All Things in Moderation

Morning Report – Housing starts slump 05/16/13

57 Responses

1. 

   yellojkt, on May 16, 2013 at 7:26 am said:

   Why price controls never work, lesson 57. Venezuela is out of toilet paper.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   lmsinca, on May 16, 2013 at 7:28 am said:

   I don’t know if this will go anywhere but I guess it’s a start.

   On Thursday, the Drug Policy Alliance will release An Exit Strategy for the Failed War on Drugs. This comprehensive report contains 75 broad and incremental recommendations for legislative reforms related to civil rights, deficit reduction, law enforcement, foreign policy, sentencing and re-entry, effective drug treatment, public health, and drug prevention education. The guide will be released at a forum on the Hill cosponsored by Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), both of whom fought for major drug policy reform at the local level before running for Congress and winning.

   Among the recommendations included in the Exit Strategy:

   Allow states to reform their drug policies without federal interference.
   Shift the focus of the federal drug budget from failed supply-side programs to cost-effective demand and harm reduction strategies.
   Repeal federal mandatory minimum sentencing.
   Repeal the federal syringe funding ban.
   Eliminate federal possession and paraphernalia laws.
   Declare a moratorium on creating new drug crimes, increasing existing drug sentences, or criminalizing more drugs.
   Eliminate or cut drug war subsidies to the states to reduce incarceration and civil rights abuses.
   Ensure the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s essential health benefit rule guarantees access to evidence-based drug treatment options, such as methadone and buprenorphine, in the plans offered in the individual and small group markets, both inside and outside the ACA Exchanges.
   Establish federal funding for state, county, tribal and non-profit recipients who provide overdose prevention training and resources to communities.
   Encourage and allow for the establishment of supervised injection facilities, which are proven internationally to save lives, save money and increase participation in drug treatment without increasing drug use.

   Some of it sounds like a big bonus for the treatment industry.

   http://www.alternet.org/congressmen-help-launch-drug-war-exit-strategy-guide?page=0%2C1&paging=off

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     ScottC, on May 16, 2013 at 7:52 am said:

     A very even-handed and insightful article, written back in 2004, on the history of post-Roe abortion politics, culminating in the federal attempt, and subsequent blocking by the courts, of a ban on partial-birth abortions. I found the whole thing really interesting, but this section seems particularly relevant following the Gosnell episode. (The trial mentioned refers to legal proceedings on the partial-birth abortion ban):

     “Not for the faint,” read the opening line in a San Francisco legal newspaper article, summing up the proceedings, and it wasn’t until after the trial had ended that I began to understand my own disorientation—this feeling that something important was underway but that I was unable to see it, as though it kept hovering at the periphery of my vision. Squeamishness, I had assumed, like my inability to look at the movie screen when the bloody part comes on; this is what comes of letting the litigators shoo the P.R.-conscious advocates away and fling open the door to the procedure room. Here it is, people. Deal with it. Eventually, though, it seemed to me that part of the reason my head hurt was that all of us in the courtroom were staring in the wrong direction. There is a sober, profoundly difficult public conversation to be had about second- and third-trimester abortion in this country: about whether it is or is not appropriate for the law to continue regarding a twenty-two-week abortion as a private woman-doctor decision, for example. (The United States is one of a very few Western countries whose laws require no justification at all for abortion before viability; in many European countries with liberal first-trimester policies, a legal line is drawn somewhere between twelve and eighteen weeks.[8]) What is the point in the developing fetal life at which the reason for ending it becomes the state’s business, our collective business? If viability is properly that point, is it sensible or is it evasive to maintain the post-viability catch-all of “all factors” health? What would happen if we opened the floor to straightforward talk about fetal-deformity abortions? What do we want to do with the late-abortion cases that don’t arouse widespread sympathy when their circumstances are explained—not the hyperbolic prom-dress girl but the real-world messes that show up in clinics every day: the woman whose life is a disaster, the fourteen-year-old who’s been hiding it under baggy clothes? Is it right or wrong to differentiate between them and the woman who doesn’t receive the Down syndrome diagnosis until after she has picked out the baby’s name?

