politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Time for Jeb to go?
Source:
HotAir
URL Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/29/time-for-jeb-to-go/
Published: Oct 29, 2015
Author: Ed Morrissey
Post Date: 2015-10-29 13:01:11 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 6882
Comments: 42
Earlier today, I asked, “What’s the raison d’être for Jeb! 2016 now?” Last night I put it more bluntly on Twitter: Prediction: Jeb's out before the next debate. — Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) October 29, 2015 Chuck Todd told Today’s panel this morning that the Team Bush contingent had the air of “a wake” after the debate: [T]he most significant story from last night is that Jeb Bush’s campaign now finds itself on life support, especially after Bush swung and missed when trying to hit Rubio over his Senate voting record. As one Republican operative told NBC’s Peter Alexander, Bush had to demonstrate to his supporters and donors — after a rough last few weeks — that the former Florida governor could land a punch, particularly after telegraphing to the political world that it was coming. But Bush missed. Badly. It was the equivalent of a teenager who, after telling the whole school that he was going to fight a classmate at lunchtime, ended up being the one taking the licking. We’ve covered politics long enough to know that a presidential candidate can rise from the dead (John McCain), withstand a bad debate performance (Barack Obama), and shine when it counts rather than months before the first votes are cast (John Kerry). But Jeb Bush is in trouble right now. Big trouble. Bush has to do something to buy time: For Bush, last night’s debate will either be the moment that ended his presidential campaign, or the point when his campaign hit rock bottom (because he can’t go any lower, right?). But to buy time, Team Bush has to do SOMETHING to calm the campaign’s most ardent supporters — whether it’s new campaign staff or Bush admitting to strategic mistakes. The bad news for the campaign was last night. The silver lining: Every president and nominee has faced some near-death experience. Yes, Bush has a large campaign chest, and has dominated the donor lists for some time. Where has that gotten him? He’s faded into the also-rans, now running behind Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, as well as Donald Trump and Ben Carson. In one sense, Bush’s supporters have been waiting for him to “do something” for almost a year. The examples for “silver linings” that Todd uses were all still competitive by this point in their cycles — yes, even McCain and Kerry had gotten within striking distance of the leaders. Bush is going the opposite direction. Matt Lewis has seen enough: At this point, it seems the likelihood of Bush a) tarnishing his reputation and b) inadvertently helping Donald Trump win the GOP nomination greatly exceeds the chance that he could turn things around. His body language betrays a guy who doesn’t really want to do what it takes to win today — and who is out of step with the current Republican Party. Bush’s low point came when he tried to attack Marco Rubio, and was immediately slapped down. If last night really was a “do or die” moment for his campaign, then it’s time for the Bush family to begin making “arrangements.” One gets the sense that he wants to cry “No Mas,” but accepting defeat might not be part of the entitled Bush D.N.A. The danger is that he might decide that it’s easier to attack Rubio via TV ads than in person, and that would be a shame. We’re no longer in the silly season, CNBC aside. The time for hard truths for candidates who are not distinguishing themselves has arrived, and the time for donors to have those long talks with their favorites has too. Bush should choose this moment to leave not just for that failure to gain traction, but for the strange decision to personally attack Rubio — and to botch it as badly as he did. Even beyond the fact that Bush has spent almost a year and ended up among the statistical noise despite all of his organizational and financial advantages, this all but proved that he’s simply not a good enough candidate to run in the general election. But Bush shouldn’t be the only candidate to exit as October turns to November. Here are a few others: The entire undercard — They’re entertaining, but that’s it. The dual-debate format is wearing down audiences without adding anything to the GOP’s chances for victory. They’ve had three tries at bouncing out of the second division, and all four are still the St. Louis Spiders. Enough. Reince Priebus should put an end to the warm-up act if the candidates themselves won’t do it. Mike Huckabee — He’s a former governor who connects well with people, but he’s going nowhere despite his