dayman

What I believe is that even the truth of the intent at the time of the framing likely meant something different in different spots to different signatories. And ultimately the negotiation of various concepts ended up serving as a workable document they could all live with, not some lock solid clear script for all problems in the future. Brilliant men doing the best they could (a damn good job) but not brilliant men creating something more than that. Also, like justice Thomas I think to be a true originalist you really can't believe in stare decisis and if originalism is thought of as a more workable approach to interpretation...given (as I feel) that the truth behind various "hot spots" of the constitution may have been the areas of most contention in some circumstances and most ambiguity...then as the court changes and each judge holds to their own originalist interpretation w/ no adherence to past holdings....you end up with a fluctuating constitution all the same.

Wasn't thinking of anything in particular more so just the historical fact that basically right after they signed the thing they started arguing about it themselves as did others. One of the reasons I don't buy originalism as necessarily superior to what Scalia would derogatively call "constitutional consequentialists" Ah, medicaid expansion. Forgot exactly what happened there but ya coming back to me. Can't coerce to the point of not having a choice or something along those lines? Was it solely tax and spend there though? IDK one day I'll glance over it again...Either way that's pretty shaky IMO for the future I think that part of the opinion was all over the map in terms of split opinions running rampant. There is no doubt, whatever it is, each justice must have some deep understanding of the basic mechanical workings of the structure...but what is such an altering of your idea of the basic balance? Just the court being comprised of "consequentialists?"

Just to write off any concerns over growth based solely on the expiration date.

New limits on Commerce ... been a while since I read it but basically no limits on tax. Anyway am I to read the first paragraph as you being an originalist? More appropriate to rule based on the current court thinks it meant at the time to a group of men to didn't agree and compromised than to just call it as they see it since they are actually on the court?

Putting the growth solely on the expiration date alone is disingenuous IMO but to each his own. And I won't go off on the Obama package but it was more than a stimulus IMO and it wasn't a miracle bill but it was good as we've discussed.

Well, I know you study law. I get the tax and spend power of Ron Paul but the argument is over and I see almost no limits on taxing and spending now. Vote is basically it. Also, not to just be a prick but I really disagree that everything was specific and easily understood as of the date it was signed. Squabbles emerged instantly. Very famous ones.

They both need to acknowledge where they were at the closest point they have been, and what will be a good enough "working spot" on either end to build a coalition of their minions. Cuz they aren't just negotiating...it would be done if that was the case. All the loons in Congress have to vote on it. So while he won't start at the absolute most dire position, and neither will Obama, they both do need to start closer to the middle before the negotiations really get going to subdue the loud mouths on either side and figure out who will get on board and if they have the numbers.

As a known Obama over Romney poster I approve of this post. 250K in a year is in no way a "rich" person.

These analogies are stupid b/c negotiating a car price is not the same as compromising something as complicated as our national budget priorities in today's climate. There are all kinds of approaches that can produce compromise the more complicated the subject matter, and that's important. As for the basic idea of buying a car, it's always worth it to start low even if your heart isn't in it just cave more quickly. They start high.

I don't care to explain it b/c I don't care to think about it and it doesn't matter. I do somehow, for no real reason, find Mormonism to be extra ridiculous. Maybe the more recent the religion the more ridiculous it is simply b/c it had more developed people when it was first pitched (theoretically of course) and it had less of a time to be ingrained into that "just always was true" status that grants cover for deserved skepticism. Doesn't really mean I don't respect people's ability to believe whatever of course. Just my take on various levels of "what slack something deserves" ...

Have 6 real quick then read while doing a handstand.

Not the cleanest post ever put still clear enough for anybody to make sense of. Summary for clarification: If people are going to give the President all kinds of credit for the economy (which is retarded), then Bush destroyed the economy by that standard (a stupid standard) . And no amount of time changes that.

For the millionth time I'm not a Bush basher...but you do realize that no amount of time somehow makes Bush's bad presidency not his fault right? And no amount of time changes basic factual history that if Presidents get credit the economy right or wrong (wrong usually), Bush destroyed it. Truth is, the President gets way too much credit for the economy either way...but the bottom line is if the idea is that Obama ruined the economy b/c Presidents create the economy...then by that logic it's Bush's fault for destroying the economy. And if it's Obama's fault for not creating a booming economy in 2/4 years...that's a lot less of a failure than destroying the AMerican economy. Complete nonsense but that's the deal. People would be well served to speak realistically about things such as "the economy"

Will you run as more machine than man?

Rove needs to explain to his wealthy donors why the hell they give him millions in some cases 10s of millions to have their money wasted over stupid social issues they didn't pay to pursue that Rove once said was a wedge to help win and now are a liability.

Not only are Loudon and Fairfax wealthy but they're home to a bunch of military contractors and Romney was trying to throw another 2T at them over the next 10 years.

TARP? I haven't really thought about it a lot but it's Congress appropriating funds. Tax and Spend. Pretty simple stuff. The only challenge I can think of is non-delegation doctrine. Weak challenge never work anymore. Every bit as much intelligible principle there as EPA for instance. I mean...what is so quasi-constitutional about it? The imaginary constitution that exists if Ron Paul was the one man supreme court for 200+ years maybe but the actual constitution as interpreted in what we call history...it's fairly straightforward. Plus...there's the whole emergency angle and close calls always slide in circumstances where "emergency" kicks in

Americans hating Americans inc.

That's the debate they will have now "how can we not be !@#$s on a couple really stupid issues we've been !@#$s on"

Note: "need to" not "are"

The answer is basically "just because." Most states want to throw them all behind one guy I guess.

I imagine strategist meetings in Dem circles going "who can we get, how can we build a coalition" In GOP circles it must be "you need to say/believe x, y, z to keep our base, then try your best after that"

#5 is significant. No amount of speculating about '08 fluke or denial of a changing country can prevent them from examining what it is about their party that can no longer win a majority.

If a state wants to split their electoral votes they are free to do so.