     The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban argument is not this conversation, and part of the Roe v. Wade legacy has been warring camps whose all-or-nothing agendas—the sanctity of prenatal life, or the inviolability of the pregnant woman’s autonomy—work against our being able to have it. Bring up the European model with an American pro-choice leader, and the conversation makes two quick turns: first, to the observation that most American states have ended public abortion funding, so that poor women trying to come up with payment money are sometimes pushed into later abortion by the very system right-to-lifers helped create. But there’s something deeper than that at work. Roe was a privacy ruling, declaring that the right to abortion was part of a woman’s constitutional right to privacy, and over the years defending Roe has come to mean defending that privacy so completely and so ferociously that almost any expression of public concern for the fetus is received as a threat, a step onto the famous slippery slope, at the bottom of which lie the septic abortion wards of the pre-legalization years. Right-to-life strategists knew how well this adamancy would work in their favor when they rolled out the first partial-birth legislation, and they will try to capitalize on it again starting this fall, when their lead agenda item will be the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, the next incarnation of the force-the-visuals campaign, which has all the explosive public relations potential of its predecessor, minus (so far, at least) a good set of drawings. “Full-court press,” the New Jersey Republican congressman Chris Smith has said, describing the vigor with which he and his Senate colleague Sam Brownback (R., Kansas) intend to push their memorably named legislation; the bill doesn’t directly restrict abortion but instead mandates that every woman having an abortion at twenty weeks or more be told beforehand, by her abortion provider, that “there is substantial evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will cause the unborn child pain.”

     LikeLike

     Reply
3. 

   yellojkt, on May 16, 2013 at 8:48 am said:

   That article was very insightful and even-handed. I particularly observed that the informed consent strategies being discussed are the precursors to the current wave of vaginal ultrasound laws being promulgated. The anti-abortion groups are playing a very long game.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     ScottC, on May 16, 2013 at 9:23 am said:

     One thing I hadn’t really known, and that I thought was interesting, was that when Roe was delivered, it went much further than even the pro-abortion side ever expected.

     Doctors making the “necessary for health” call, the Court ruled, were to consider “all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient.” If the doctor attests that she needs it, in other words, Roe and Doe say the state is not supposed to interfere, no matter how advanced her pregnancy is. This is not right-to-life cant. It’s one of several aspects of the abortion rulings that went so much further than what either side expected that within a few weeks of January 1973 dozens of scattered opposition groups had coalesced into a passionate, implacable national opposition movement devoted to either a constitutional human-life amendment or a complete reversal of Roe.

     LikeLike

     Reply
     • 

       markinaustin, on May 16, 2013 at 10:33 am said:

       The weakest legal ground [the untenable one in my view] in R v W is its reliance on medical ethics to explicate a constitutional standard. The strongest constitutional ground is that basic legal rights are granted to persons, and that persons are born, not merely conceived. A more narrow ruling was possible. Refusal to grant cert was also possible.

       LikeLike

       Reply
       • 

         ScottC, on May 16, 2013 at 11:20 am said:

         Mark:

         The weakest legal ground [the untenable one in my view] in R v W is its reliance on medical ethics to explicate a constitutional standard.

         I think the weakest legal ground is its reliance on emanations from penumbras.

         The strongest constitutional ground is that basic legal rights are granted to persons, and that persons are born, not merely conceived.

         I don’t think that supports Roe at all.

         The fundamental ruling in Roe rests upon the rights of state legislatures, not the rights of unborn humans. Certainly if the constitution could be read to include unborn humans as “citizens”, then a sort of anti-Roe ruling would have been easily justifiable, ie states cannot allow abortion. But even if we assume that unborn humans cannot be citizens and therefore are not protected by the constitution, that tells us nothing at all about whether the federal government has the legitimate power to prevent states from disallowing abortion.

         LikeLike
       • 

         markinaustin, on May 16, 2013 at 12:14 pm said:

         Again, Scott, you view this from the indefensible POV that the mother, who is a person, has no rights. When can the state criminalize the mother’s control of her body? Viewed from that direction, the answer becomes when the fetus within her could live separately from her, given normal care.

         LikeLike
       • 

         ScottC, on May 16, 2013 at 12:43 pm said:

         Mark:

         Again, Scott, you view this from the indefensible POV that the mother, who is a person, has no rights.