high media profile over the last several years. Three debates is enough. Rand Paul — Perhaps the biggest surprise of this cycle is how little traction Paul actually has among Republicans nationally. He’s not good in the debate format, either. The longer he stays in, the more chance he has of doing damage to a race Paul can win — his Senate re-election bid. He has a fallback plan, and it’s time to deploy it. John Kasich — Last night was supposed to be a do-or-die moment for Kasich, who completely changed his approach … and failed again to impress. Kasich should concentrate on making himself into a viable running mate for the general election, especially since Ohio will be critical for the GOP, and part of that will be to disappear for a while rather than attacking other Republicans indiscriminately. That leaves us with six candidates — the same six that Jonathan Last cites, by the way: Trump, Carson, Rubio, Cruz, Christie, and Fiorina. All of them add substance and style to the mix onstage, and six people is about the maximum manageable for substantive discussions on policy. Christie and Fiorina are not likely to contend for the top spot, but they are tough onstage and have remained their authentic selves throughout the contest. Getting down to six now gives us a good potential for a reshuffling of the pack and a further narrowing as the primaries approach. Republicans need to start getting serious about this process. Jeb Bush has an opportunity to provide leadership in doing so. It may be his last opportunity to remind people of his best qualities, rather than let that embarrassing exchange with Rubio define him into his retirement. Poster Comment: Hard to resist the bountiful harvest of Jeb! obituaries.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-2) not displayed.
.
.
.
#3. To: TooConservative (#0)
Who would have expected this headline 3 months ago?
No one ever thought Trump could keep his numbers up (even if 60%-80% of those polled say they aren't committed to any candidate yet). Bush is falling hard because he had such a big name and reputation advantage and the Bush network of donors (overlaps with the Romney donors). When you have every advantage but can't deliver a few lines in a debate, you fall hard. As far as media and pundits are concerned, Bush is dead meat. He might still pull it out but he has nowhere near the amount of celebrity Teflon that has allowed Trump to survive some of his policy positions and general campaign remarks. Of course, this rush to hold a Jeb! funeral does tend to reflect the pundits preferring Rubio over Bush to begin with. And if they all believe that only Rubio or Bush can stop Trump/Carson, then dumping Bush to unify behind Rubio makes sense for the GOPe types and even many writers on the Right who still have buyers' regret over Dumbya's 8 years.
Jeb! is failing because he is unable to effectively compete. He could not engage with Trump without being squashed. All did not believe Jeb! could stop Trump. He attempted to attack Rubio and got squashed. Rubio is manifestly the superior politician and debater. The GOPe will coalesce around Rubio as their best candidate. On the RCP poll averages, if Rubio inherited the entire Bush following, he would rise to 16%. The Trump (26.2%), Carson (22%) and Cruz (6.6%) total is 54.8%. Fiorina is at 5.8%. The GOPe needs to find a way to lure some of the Trump/Carson/Cruz following. Rubio provides the best chance.
I look for Adelson and his RJC to swing in behind Rubio now, to finish off Bush and make Rubio grateful to them for intervening at a key juncture. About 3 weeks back, they sounded like they would come out for Rubio but they've remained silent. I think they'll come out for Marco now. And that will begin the defections of the Bush donors, resulting in a Bush death spiral and humiliation as the press cackles over his campaign implosion. GOPe knows they need to have only one candidate from Florida. And Marco is the better candidate. So they save money by uniting behind Rubio now. Look at the $60M Adelson wasted backing Newt in 2012 which he later regretted. Elected Republicans have been shy so far to endorse any prez candidate. But if Bush is out, Rubio would clean up a lot of those endorsements quickly. And party endorsements are the surest guide to who eventually gets nominated. Both parties are like this.
The entire Bush family of useless grinning fops should have gone 50 years ago and saved the nation a lot of grief.
Uh-huh. Before that it was Carson. Before that Fiorina.
The organized GOPe can unite behind a single candidate. A good question is whether the unorganized anti-establishment can likewise unite. If they are split among 2 to 4 candidates, the GOPe candidate could win against the divided opposition, even if they combine for 60%.
