structure is rather functional and quite robust, until its not, and at present the only reason its not is that it won't support permanent minority rule.
That aside we fought a war over secession and the secessionists lost.
While divorce could be preferable to war, I don't want to give the Lost Cause apologists any ground to say the South was right - because it wasn't. And you and I both know they would.
Quite probably. Which Is why I'm not a fan. The Constitution has a process for amendment, and it has worked 26 times so far. NO one wants to do the work or make the compromises to make it work a 27th or 28th or 29th time.
In my case its because most of the proposals I've seen - until this one - focus on expanding the second amendment to allow unlimited unrestricted gun ownership as well as making national all sorts of race based voting rights restrictions. Even here with the Zombie Voter and Ballot Harvesting ideas we see altering the constitution for problems that 1) are already dealt with in the states and 2) have yet to have any real impact on anything.
Its a non-starter in search of a rebellion to quash.
I'll give you this - unlike some of our colleagues you are willing to get direct and call spades spades.
So I'll do the same. A Constitutional Convention in this day and age carries too much danger for too little payoff. And your proposals for what should be taken up (never mind how) reflect what I hope is a willful naiveté regarding how the federal government works.
We will start here:
All governmental divisions shall fall under the purview of Congress and as such their administrators shall be discharge-able or impeachable by a vote of congress. There shall be no immunity from prosecution for any official who fails to do their job while upholding an oath to COTUS.
Those "divisions you refer to are the Executive Branch agencies - including my employer - and moving them to Congressional purview means neutering one of the three checks and balances baked into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers. Those agencies are HOW the President faithfully executes the laws of the US as he is required to do by Article Two. Now sure, amending the Constitution could end that faithful execution requirement, but what then does the president actually do?
That aside, every Cabinet agency and all of the independent agencies (EPA, NASA, etc) are helmed by people confirmed for their posts by the Senate, and are already subject to removal by impeachment under federal law. That works as a threat because the agency heads don't work for Congress. Moving them across branches takes away that stick. And no agency head or career civil servant in the federal government is immune from prosecution except for the folks in the intelligence community and law enforcement.
Then there's this:
No person working for the Federal Government shall invest in publicly traded stocks, or bonds, be they foreign or domestic.
If your angst is aimed at federal civil servants, consider this: Since 1986 (by law) federal employees retirements have largely been funded through a 401K-like investment fund called the Thrift Savings Plan. Because it owns and hold stocks to make its portfolio, the TSP is one giant investment fund that essentially requires federal civil servants to invest in stocks if they want to have an adequately funded retirement. Nearly all of the federal civil service is under this now. So to make your idea happen, you'd have to shut that down, and go back to the defined benefit pension only approach that Congress wanted to move away from in 1986. That would drive the cost up significantly, never mind the legal implications.
If your beef is with Congress - who can credibly be accused of insider trading based on the information they receive in their oversight and investigational hearings - I'm with you, but this proposal doesn't address that problem.
Next:
Senators and Representatives shall be subject to recall by their states and by initiative petition by their constituents.
While I would LOVE to be able to recall my Congressman - who's local nickname is No Show - this runs smack into federalism. 19 states already have state office recall laws that could be amended (probably much easier) to allow this since senators (at least) serve the whole state. Unfortunately SCOTUS ruled in 1967 that there is no legal way to recall senators or congressman.
Next:
All laws must Sunset and shall last no more than 20 years from date of effect. They cannot be reauthorized and MUST be fully re-voted upon and resigned by the president every time.
Congress can't appropriate funds now on an annual basis - so I see no way this works.
Executive Dictatorship or any governmental person using executive order to circumvent Congress
Executive Orders are issued by the President alone and serve two purposes - one is to tell the federal workforce HOW to faithfully execute the laws Congress passes, and the other is to DIRECT the federal workforce on addressing issues that Congress fails to act on. For several decades, Congress has failed to act on immigration reform (back to them not wanting to do their jobs) allowing a bandaided system to limp along, all the while appropriating funds to immigration and border agencies which the President must legally execute. Absent executive orders, there's no way any president of any stripe could act on this issue, and especially no way that he could, say, build a border wall that wasn't Congressionally authorized (leaving aside whether such a wall actually worked). Despite the exhortations of Presidents of both parties, numerous local and state officials, and major business segments, Congress has stubbornly refused to do anything to address the situation. Removing the Executive Order as a tool for the President won't change that.
So what would address this? I mean really address it? Voters sweeping form power those sclarocretic Congressmen and Senators who have made multi-decade careers of obstruction and legislative laziness. It might take more then one election cycle, but if ALL the bums got thrown out, then the People's Representatives might actually choose to represent the people, and then do something about many of these issues.
Because we are saying that its not true that "Crime" is up when in fact all crime but homicide is down, and we'd like the discussion to be rooted in the actual stats and not broad brush strokes.