         Not in the slightest. I simply view it from the point of view that the mother, who is a citizen, does not possess the constitutional rights that SCOTUS claimed in Roe.

         When can the state criminalize the mother’s control of her body? Viewed from that direction, the answer becomes when the fetus within her could live separately from her, given normal care.

         No. Control of her body was never an issue. The question before the court was when can the state criminalize her disposition of the fetus inside her. And even viewed from that direction, the answer as far as the constitution (and hence a properly deliberating SCOTUS) is concerned is whenever the people of the state want to because there is nothing in the constitution granting the federal government authority over the matter.

         LikeLike
       • 

         ScottC, on May 16, 2013 at 1:30 pm said:

         Mark:

         The whole “control of one’s body” argument is pure political propaganda advanced by pro-abortion forces. It has nothing to do with SCOTUS’ Roe decision. In fact, if you read Roe, what you will find is the following:

         The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one’s body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court’s decisions.

         The court’s decision was made on the grounds of a right to privacy, not a right to control one’s own body, a right which the Court is not even sure is even closely related to the right on which the court based its decision. And other than the above, I could find no references at all to controlling one’s own body.

         BTW, the more I think about it, the more outrageous I find it that you, a trained lawyer, could conclude that to assert that states have a constitutional right to determine if and when to outlaw abortion is to assert that women have no rights at all. I am really at a loss.

         LikeLike
       • 

         markinaustin, on May 16, 2013 at 3:25 pm said:

         I am really at a loss.

         Perhaps because I did not write that.

         Clearly states have an interest in protecting the potentiality of human life, as well as the health of the mother, at various stages of pregnancy.

         I readily concede that the 9th and 14th A arguments were based on Mom’s privacy rights as they had been developed by the Court, rather than the hyperbolic control of Mom’s own body, which was my attempt to provoke you. FWIW, Rehnquist’s dissent is quite good in the case and first points out how easy it would have been to deny cert. Rehnquist wrote: If the Texas statute were to prohibit an abortion even where the mother’s life is in jeopardy, I have little doubt that such a statute would lack a rational relation to a valid state objective under the test stated in Williamson, supra. Rehnquist objected to setting the “rational relation to a valid state objective” bar so low that all first trimester abortions were permissible. Rehnquist conceded that If the Court means by the term “privacy” no more than that the claim of a person to be free from unwanted state regulation of consensual transactions may be a form of “liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no doubt that similar claims have been upheld in our earlier decisions on the basis of that liberty. However, he pointed out that freedom from liberty deprivation is not guaranteed, while freedom from deprivation of liberty without due process is guaranteed. Rehnquist’s concessions in the dissent are noteworthy because they point up that part of the Opinion was grounded in prior case law, but much of it was invented for the case.

         I, too, think that if RvW had not been heard, the entire abortion debate would have gone in a different direction, and we would likely have rare, safe, legal abortions available most places today. However, once Henry Wade’s team argued that personhood began at conception, there was going to be a majority opinion that said it didn’t, and that terminating early pregnancies was within the mother’s/doctor’s scope of authority, not the states’.

         Thus the 9th A claim, btw. Now, b/c the 9th preceded the 14th, it originally operated against the federal gummint, only. The 14th A., by necessary inplication, makes the 9th operate against the states, as well. Rehnquist pointed out that many states had abortion statutes in 1866, so no one in congress thought the operation of the 9th through the 14th invalidated them. That is not persuasive, of course.

         The only way a 9th A. right gets tested is if a citizen claims one in a court. It is tough to keep an abortion rights claim alive for the requisite time to get an appellate opinion, if either birth or termination moots the controversy. So to me the big issue in RvW was procedural, as it is to Scalia, from what he has written. The Supremes said that litigation involving pregnancy, which is “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” is an exception to the usual federal rule that an actual controversy must exist at review stages, and not simply when the action is initiated. Understandable, but unusual.

         LikeLike
       • 

         markinaustin, on May 16, 2013 at 3:45 pm said:

         It is also with some irony that the 9th A. is beloved by conservatives who hate Griswold, where the concurring opinion invoked it to claim the right to privacy in the bedroom.