And either Bush or Rubio can be the lone GOPe guy if they can shove the other guy out of their way. I think that Republicans in Congress and other party honchos see Rubio as the more attractive and capable campaigner, the guy they want to head the slate of GOP election candidates in 2016. Deep party support among donors and endorsements by elected officials is still the strongest indicator of who wins a nomination in either party. If Bush gets out, Rubio is likely to clean up on party endorsements immediately as well as grabbing the Bush donors. It's the obvious roadmap for Marco.
I think all the candidates are fighting for the #2 position, hoping Trump self-d destructs and making them #1.
Uh-huh. Before that it was Carson. Before that Fiorina. Carson and Fiorina are not considered establishment politicians and you should not expect the GOP establishment to coalesce around either one of them, or Trump or Cruz.
It could be any one of the candidates, Rubio being the most likely, but if he and Bush falter or destroy each other, Christie or another could move up.
Saw this at /. today, thought you'd be interested.
All the SCOTUS opinions are already online for free, either the U.S. Reports or more recent slip op opinions at SCOTUS. I do not find PACER ridiculous. All of the court filings are there, except for those few that the court orders hidden from the public. Some of the Court documents are free. There is a page fee. Many of the federal district and appellate opinions are on the web for free, but it may take some navigating or knowing where to look. It would be great to have a single source for all the Federal and State decisions.
Certainly you'll be watching for it. I almost didn't bother to post it, thinking you'd have already heard of it but sometimes these little internet nuggets don't surface unless you read the tech sites. As usual, it is worth watching what MIT and Harvard do as special projects. They are in a league of their own in stuff like this. They like to change the world. : )
How did he become a governor?
Money and influence. Grandpappy was a senator, pappy and bro were presidents, and son is Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office. They could be the best and the brightest. I see money and influence rather than genius and competence.
You covered some large political territory, nolu. Keep in mind, Pappy Bush (HWBush) was once the director of the CIA; I think this means all the difference in the world about influence.
While there are some giant companies like Westlaw and LexisNexis that provide lawyers access to decisions, those cost a ton -- and the public is left out. WHY are tons of historical cases completely buried? Are LexisNexis, etc, -- the source of Nolu Chan's abilities to attempt to snow his opponents under with legalistic opinions? --- Just asking...
Not everything gets properly indexed. Quite often, these court rulings and precedents are only published in collections for big law firms and courthouses to use. They pay a steep price for the service. In the electronic era, we have seen companies arise who want everyone to pay the same fees but they don't actually publish the cases, they put them out as a service on a web server. There is some advantage in being able to do an electronic search of the text. Of course, big law firms and courthouses will still keep their printed copies around. You can bet some lawyers for these companies are going to try to stop Harvard from doing this. The entire legal publishing industry will take a huge hit if Harvard proceeds. I think nolu has a long list of his favorite legal haunts to find material at. So for nolu, this Harvard project would offer one-stop legal info shopping.