Because - as noted above ins several places - crime is NOT up. One kinds of crime is up, and that appears to be a blip in unusual social and economic circumstances of a global pandemic.
When we start prosecuting tax cheats at the other end of the scale regularly and harshly, then we can debate arresting people selling loosies . . . til then, the sales of loosies might just be a way for someone to survive in our capitol driven economy. We used to think such origin stories were the bomb.
On “Wednesday Writs: Bar Exam, Gatekeeping, and Cheese Snobbery Edition”
Its also why all thee coastal wetland restoration programs down here are so expensive. All that land - while submerged - is in private hands and you can't turn it back into emergent wetland without compensating land owners . . .
On “2021 Saw Highest Levels of Inflation In 40 Years”
And the Fed isn't hiking rates yet either.
"
I hope not. But like Carter his party on the Hill isn't helping these days.
On “Wednesday Writs: Bar Exam, Gatekeeping, and Cheese Snobbery Edition”
Same thing in statistics - knowing how two write a two factor ANOVA is less useful now then knowing why your data needs one, since all the good stats programs are essentially drag and drop or pull down menus. Some of the data visualization programs still require programming skills, but the SAS I learned in grad school in 1993 has long passed its usefulness.
"
My federal land management colleagues universally hate practicing in Louisiana. During Deep Water Horizon we had a small army of attorney's working 24-7 getting access rights and temporary easements because land that has become permanently submerged is still considered private land. So we'd be running across an open bay, miles from shore, and hit a line of pipes sticking up out of the water with No Trespassing signs on them. Absent written consent, we couldn't go look for oil much less send clean up crews.
I don't know the criminal side, but I do know my several friends who are practicing attorneys had to take two bar exams after law school to admitted at bar anywhere else.
On “2021 Saw Highest Levels of Inflation In 40 Years”
Well many of us are sure of that, but the economists quoted in the MSM don't want to be sure of that because it impacts their ability to garner huge corporate consulting fees.
On “Wednesday Writs: Bar Exam, Gatekeeping, and Cheese Snobbery Edition”
The Napoleonic Law Code in Louisiana would like a word . . .
On “Local Gets Things Done!”
Most federal statutes actually have to be renewed periodically - remember the kerfuffle when Obama supported renewal of the Patriot Act? Congress has to vote on the renewal, whet they don't usually do is a full committee mark up or any analysis of effectiveness.
And again they can't pass appropriations on a deadline they have given themselves (and moved at least once) - an Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 duty assigned to Congress:
"
Now now Chip, don't you know only Democrats have agency in the Senate . . . .
"
How very Libertarian of you. Now, would accept them having minimal influence on the live of others, say by not being able to strike down Roe? Because the office holder of say Texas sure seem to think they can have an impact on my daughters lives by forcing the SCOTUS to toss Roe and Republican senators sure seem to want to prevent it from becoming federal law and thus a national standard.
"
This is kind of the same thing as getting rid of the filibuster: whether or not it’s a good idea seems to be largely based on what one tribe or the other wants to do right now and the other side who is currently getting their way despite a minority of votes gets to say “Do it and you’ll be very unhappy with what happens when we inevitably take the majority in the future.” But the filibuster isn’t a Constitutional rule (yet, y’all might decide to make it one).
Well given that we know what Republicans will can off the filibuster whenever they think it stands in their way as the majority I think this horse is well away from its barn.
"
with the exception of Georgia and Florida, the southern states don't have "large" cities. Our state capitol - the blue city - is 166,383. Our next largest city is Gulfport at 72,926. Baton Rouge, LA is 227,470 and New Orleans - which is quite liberal - is only 388,424. Alabama's largest city is Huntsville at 215,006; the state capitol is third largest at 200,603.
So no, southern states aren't split between urban and exurban environments politically in any meaningful way.
"
Texas for one - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/05/texas-republicans-endorse-legislation-vote-secession
But equally as worrisome is this polling:
https://usmedia.buzz/2021/10/16/polls-show-mounting-support-for-state-secessions/
"
We have red states. I live in one of them. Only one city in the state might be considered blue . . .
"
Exactly. Congress won't pass a budget on time. They've punted on immigration reform numerous times. And on and on. SCOTUS keeps slapping down the follow-on executive actions and telling Congress to act, but it doesn't. And too many Americans seem to think this is ok.
Can't solve that with an amendment.
"
The states in the civil war didn't secede from a standpoint of good will. They wanted to continue enslaving other humans. They deserve the a$$ kicking they got.
Modern red states proposing seceding do so to keep the vestages of Jim Crow intact. Should they go that road they will deserve the a$$ kicking they will get.
"
The Southern states used secession as a vehicle to try and keep the "states right" to enslave Africans and others to provide labor for their plantations. So when someone says "state rights" I always ask rights to what . . .
"
The current structure is rather functional and quite robust, until its not, and at present the only reason its not is that it won't support permanent minority rule.