         Fed Cts do not easily buy 9th A. claims. Quoting an online source by copy-paste:

         For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found no Ninth Amendment right to resist the draft (United States v. Uhl, 436 F.2d 773 [1970]). The Sixth Circuit Court ruled that there is no Ninth Amendment right to possess an unregistered submachine gun (United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 [1976]). The Fourth Circuit Court held that the Ninth Amendment does not guarantee the right to produce, distribute, or experiment with mind-altering drugs such as marijuana (United States v. Fry, 787 F.2d 903 [1986]). The Eighth Circuit Court denied a claim asserting that the Ninth Amendment guaranteed Americans the right to a radiation-free environment (Concerned Citizens of Nebraska v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 970 F.2d 421 [1992]).

         This series of cases has led some scholars to conclude that the Ninth Amendment may be returning to a constitutional hibernation. Yet the Ninth Amendment retains some vitality. In Roe v. Wade, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that a state law prohibiting abortion in all instances except to save the life of the mother violated the right to privacy guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment (314 F. Supp. 1217 [1970]).

         On appeal the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling, stating that the right to privacy, “whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy” (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 [1973]). Federal courts continue to rely on the Ninth Amendment in support of a woman’s constitutional right to choose abortion under certain circumstances.
         ——————————————
         So perhaps the only right that has been recognized by a court under the 9th is privacy. The interesting issue is who decides when a 9th A. right exists. Obviously, people can claim it in court – but are highly unlikely to prevail. Congress could pass laws creating “rights” in people and claim the 9th as a source. So could a state lege. Interesting.

         LikeLike
       • 

         ScottC, on May 16, 2013 at 9:53 pm said:

         Mark:

         Perhaps because I did not write that.

         Not having explicitly written something does not absolve you of the unavoidable implications of what you did write.  

         To recap, I simply advanced the view that the decision of how abortion should be regulated constitutionally belongs with with the states, not the fed.  Your response was to accuse me of approaching the issue from the “indefensible” viewpoint that women have no rights.  Such a response is utterly inexplicable unless you hold that to assert the former is to necessarily believe the latter.  

         So if you do not hold the above, please explain what led you to accuse me of holding the POV that women have no rights.

         …rather than the hyperbolic control of Mom’s own body, which was my attempt to provoke you.

         Provoke me into what?

         LikeLike
4. 

   jnc4p, on May 16, 2013 at 11:31 am said:

   Steve Pearlstein:

   “The case for austerity isn’t dead yet
   By Steven Pearlstein, Published: May 14, 2013 at 11:15 am”

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/the-case-for-austerity-isnt-dead-yet/

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     markinaustin, on May 16, 2013 at 12:59 pm said:

     JNC – boy, do I agree with Pearlstein, in spades.

     Ds, especially, are Keynesian in bad times, but profligate in good times; but Rs have been too. Conservatives here have been even handed in their criticism of R profligacy, I think. What surprises me is how many Rs think their party is for small gov. I think George will tell us that is what the TEA movement is all about – changing the Rs to a really smallgov party.

     I think Pearlstein, like many others of my generation, sees the value in Keynesian theory, which would have us run surpluses in good times, not deficits all the time. The MMT people scare me to death. It justifies perpetual deficits which is feel good to many politicians. In both parties.

     LikeLike

     Reply
5. 

   yellojkt, on May 16, 2013 at 1:09 pm said:

   I think Pearlstein, like many others of my generation, sees the value in Keynesian theory, which would have us run surpluses in good times,

   Like in say the waning days of the Clinton Administration? Who decided to reverse that policy?

   And of course Krugman disputes Pearlstein. He quotes Noah Smith as saying:

   I conjecture that “austerians” are concerned that anti-recessionary macro policy will allow a country to “muddle through” a crisis without improving its institutions. In other words, they fear that a successful stimulus would be wasting a good crisis.

   What Krugman is saying is that rather than helping an injured person up like a Good Samaritan, the Austerians would hold the guy down and force feed him spinach since he is in no shape to run away.

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   novahockey, on May 16, 2013 at 1:28 pm said:

   “would hold the guy down and force feed him spinach since he is in no shape to run away.”

   hmm. or not help him up. he’s just going to get in the way of a better runner.