Many appear buried because they have not been posted on the internet on free locations, or because they are in very old, obscure Reporters that many people can't seem to find or do not know to look for. Searching for the originals of some early court opinions is difficult as they are printed in olde English fonts. Many historical decisions are from the circuit or district courts and may be difficult to find, even if available online within some Reporter volume. Old cases may use old SCOTUS notation, such as 1 Dal, or 1 Wheat. If you do not know how to convert the old system to the new system, it's difficult to know where to look in the modern U.S. Reporter series. If all you have is 19 How. 393, you may not recognize one of the most famous U.S. Supreme Court opinions in history. While 19 Howard, the whole volume, is available online for free, it may not be the easiest to find. [tpaine #21] Are LexisNexis, etc, -- the source of Nolu Chan's abilities to attempt to snow his opponents under with legalistic opinions? --- Just asking... Only in the tpaine Court of the Imagination do I use LexisNexis. The correct answer is that some people can use the Google and some can't. ALL U.S. Supreme Court opinions are free, online. The more recent ones are available as slip op opinions, generally from the date of issuance. The other two centuries worth are available in volumes of U.S. Reports. Findlaw, Justia, LII and various other free sites offer text versions of practically all SCOTUS cases, but some are incomplete or have different headnotes than the U.S. Reports. Justia, for example, provides cases in text form that can be cut and pasted. However, the earliest cases in the Reporters use olde English font which is not only difficult to read, but also not very good for OCR scanning. Some pages from the Reporter are omitted. When reading a court opinion, it should be noted that the Opinion of the Court begins with something like DOE, J. delivered the Opinion of the Court. There may be multiple pages before that which are not part of the Opinion of the Court. Sometimes concurring or dissenting opinions are not included. I don't see why tpaine feigns concern as he does not read the court opinions that are shoved in his face. That way, it is easier to make such insane claims as an amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional. Reviewing actual appellate court opinions is fundamental to legal education. Legal casebooks are full of such cases. Appellate courts review and rule upon the legal issues of a case. Reading opinions from tpaine's Court of the Imagination, one finds legalistic gibberish, unrelated to reality. It is because the imagined laws do not exist in reality that court opinions or expert legal opinion are never linked/cited and quoted to support tpaine Court of the Imagination nonsense. Yes. I usually provide a link with a court quote. Sometimes I do not include a link when the only link goes to a very large pdf of a complete bound volume. I do not expect tpaine to actually read a court opinion or a law book as there is no evidence that he ever has done so. Usually, a complete opinion as published in Lexis would be quite distinctive because of the headnotes. While they cannot copyright the text of the court opinions, they can copyright the headnotes they write in house. For a free example of LexisNexus formatting, see link for Chambers v. State, Supreme Court of Florida, April 20, 1936. Generally speaking, the Reporters only provide court opinions and none of the supporting records and briefs. https://law.duke.edu/lib/researchguides/records_briefs/ I. Introduction Records and briefs are the papers which were submitted to or generated by a court in a particular case, from the complaint (in a civil case) or the indictment (in a criminal case) to other pleadings, motions, orders, transcripts of the trial, jury verdicts, and associated materials. Legal researchers may consult these materials for a variety of reasons. Frequently, pleadings provide additional insight into the arguments which persuaded (or failed to persuade) the court. Because appellate courts review only questions of law, the record on appeal may also provide more factual background about the original case than is provided in an appellate court’s opinion. Although court filings are considered to be public records, their availability varies widely by jurisdiction. The growth of electronic filing has improved online access to recent materials. However, historical records and briefs may be more difficult to obtain without contacting the office of the court clerk, which may require a substantial copying fee. This guide outlines sources for compiled records and briefs which are available online and in the Goodson Law Library, as well as strategies for locating specific types of documents associated with a particular case. [...] In some cases, the Record of Transcript for a case may be obtained. This is the collected documents that formed the record of the case as it was forwarded by a lower court to a higher court pursuant to the appellate process. If not available online, many are available at a reasonable price.
Nice background. The Harvard project -- if not blocked by the legal tactics of the legal publishing industry -- would establish a single standard and might have the resources to OCR the old font styles of the earliest cases.
[tpaine #21] Are LexisNexis, etc, -- the source of Nolu Chan's abilities to attempt to snow his opponents under with legalistic opinions? --- Just asking... I'm not imagining that you use overly long legal opinions in attempts to 'win over' your opponents to unconstitutional points of view. I read them, and reject those that are obviously unconstitutional. -- You love them all. Any attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment would be unconstitutional, as it would infringe on an inalienable right. -- That you differ simply shows YOUR insanity.