That aside we fought a war over secession and the secessionists lost.
"
While divorce could be preferable to war, I don't want to give the Lost Cause apologists any ground to say the South was right - because it wasn't. And you and I both know they would.
On “Fixing The College Football Postseason”
Georgia beat Alabama, proving once again that all roads to the National Championship run through the SEC.
On “Local Gets Things Done!”
Quite probably. Which Is why I'm not a fan. The Constitution has a process for amendment, and it has worked 26 times so far. NO one wants to do the work or make the compromises to make it work a 27th or 28th or 29th time.
"
In my case its because most of the proposals I've seen - until this one - focus on expanding the second amendment to allow unlimited unrestricted gun ownership as well as making national all sorts of race based voting rights restrictions. Even here with the Zombie Voter and Ballot Harvesting ideas we see altering the constitution for problems that 1) are already dealt with in the states and 2) have yet to have any real impact on anything.
Its a non-starter in search of a rebellion to quash.
"
I'll give you this - unlike some of our colleagues you are willing to get direct and call spades spades.
So I'll do the same. A Constitutional Convention in this day and age carries too much danger for too little payoff. And your proposals for what should be taken up (never mind how) reflect what I hope is a willful naiveté regarding how the federal government works.
We will start here:
Those "divisions you refer to are the Executive Branch agencies - including my employer - and moving them to Congressional purview means neutering one of the three checks and balances baked into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers. Those agencies are HOW the President faithfully executes the laws of the US as he is required to do by Article Two. Now sure, amending the Constitution could end that faithful execution requirement, but what then does the president actually do?
That aside, every Cabinet agency and all of the independent agencies (EPA, NASA, etc) are helmed by people confirmed for their posts by the Senate, and are already subject to removal by impeachment under federal law. That works as a threat because the agency heads don't work for Congress. Moving them across branches takes away that stick. And no agency head or career civil servant in the federal government is immune from prosecution except for the folks in the intelligence community and law enforcement.
Then there's this:
If your angst is aimed at federal civil servants, consider this: Since 1986 (by law) federal employees retirements have largely been funded through a 401K-like investment fund called the Thrift Savings Plan. Because it owns and hold stocks to make its portfolio, the TSP is one giant investment fund that essentially requires federal civil servants to invest in stocks if they want to have an adequately funded retirement. Nearly all of the federal civil service is under this now. So to make your idea happen, you'd have to shut that down, and go back to the defined benefit pension only approach that Congress wanted to move away from in 1986. That would drive the cost up significantly, never mind the legal implications.
If your beef is with Congress - who can credibly be accused of insider trading based on the information they receive in their oversight and investigational hearings - I'm with you, but this proposal doesn't address that problem.
Next:
While I would LOVE to be able to recall my Congressman - who's local nickname is No Show - this runs smack into federalism. 19 states already have state office recall laws that could be amended (probably much easier) to allow this since senators (at least) serve the whole state. Unfortunately SCOTUS ruled in 1967 that there is no legal way to recall senators or congressman.
Next:
Congress can't appropriate funds now on an annual basis - so I see no way this works.
Executive Orders are issued by the President alone and serve two purposes - one is to tell the federal workforce HOW to faithfully execute the laws Congress passes, and the other is to DIRECT the federal workforce on addressing issues that Congress fails to act on. For several decades, Congress has failed to act on immigration reform (back to them not wanting to do their jobs) allowing a bandaided system to limp along, all the while appropriating funds to immigration and border agencies which the President must legally execute. Absent executive orders, there's no way any president of any stripe could act on this issue, and especially no way that he could, say, build a border wall that wasn't Congressionally authorized (leaving aside whether such a wall actually worked). Despite the exhortations of Presidents of both parties, numerous local and state officials, and major business segments, Congress has stubbornly refused to do anything to address the situation. Removing the Executive Order as a tool for the President won't change that.
So what would address this? I mean really address it? Voters sweeping form power those sclarocretic Congressmen and Senators who have made multi-decade careers of obstruction and legislative laziness. It might take more then one election cycle, but if ALL the bums got thrown out, then the People's Representatives might actually choose to represent the people, and then do something about many of these issues.
On “Manhattan DA Joins The Progressive Side of Law Enforcement Reform”
You really don't like to deal in nuance do you?
Because we are saying that its not true that "Crime" is up when in fact all crime but homicide is down, and we'd like the discussion to be rooted in the actual stats and not broad brush strokes.
Because - as noted above ins several places - crime is NOT up. One kinds of crime is up, and that appears to be a blip in unusual social and economic circumstances of a global pandemic.
"
When we start prosecuting tax cheats at the other end of the scale regularly and harshly, then we can debate arresting people selling loosies . . . til then, the sales of loosies might just be a way for someone to survive in our capitol driven economy. We used to think such origin stories were the bomb.