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   jnc4p, on May 16, 2013 at 1:58 pm said:

   “yellojkt, on May 16, 2013 at 1:09 pm said:

   And of course Krugman disputes Pearlstein. He quotes Noah Smith as saying:

   I conjecture that “austerians” are concerned that anti-recessionary macro policy will allow a country to “muddle through” a crisis without improving its institutions. In other words, they fear that a successful stimulus would be wasting a good crisis.

   What Krugman is saying is that rather than helping an injured person up like a Good Samaritan, the Austerians would hold the guy down and force feed him spinach since he is in no shape to run away.”

   Yes, but you still have to answer the question of who exactly is supposed to lend Greece money for more fiscal stimulus?

   The real answer of course is default and devalue.

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   jnc4p, on May 16, 2013 at 2:18 pm said:

   Mark – see also:

   http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113220/paul-krugmans-misguided-moral-crusade-against-austerity#

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   Brent Nyitray, on May 16, 2013 at 2:22 pm said:

   Sounds like a lot of PL

   http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-supporter-has-perfectly-improbable-explanati,32462/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. 

    yellojkt, on May 16, 2013 at 2:58 pm said:

    jnc,
    Kinsley in his article says:

    I don’t think suffering is good, but I do believe that we have to pay a price for past sins, and the longer we put it off, the higher the price will be.

    That is a rather Calvinistic outlook. It’s more like previous ‘sins’ are sunk cost. There is nothing you can do about them now. You just have to decide what the best policy going forward is.

    LikeLike

    Reply
11. 

    yellojkt, on May 16, 2013 at 2:59 pm said:

    The Onion quit being satire quite some time ago.

    LikeLike

    Reply
12. 

    jnc4p, on May 16, 2013 at 3:00 pm said:

    Or Kinsley is just saying free money isn’t really free. MMT has a cost. If there was a free lunch based on government spending, we would have figured it out a while ago.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on May 16, 2013 at 3:25 pm said:

      From the NYT:

      Yet Mr. Obama also expresses exasperation. In private, he has talked longingly of “going Bulworth,” a reference to a little-remembered 1998 Warren Beatty movie about a senator who risked it all to say what he really thought. While Mr. Beatty’s character had neither the power nor the platform of a president, the metaphor highlights Mr. Obama’s desire to be liberated from what he sees as the hindrances on him.

      Interesting…the allegedly non-ideological pragmatist longs to go Bulworth.

      LikeLike

      Reply
13. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on May 16, 2013 at 4:48 pm said:

    I am fascinated to think what “going Bullworth” means to Obama.

    Who would like to hazard some guesses. I cannot think of anything that he believes that he had not already publicly stated. What am I missing? Seriously.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      yellojkt, on May 16, 2013 at 5:21 pm said:

      I cannot think of anything that he believes that he had not already publicly stated. What am I missing?

      It’s the myth that Obama is not a slightly left of center moderate and that if he let his hair down people would rally around his radical progressive agenda.

      LikeLike

      Reply
      • 

        ScottC, on May 17, 2013 at 5:18 am said:

        yello:

        It’s the myth that Obama is not a slightly left of center moderate and that if he let his hair down people would rally around his radical progressive agenda.

        It was Obama himself who said he wants to go “Bulworth”, which is essentially an admission that his public persona is a less than honest presentation of what he really thinks. It could mean, I suppose, that he is much more moderate than he is letting on. Seems highly unlikely to me, though.

        LikeLike

        Reply
        • 

          yellojkt, on May 17, 2013 at 6:11 am said:

          In Bulworth Warren Beatty does some gangsta rapping. Maybe Obama wants to sing. He does hang around with Jay Z a lot.

          LikeLike
        • 

          ScottC, on May 17, 2013 at 6:39 am said:

          yello:

          In Bulworth Warren Beatty does some gangsta rapping.

          Indeed he does:

          “Yo, everybody gonna get sick someday / But nobody knows how they gonna pay / Health care, managed care, HMOs / Ain’t gonna work, no sir, not those / ‘Cause the thing that’s the same in every one of these / Is these m—–f—ers there, the insurance companies! . . . Yeah, yeah / You can call it single-payer or Canadian way / Only socialized medicine will ever save the day! Come on now, lemme hear that dirty word–SOCIALISM!”