No, you are deliberately lying to avoid discussing the clear legal precedents which demonstrate that your legal nonsense has no merit. Nobody faults you for presenting judicial opinions, long or short. You make believe that court opinions that disagree with your inane nonsense do not exist. It is legal support for your inane nonsense that does not exist. That, of course, is why you present no such legal support but merely blather. Of course. For a constitutional amendment to be effective, it must be ratified by 3/4ths of the states and approved by tpaine. Otherwise, in the tpaine Court of the Imagination, it does not count.
tpaine #21] Are LexisNexis, etc, -- the source of Nolu Chan's abilities to attempt to snow his opponents under with legalistic opinions? --- Just asking... I'm not imagining that you use overly long legal opinions in attempts to 'win over' your opponents to unconstitutional points of view. You are deliberately lying about my reaction to your overly long legal opinions. - - It's nonsense to claim I'm avoiding discussion... I read them, and reject those that are obviously unconstitutional. -- You love them all. Not true. Unconstitutional court opinions exist, and are far to common. I freely acknowledge that I can't match your 'legal support' postings, not because they don't exist, -- but because I don't have the posting expertise. -- You're beyond any doubt LF's idiot savant of unconstitutional legal opinions. Any attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment would be unconstitutional, as it would infringe on an inalienable right. -- That you differ simply shows YOUR insanity. It is simply constitutionally impossible for 3/4 of the people of our States to repeal the inalienable right to arms, --- of the rest. -- Such a despotic attempt would mean the end of the republic.
3/4th of the States (not "3/4 of the people of our States") can repeal anything in the Constitution and replace it with whatever they want. Article 5 does not contain a clause 2 saying that prior approval of tpaine is required.
If you say so. You do not have the expertise to cut and paste from court opinions.
I freely acknowledge that I can't match your 'legal support' postings, not because they don't exist, -- but because I don't have the posting expertise. -- You're beyond any doubt LF's idiot savant of unconstitutional opinions. I said so... Feel proud of your idiot savant abilities.
Are there any other amendmens that are unappealable? What do you base this unappealableness on? What article in the constitution. No I don't think repealing the second amendment is a good thing to do. But truthfully under the constitution it is probably technically legal. But not right. The constitution isn't the Bible.
It is simply constitutionally impossible for 3/4 of our States to repeal the inalienable right to arms, --- of the rest. -- Such a despotic attempt would mean the end of the republic. Which would result in the end of our Constitutional contract, -- the end of the republic. --- You really don't give a shit about that, do you? Of course it doesn't, you poor 'nolu baby'.. Now get some rest, and make an appointment with your shrink in the morning. --- You desperately need help...
The Constitution is the framework for the secular laws of the land.
Psalm 37
Yes but it isn't infallable.
Nothing secular is. The founders of the Constitution had a good handle on how this nation should work and wrote the framework. With people, indeed the Universe, being corrupted nothing is guaranteed except people will try their best to mess up everything they touch. But, there is one sure thing in this world. When the Communists get their hands on the laws, which they have, whatever liberties we have will go the way of the Dodo Bird.
Psalm 37
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Any attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment would be unconstitutional, as it would infringe on an inalienable right. -- All our inalienable rights (enunerated or not) cannot be repealed/infringed/regulated away, without voiding our constitutional contract. The nature of individual rights, -- They are rights that cannot be taken away/alienated by anyone else. -- They are violated every day, of course, but they remain our basic human rights. The whole thing, starting with the preamble... True enough, but like the bible, it attempts to put down some basic principles.
Because the tpaine Court of the Imagination has so ruled, The Constitution itself being subordinate to this almighty power.
I said so... Feel proud of your idiot savant abilities. What is amazing is you can cut and paste from my posts. I am confident that some day you will adapt and be able to use your demonstrated cut and paste skill with court opinions as well. But as long as you assure me that your 'legal support' exists, if you just identify your 'legal support' court opinions, I will offer my idiot savant abilities to post them for you. It would be a shame for the board to have to remain unaware of these 'legal support' court opinions because of your lack of posting expertise. So, don't be bashful, just give me your legal citations.
The preamble was added by the Committee on Style after the body or operational part of the Constitution had been adopted by the convention. It has no force of law whatever. Jacobsen v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905) We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question (§ 137, c. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States unless, apart from the Preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power or in some power to be properly implied therefrom. 1 Story's Const. § 462.
