Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Alan Klein]

You do realize that you've repeated this many times now. You think it's ok to investigate Hunter while claiming that investigating Jan 6th is bogus. Think about that.

Is it reasonable to think that nothing has leaked about Hunter by now at least hinting that there is something really important there? Is that plausible.



Rome isn't burning, wildfires are burning. You're probably right that no one cares about Hunter Biden, why do you?

Why do you want hearings on fuel prices, that makes no sense. It's the free market, they raise prices to what the market will bear, there's nothing to investigate. Last I heard, humongous trucks are still best-sellers so fuel costs can't really be that high, can they? Personally, I think fuel costs should double, it would speed up the transition to more sensible decisions about energy use. We've been lulled into believing that oil and food should be cheap but that designer t-shirts should be expensive. Fixing that moronic mindset should be top of mind, shouldn't it?

As for medical costs, so long as people think that their insurance companies are competing in a free market to keep costs low, there's nothing to investigate. There are examples from all over the world about how to keep medical costs low, but the US has no interest in changing, so I don't know what you're talking about there.

I said it's politics on both sides.  But there could be truth in charges about Trump, and Biden.  But the committee hearings are political. It's not a fair way to get at the truth. They're biased regardless of which side is running them.

Here's a recommendation.  Democrats started an investigation of Trump regarding Russian collusion that lasted two years.  It was run by an independent examiner (Mueller).  Let's do a similar thing about Biden and the selling of his office?  What's fair is fair.   Frankly, I think we should just move on.  There are more important issues Congress has to deal with. Republican leader of the House McCarthy already said he's not interested in hearings on Biden if Republicans take over in January.  (Hearings on Jan 6th of course will end with Republicans in charge).  He knows the public isn't interested.  I think he's right. 

Regarding fuel prices, Biden's anti-oil stance hasn't helped. What Congress can do is pass legislation that overrides his executive actions that make it harder for oil companies to produce.  Americans, except Democrats, understand he's making it difficult for them. His position is helping to raise the prices of gasoline.  Democrats running for office in November secretly wish he'd shut up.  Americans can't afford the high prices of gasoline.  They don't appreciate when people try to force these high costs on them because of some philosophy about global warming.  If you check the polls, the climate is at the bottom of the list of what people are concerned about.  Not caring about their expenses will be reflected in the voting in November when Democrats are punished for that attitude.

[Robert Roaldi]

This merry-go-round is boring.

[TechTalk]

This merry-go-round is boring.

I admire your patience and stamina.

[Alan Klein]

If Trump couldn't legally challenge the election the way he did, including asking the VP to decertify it under his constitutional powers, why is Congress changing the law limiting what presidents can do?

Bipartisan group of senators cuts deal to change election laws in response to January 6 attack
(CNN)A bipartisan group of senators reached a deal to make it harder to overturn a certified presidential election, marking the most significant response by Congress to former President Donald Trump's relentless pressure campaign to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

...senators are attempting to clarify that the vice president only has a ceremonial role in overseeing the certification of the electoral results.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/politics/electoral-count-act-reform-january-6-response/index.html

[Robert Roaldi]

If Trump couldn't legally challenge the election the way he did, including asking the VP to decertify it under his constitutional powers, why is Congress changing the law limiting what presidents can do?

Bipartisan group of senators cuts deal to change election laws in response to January 6 attack
(CNN)A bipartisan group of senators reached a deal to make it harder to overturn a certified presidential election, marking the most significant response by Congress to former President Donald Trump's relentless pressure campaign to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

...senators are attempting to clarify that the vice president only has a ceremonial role in overseeing the certification of the electoral results.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/politics/electoral-count-act-reform-january-6-response/index.html

Imagine the constitutional crisis your country would have been in if Pence had knuckled under. Doesn't it make sense to close that kind of procedural loophole since it so clearly defies the desires of the voters. Or are you saying it's ok for the VP to ignore the wishes of the voters and allow the electoral college to do whatever he thinks it should.

Would you be happy with that?  Before answering, how would you like it if a Democrat VP managed to pull off that kind of coup. Now you can answer. Which cassette tape will you play us this time?

I think you should put your thoughts into a personal blog. It would be easier to have it all in one place instead of having it repeated here on an infinite loop.

[Alan Klein]

Imagine the constitutional crisis your country would have been in if Pence had knuckled under. Doesn't it make sense to close that kind of procedural loophole since it so clearly defies the desires of the voters. Or are you saying it's ok for the VP to ignore the wishes of the voters and allow the electoral college to do whatever he thinks it should.

Would you be happy with that?  Before answering, how would you like it if a Democrat VP managed to pull off that kind of coup. Now you can answer. Which cassette tape will you play us this time?

I think you should put your thoughts into a personal blog. It would be easier to have it all in one place instead of having it repeated here on an infinite loop.

I agree the procedural loophole should be closed.  But that misses the point I made.  It was not illegal what Trump encouraged the VP to do as Democrats claimed.  Otherwise, there would be no need to change the law.  It would already be illegal.  Democrats were trying to make it seem he should be tried criminally for this act.    Those charges are not true.

What would the Attorney General charge Trump with? Trying to encourage the VP to act constitutionally and legally? 

[TechTalk]

You really haven't paid any attention to any of this. Even the lawyer who proposed the absurd scheme admitted he knew that it would never hold up in any court, was an illegal plan, and sought a presidential pardon for his role in drafting it.

Point to anything anywhere that would give a vice president the authority to decide which electors to accept and which to reject. It doesn't exist anywhere. States certify their own electors, not a vice president or any other single person at the federal level.

In the case of a dispute, electors certified by the designated executive of a state are deemed to be the valid electors. If a senator and a representative object during the electoral vote count, then it goes into the hands of Congress, but NO ONE PERSON can make that decision.