          Hard to imagine Obama saying that.

          LikeLike
    • 

      ScottC, on May 17, 2013 at 5:23 am said:

      McWing:

      I cannot think of anything that he believes that he had not already publicly stated.

      Perhaps that the IRS really should be targetting conservative groups.

      LikeLike

      Reply
      • 

        ScottC, on May 17, 2013 at 6:18 am said:

        The administration of our slightly left of center, moderate president apparently is restricting freedom of speech on college campuses even further.

        LikeLike

        Reply
14. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on May 16, 2013 at 5:37 pm said:

    But what agenda would be tout that he hasn’t already?

    LikeLike

    Reply
15. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on May 16, 2013 at 7:03 pm said:

    That is some sweet, sweet Otherizing! Kudos my good man, Kudos.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/16/1209530/-Chris-Hedges-NPR-Interview-On-The-Right-Wing-Proto-Fascist-Movement-in-The-U-S

    LikeLike

    Reply
16. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on May 16, 2013 at 7:14 pm said:

    Heh.

    http://minx.cc/?post=340043

    I’m smaaaaaaaaart!

    LikeLike

    Reply
17. 

    ScottC, on May 16, 2013 at 10:21 pm said:

    Mark:

    However, once Henry Wade’s team argued that personhood began at conception, there was going to be a majority opinion that said it didn’t, and that terminating early pregnancies was within the mother’s/doctor’s scope of authority, not the states’.

    I don’t understand. Why would Wades argument force SCOTUS to make an a-constitutional ruling?

    Rehnquist pointed out that many states had abortion statutes in 1866, so no one in congress thought the operation of the 9th through the 14th invalidated them. That is not persuasive, of course.

    Why “of course”? In fact it seems to me that Rhenquist is of course correct.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      markinaustin, on May 17, 2013 at 5:33 am said:

      Why “of course”? In fact it seems to me that Rhenquist is of course correct.

      1] Congress has never once considered the 9th Amendment wrt anything at all. It has never announced a statute based on the 9th. Nor would we expect Congress to.

      2] While passing the 14th, and its language extending to all persons in each state the privileges and immunities of all citizens while extending to all citizens due process and equal protection, Congress gave itself broad authority to pass statutes to achieve the goals. The statutes they did pass were the first Civil Rights Acts. They did not even get around to including women as a class at all in those acts, probably since the Amendment itself extended the vote in federal elections to male voters, only. That language was cured, so to speak, later. The world of statutes Congress did not pass at that time did not prohibit them from passing statutes at another time, nor did it limit a Court from invalidating a state law based on its abrogation of a federal constitutional right.

      3] It should be obvious that if any reserved rights of the people [not made explicit] are to exist, it will not be the Congress, against whom the rights were reserved, that was the intended arbiter of those rights. There has been an argument made that the court system should not be the arbiter of the 9th Amendment, but it is the only possible choice, in practicality.

      4] All state laws that existed at the time of the passage of the 14th could be scrutinized by courts in the light of the 14th afterward. So, ultimately, it makes little sense to argue that because many states had such laws in 1866 the 14th A could not reach them. It does make sense to argue that the 14thA was not directly intended to reach them at the time as it was obviously directly intended to make the slaves freed by the 13th full citizens. However, the 14thA is not limited to that direct goal by its own language.

      Time’s up. I am a witness this morning in a proceeding and under subpoena – causing me to miss Dara’s PharmD ceremony. I am a pissed off witness.

      LikeLike

      Reply
      • 

        ScottC, on May 17, 2013 at 6:54 am said:

        Mark:

        All state laws that existed at the time of the passage of the 14th could be scrutinized by courts in the light of the 14th afterward. So, ultimately, it makes little sense to argue that because many states had such laws in 1866 the 14th A could not reach them.

        Yes, I agree with that.

        I remain interested in why you think that my view that the constitution leaves the issue of abortion to state legislatures to decide derives from the notion that women have no rights.

        LikeLike

        Reply
18. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on May 17, 2013 at 6:20 am said:

    Is the concensus that Obama is lying to himself? That there is not a political position he has that he has not expressed publicly?

    Does anybody in the press, to whom this Bullworth message was aimed, think he holds a political opinion he hasn’t expressed yet?