Jacobsen v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905) MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court. We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question (§ 137, c. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments. Justice Harlands OPINION is noted, and rejected by those of us that have sworn an oath to protect and defend the principles of liberty outlined in the document. --- (And there are millions of us who honor our Constitution, just as there are millions of you gun grabbers) Harland himself acknowledged this principle with his close: -- And that 'express delegation of power' can be found ( to protect our right to arms) in the 2nd Amendment.
There is no grant of power for anybody to do anything in the Second Amendment. It is negative in nature -- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." There is no delegation of power, either express or implied, only imagined.
--- that 'express delegation of power' can be found ( to protect our right to arms) in the 2nd Amendment. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." -- is an express instruction to our various levels of gov't; -- that they are NOT to infringe on that right. Your pettifogging use of the English language aside......
"Time for Jeb to go?"
#4. To: TooConservative (#0)
(Edited)
#5. To: misterwhite (#3)
#6. To: TooConservative, misterwhite (#5)
Of course, this rush to hold a Jeb! funeral does tend to reflect the pundits preferring Rubio over Bush to begin with. And if they all believe that only Rubio or Bush can stop Trump/Carson....
#7. To: nolu chan (#6)
(Edited)
The GOPe will coalesce around Rubio as their best candidate.
#8. To: TooConservative (#0)
Time for Jeb to go?
#9. To: nolu chan (#6)
"The GOPe will coalesce around Rubio as their best candidate."
#10. To: TooConservative (#7)
#11. To: nolu chan (#10)
If they are split among 2 to 4 candidates, the GOPe candidate could win against the divided opposition, even if they combine for 60%.
#12. To: nolu chan (#6)
#13. To: misterwhite (#9)
The GOPe will coalesce around Rubio as their best candidate."
#14. To: TooConservative (#11)
And either Bush or Rubio can be the lone GOPe guy if they can shove the other guy out of their way.
#15. To: nolu chan (#10)
I wouldn't take it seriously except it is Harvard and it seems they are pretty determined.
Harvard Project Aims To Put Every Court Decision Online, For Free (google.com)
Techdirt comments approvingly on a new project from Harvard Law School, called Free the Law, which in a joint effort with a company called Ravel to scan and post in nicely searchable format all federal and state court decisions, and put them all online, for free. As Techdirt puts it, This is pretty huge. While some courts now release most decisions as freely available PDFs, many federal courts still have them hidden behind the ridiculous PACER system, and state court decisions are totally hit or miss. And, of course, tons of historical cases are completely buried. While there are some giant companies like Westlaw and LexisNexis that provide lawyers access to decisions, those cost a ton -- and the public is left out. This new project is designed to give much more widespread access to the public. And it sounds like they're really going above and beyond to make it truly accessible, rather than just dumping PDFs online. ... Harvard "owns" the resulting data (assuming what's ownable), and while there are some initial restrictions that Ravel can put on the corpus of data, that goes away entirely after eight years, and can end earlier if Ravel "does not meet its obligations."
Anything that helps disrupt the stranglehold of the major legal publishers seems like a good thing.
#16. To: TooConservative (#15)
#17. To: nolu chan (#16)
(Edited)
It would be great to have a single source for all the Federal and State decisions.
#18. To: nolu chan (#6)
Jeb! is failing because he is unable to effectively compete.
#19. To: buckeroo (#18)
How did he become a governor?
#20. To: nolu chan (#19)
#21. To: TooConservative, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#15)
And, of course, tons of historical cases are completely buried.
While there are some giant companies like Westlaw and LexisNexis that provide lawyers access to decisions, those cost a ton -- and the public is left out.
#22. To: tpaine (#21)
(Edited)
WHY are tons of historical cases completely buried?
#23. To: tpaine, TooConservative (#21)
[tpaine #21] WHY are tons of historical cases completely buried?
[TooConservative #15] While there are some giant companies like Westlaw and LexisNexis that provide lawyers access to decisions, those cost a ton -- and the public is left out.