Show me the law. Good luck, 'cause it doesn't exist.

[Chris Kern]

I think you should put your thoughts into a personal blog. It would be easier to have it all in one place instead of having it repeated here on an infinite loop.

At the very least, he would be well-advised to stop opining in an international forum about U.S. constitutional provisions and statutory law.  I trust most participants in this forum are aware that his understanding and interpretation of American law are not only tendentious, but laughably incorrect.

[Alan Klein]

At the very least, he would be well-advised to stop opining in an international forum about U.S. constitutional provisions and statutory law.  I trust most participants in this forum are aware that his understanding and interpretation of American law are not only tendentious, but laughably incorrect.

Chris, Many of my conclusions about what's constitutional have been supported by subsequent Supreme Court decisions.  I think I have a pretty good record on that. Please check the record. 

If I recall, you were one of the people who said Trump's Muslim ban was unconsotutional while I said it would eventually be decided that it was. And it was after a few minor changes in the presidential directives.  I'll apologize in advance if I got your opinion wrong.  It's been a few years. 

[Alan Klein]

I've also claimed for years that the court got Roe wrong.  There's nothing in the constitution protecting the right to an abortion.  That's up to each of the states to decide.  Well, the Supreme Court finally got that right. 

[kers]

I've also claimed for years that the court got Roe wrong.  There's nothing in the constitution protecting the right to an abortion.  That's up to each of the states to decide.  Well, the Supreme Court finally got that right.

The constitution was clearly made without any input of women, (and coloured citizens etc.. )

[Alan Klein]

The constitution was clearly made without any input of women, (and coloured citizens etc.. )

I don't think abortion was on the minds of that generation, including women.  In any case, there's nothing stopping an amendment to the constitution.  The limitations of the protection of slaves in the original constitution were eliminated by subsequent constitutional amendments and laws by Congress.  And there's nothing stopping individual states from writing protections as well for abortions.  Just like thousands of other limitations not protected in the constitution, these things are left up to the individual states and their people to decide democratically. 

[Robert Roaldi]

... There's nothing in the constitution protecting the right to an abortion.  ...

Is there anything in the constitution that makes it ok for an 18 year old to buy an AR-15 when the poor kid can't even buy a beer legally?

[Alan Klein]

Is there anything in the constitution that makes it ok for an 18 year old to buy an AR-15 when the poor kid can't even buy a beer legally?

When I served in the USAF at 18 and could be sent off in combat, I complained that I wasn't allowed to drink until I was 21.  I thought that was unfair. 

Getting back to your question.  The rules on the drinking age are not in the constitution any more than the right of abortion is.  Both are regulated by each state.  The constitution's Amendment 2 only protects the right of "people", for an armed citizenry, etc. So the question comes down to who are people? Who are minors? At what age?   An interesting question that I don't know the answer to. I did find this discussion. 

“Infants” and Arms Bearing in the Era of the Second Amendment: Making Sense of the Historical Record

Tuesday, October 26, 2021 - 2:45pm
Saul Cornell
*
Professor Cornell’s Remark offers a detailed historical analysis of the rights of “infants” (whom we would now call “minors”) at the time of the Founding. This examination reveals that any attempt to extend the right to bear arms to minors is ahistorical and therefore does not fit into an originalist legal framework. Professor Cornell’s analysis is particularly helpful for making sense of the recent Fourth Circuit decision in Hirschfeld v. ATF.
https://ylpr.yale.edu/inter_alia/infants-and-arms-bearing-era-second-amendment-making-sense-historical-record

[Chris Kern]

I trust most participants in this forum are aware that his understanding and interpretation of American law are not only tendentious, but laughably incorrect.

If I recall, you were one of the people who said Trump's Muslim ban was unconsotutional while I said it would eventually be decided that it was. And it was after a few minor changes in the presidential directives.

Incorrect on both counts.  Res ipsa loquitur.

[PeterAit]

I've also claimed for years that the court got Roe wrong.  There's nothing in the constitution protecting the right to an abortion.  That's up to each of the states to decide.  Well, the Supreme Court finally got that right.

The states deciding is giving us the horror show we have now. This is akin to the old "states' rights" argument originated (I think) by Reagan. It was a thinly veiled call to racism so the southern states could keep their segregation and Jim Crow, all in order to draw southern votes to the Republican party. And it worked. But controlling your own body is a very basic right just like civil rights based on race. It should not be decided on a state-by-state basis.

[Alan Klein]

The states deciding is giving us the horror show we have now. This is akin to the old "states' rights" argument originated (I think) by Reagan. It was a thinly veiled call to racism so the southern states could keep their segregation and Jim Crow, all in order to draw southern votes to the Republican party. And it worked. But controlling your own body is a very basic right just like civil rights based on race. It should not be decided on a state-by-state basis.

So being pro-life is racist? They believe in slavery.  Why does the left always pull out the race card? Certainly, Peter, you have less demeaning arguments. 

[PeterAit]

So being pro-life is racist? They believe in slavery.  Why does the left always pull out the race card? Certainly, Peter, you have less demeaning arguments.

Huh? Your comment makes no sense. I was simply making an analogy between turning racial rights issues over to the states and turning abourtion issues over to the states. Bad ideas both.

[Alan Klein]

Huh? Your comment makes no sense. I was simply making an analogy between turning racial rights issues over to the states and turning abourtion issues over to the states. Bad ideas both.

You're not going to make friends associating pro-lifers with racists. You should have picked a different analogy.  Yours is insulting. 

[digitaldog]

You're not going to make friends associating pro-lifers with racists. You should have picked a different analogy.  Yours is insulting.

...insulting to racists!