    LikeLike

    Reply
19. 

    lmsinca, on May 17, 2013 at 6:52 am said:

    I think he’d like to express what he really thinks of a few choice Republicans, such as Boehner, Cantor, Ryan and McConnell. I doubt he’s happy about making nice at dinners and such.

    Mark, I’m so sorry you’re missing your daughter’s ceremony. That would piss me off too. One notable fact from our daughter’s ceremony was it was their largest group of graduating females ever. Wish your daughter the best of luck from me.

    LikeLike

    Reply
20. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on May 17, 2013 at 7:11 am said:

    Lms,

    Doesn’t he question the motives of his Republican opponents all the time? He accuses them of hostage takers willing to shoot their hostages, or wanting to increase cynicism of government, etc. The strawmen he torches per speech could power a small city for a month.

    Based on the above, what do you think he would say about them that he hasn’t already?

    LikeLike

    Reply
21. 

    jnc4p, on May 17, 2013 at 7:23 am said:

    From the NYT Bulworth article:

    “This week, as Mr. Obama confronted a scandal frenzy unlike any he has faced, he let his guard down during fund-raisers in New York. “My thinking was after we beat them in 2012, well, that might break the fever,” he told donors. “And it’s not quite broken yet.”

    He sounded almost plaintive in wishing he had more ability to advance his agenda. “I sure want to do some governing,” he told another set of contributors. “I want to get some stuff done. I don’t have a lot of time.””

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/us/politics/new-controversies-may-undermine-obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    It’s not a fever and it won’t be broken. Obama’s fundamental theory of politics, namely that there isn’t a red America or a blue America but a United States of America is wrong. And thus his conclusion that most of politics is about false choices which he can overcome is wrong as well.

    Charles Pierce puts it succinctly:

    “Watching the administration’s momentum fade on this issue is to see a president presented with the final, practical refutation of the speech that made him famous. It turns out there is a red America and a blue America. It turns out that there is a conservative America and a liberal America. It turns out that the things that divide us are stronger than the things that unite us. Or, at least, that the things that divide us are more politically salient than the things that unite us. The failure on guns is the last, final refutation of what Barack Obama said he believed about the people of this county.
    …

    This is the fool’s gold that this president has been chasing ever since he broke onto the scene. He staked his entire career — and certainly, his entire presidency — on the notion that the right person at the right time could heal the “divisions” in our society — which, he told us, were not the real products of our politics, but the temporary fever dreams of a country led astray. The fact is that those “divisions” are our politics.”

    http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/president-obamas-illusions-040913

    Ezra Klein attempted to channel Obama as Bulworth and gets the tone right in my opinion, but the net result is he sounds even more whiny than usual.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/16/if-obama-went-bulworth-heres-what-hed-say/

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on May 17, 2013 at 8:33 am said:

      jnc:

      Obama’s fundamental theory of politics, namely that there isn’t a red America or a blue America but a United States of America is wrong.

      I’ve always thought that was just typical campaign (and post-campaign) rhetorical cant, designed to portray himself as moderate non-ideologue who would unite the nation. I’ve never thought he actually believed there weren’t real, significant political differences in the nation. I’ve also always thought that his portrayal of Republicans as particularly radical or out of step with historical norms – like references to “the fever” – was just a political strategy aimed at throwing red meat to the rabid base and appealing to low information voters.

      It’s hard for me to imagine that a guy who is reputed to be as smart and wily as Obama has been portrayed would be so dumb as to actually believe his own political rhetoric.

      LikeLike

      Reply
22. 

    jnc4p, on May 17, 2013 at 7:25 am said:

    “Time’s up. I am a witness this morning in a proceeding and under subpoena – causing me to miss Dara’s PharmD ceremony. I am a pissed off witness.”

    That sucks. Congrats on her PharmD. Does she have a job lined up yet?

    LikeLike

    Reply
23. 

    lmsinca, on May 17, 2013 at 7:26 am said:

    I don’t know McWing…………..I’m probably just projecting. I think he’s holding back though, I do it all the time so I assume he does as well.