[TooConservative #22] I think nolu has a long list of his favorite legal haunts to find material at. So for nolu, this Harvard project would offer one-stop legal info shopping.
Court Records and Briefs
#24. To: nolu chan (#23)
#25. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#23)
TooConservative #15] While there are some giant companies like Westlaw and LexisNexis that provide lawyers access to decisions, those cost a ton -- and the public is left out.
Only in the tpaine Court of the Imagination do I use LexisNexis.
I don't see why tpaine feigns concern as he does not read the court opinions that are shoved in his face.
That way, it is easier to make such insane claims as an amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional.
#26. To: tpaine (#25)
I'm not imagining that you use overly long legal opinions in attempts to 'win over' your opponents to unconstitutional points of view.
I read them, and reject those that are obviously unconstitutional. -- You love them all.
Any attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment would be unconstitutional, as it would infringe on an inalienable right. -- That you differ simply shows YOUR insanity.
#27. To: nolu chan (#26)
Only in the tpaine Court of the Imagination do I use LexisNexis.
No, you are deliberately lying to avoid discussing the clear legal precedents which demonstrate that your legal nonsense has no merit. Nobody faults you for presenting judicial opinions, long or short.
I don't see why tpaine feigns concern as he does not read the court opinions that are shoved in his face.
You make believe that court opinions that disagree with your inane nonsense do not exist.
It is legal support for your inane nonsense that does not exist. That, of course, is why you present no such legal support but merely blather.
That way, it is easier to make such insane claims as an amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional.
Of course. For a constitutional amendment to be effective, it must be ratified by 3/4ths of the states and approved by tpaine. Otherwise, in the tpaine Court of the Imagination, it does not count.
#28. To: tpaine (#27)
It is simply constitutionally impossible for 3/4 of the people of our States to repeal the inalienable right to arms, --- of the rest. -- Such a despotic attempt would mean the end of the republic.
#29. To: tpaine (#27)
I freely acknowledge that I can't match your 'legal support' postings, not because they don't exist, -- but because I don't have the posting expertise.
#30. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#29)
If you say so. You do not have the expertise to cut and paste from court opinions.
#31. To: tpaine (#27)
Any attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment would be unconstitutional, as it would infringe on an inalienable right. -- That you differ simply shows YOUR insanity.
#32. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#28)
3/4th of the States can repeal anything in the Constitution and replace it with whatever they want.
Article 5 does not contain a clause 2 saying that prior approval of tpaine is required.
#33. To: A K A Stone (#31)
#34. To: Don (#33)
The Constitution is the framework for the secular laws of the land.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#34)
#36. To: A K A Stone (#31)
Are there any other amendmens that are unappealable?
What do you base this unappealableness on?
What article in the constitution.
No I don't think repealing the second amendment is a good thing to do. --- But truthfully under the constitution it is probably technically legal. But not right. --- The constitution isn't the Bible.
#37. To: tpaine (#32)
It is simply constitutionally impossible for 3/4 of our States to repeal the inalienable right to arms, --- of the rest. -- Such a despotic attempt would mean the end of the republic.
#38. To: tpaine (#30)
I freely acknowledge that I can't match your 'legal support' postings, not because they don't exist, -- but because I don't have the posting expertise. -- You're beyond any doubt LF's idiot savant of unconstitutional opinions.
If you say so. You do not have the expertise to cut and paste from court opinions.
#39. To: tpaine, A K A Stone (#36)
The whole thing, starting with the preamble...
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
#40. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#39)
(Edited)
The preamble was added by the Committee on Style after the body or operational part of the Constitution had been adopted by the convention. It has no force of law whatever.
Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States unless, apart from the Preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power or in some power to be properly implied therefrom. 1 Story's Const. § 462.
#41. To: tpaine (#40)
And that 'express delegation of power' can be found ( to protect our right to arms) in the 2nd Amendment.
#42. To: nolu chan (#41)
There is no grant of power for anybody to do anything in the Second Amendment. It is negative in nature -- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]