    LikeLike

    Reply
24. 

    lmsinca, on May 17, 2013 at 7:31 am said:

    Funny, I used to believe the same thing. A fool’s errand if he truly believed it. What’s even more ironic is I believe we’re further apart, filled with more animosity, than ever. I find it demoralizing and bumped up against a lot of it while I was in AZ. It’s not pretty out there. I think I live a very sheltered life.

    LikeLike

    Reply
25. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on May 17, 2013 at 7:36 am said:

    Let me posit that this country has always had fundamental political differences. From Hamilton vs. Jefferson. It always will have differences that are fundamental and that those differences are GOOD for the country.

    LikeLike

    Reply
26. 

    lmsinca, on May 17, 2013 at 7:45 am said:

    I completely agree with that McWing, but there is an awful lot of outright hatred out there. I read it and hear it all the time. I think there is a very unhealthy element in our political differences that I haven’t noticed since the sixties. Or maybe I’ve just changed…………………it’s difficult to say.

    I love our two party system and rely on conservatives to restrain my “socialist” tendencies. I don’t believe the appreciation is reciprocated.

    This is my day off so I’m outta here.

    LikeLike

    Reply
27. 

    novahockey, on May 17, 2013 at 7:48 am said:

    “Because this town is obsessed with conflict and political advantage and not with real problems.”

    there’s a reason it was designed to minimize to the extent possible the damage such people could inflict on the rest of us. instead, we’ve decide that if only the right people are in charge, all will be well.

    How was AZ, lms?

    LikeLike

    Reply
28. 

    lmsinca, on May 17, 2013 at 7:48 am said:

    I should add that a lot of animosity comes from the left as well. It’s one of the reasons I can barely read the comments at places even like the PL, which is mild compared to some blogs. Hardly anyone take the time or expends the energy to understand one another. We just react.

    I’m pretty discouraged so I think I’ll just go about my business of taking a day off…..ignore me.

    LikeLike

    Reply
29. 

    lmsinca, on May 17, 2013 at 7:51 am said:

    Thanks for asking Nova…………….doubtful we had any impact at all. They’ll keep trying and we’ll support their efforts from a distance. We’re back to CA issues. Right now we’re trying to draft someone to run against our R Congressman.

    LikeLike

    Reply
30. 

    novahockey, on May 17, 2013 at 7:57 am said:

    I think you just volunteered.

    LikeLike

    Reply
31. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on May 17, 2013 at 8:11 am said:

    Geeez the Kochtapus is ingenious in their astroturfing. Imagine the nefariousness of funding dozens and dozens of small budget Tea Party groups!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/17/tea-party-tax_n_3291704.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

    Diabolical! Rovian!

    LikeLike

    Reply
32. 

    novahockey, on May 17, 2013 at 8:34 am said:

    Don’t forget Scott: “‘You know, I actually believe my own bullshit!”

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on May 17, 2013 at 8:46 am said:

      nova:

      Don’t forget Scott: “‘You know, I actually believe my own bullshit!”

      I forgot about that one…I suspect that is just more of his own bullshit. 😉

      LikeLike

      Reply
33. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on May 17, 2013 at 8:41 am said:

    “Don’t call my bluff Eric!”

    God that’s funny. Gets me every time.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on May 17, 2013 at 8:49 am said:

      McWing:

      “Don’t call my bluff Eric!”

      Bushisms by Obama.

      LikeLike

      Reply
34. 

    jnc4p, on May 17, 2013 at 8:54 am said:

    President Obama owes Cantor one for getting his nominee for Medicare and Medicaid administrator confirmed by the Senate.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/cantor-i-really-expect-great-things-from-marilyn-tavenner/2011/12/01/gIQAXDGnGO_blog.html

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/eric-cantor-could-sway-gop-for-marilyn-tavenner-89777.html

    “lmsinca, on May 17, 2013 at 7:45 am said:

    I completely agree with that McWing, but there is an awful lot of outright hatred out there. I read it and hear it all the time. I think there is a very unhealthy element in our political differences that I haven’t noticed since the sixties.”

    My benchmark is 1968. I can’t think of anything recently that even remotely compares to the combination of mounting casualties from the Vietnam War, an incumbent President deciding not to run for reelection, two major assassinations and the associated riots all rolled together.

    LikeLike

    Reply