James Madison: Savannah port funding by feds is unconstitutional

Hammer hit nail…solidly. There’s nothing to discuss here. Can you say “Hypocrite,” GOP?

• Link
• Report this comment

The first whine of defense from Republican governors seems to be to have their hand out to the federal government.

Aside: Normal…. great photo!

• Link
• Report this comment

The U.S. Constitution is nothing more or less than what Congress and The Supreme Court say it is. If the majority of lawmakers and justices want it to say something, no matter what, then that is what it will say. The same holds true for all of our other “sacred” documents.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh joy.

Th reading of the constitution in the house, citing the appropriate provision for each bill, Scalia teaching GOTeaP freshman AND a rules change from Pay Go to Cut Go (so tax cuts don’t need to be paid for)…the next 2 years are going to be very interesting.

• Link
• Report this comment

Seize all federal tax monies derived from the sale of alchohol, tabacco, and gas within the state.

Put a special income tax on all Federal workers within the state.

Bring our State National guard home from overseas.

And start looking for other ways to stop sending money to the District of Crooks. Problem solved.

Jimmy would approve.

• Link
• Report this comment

@@– James is not listed but Dolly Madison is. Feel free to give her a call.

• Link
• Report this comment

I suppose Oklahoma needs to get in their request for a fed-funded port capable of handling all possible cargoes, just to be fair.

• Link
• Report this comment

Deal is proposing tax cuts for business, laying off teachers and emergency service providers and then has his hand out for the Savannah port. Would it not make more sense to skip the tax cuts and the federal hand out, and spend the money on the port?

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay- You forgot to mention that the mother of all road projects is the National Interstate Highway system. It was passed by a Republican- Dwight Eisenhower. The constitutional excuse was national defense. You never know where the Taliban and Iraqi insurgentss may be hiding in our borders ans we need troops to speed in their Hummers to wipe them out!

• Link
• Report this comment

time and necessity have quietly altered the meaning of Madison’s Constitution

Yep. Well, I’m not sure about the “quietly” part.

• Link
• Report this comment

Everyone one knows the founders were clueless compared to Pelosi. Is it constitutional ? Are you serious ? But seriously Jay, were Monroe and Jackson correct ? I think Monroe had more of a handle on what the founders intentions were than Pelosi or Boehnor. Let GA sell bonds to cover the cost and hold the other 56 states to the same standard.

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny, you still don’t believe in paygo do you ? Dems in congress do not, and they passed it.

• Link
• Report this comment

President Abraham Lincoln nullified the
US constitution when he by force prevented
the Confederate States to remain under the
authority of the US Government. Since then
it’s basically not worth the paper it’s written on.
Lip service and referral are given only when
convenient to the federal government.

• Link
• Report this comment

My 8:16 ‘prevented’ should be ‘required’ and can anyone
actually believe that the airport searches are ‘reasonable’.

• Link
• Report this comment

Scalia teaching GOTeaP freshman

Gran, I admit, I thought you were indulging in hyperbole. Alas:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/12/antonin-scalia-tea-party-/1

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has accepted Rep. Michele Bachmann’s invitation to address the Tea Party Caucus next month.

“Justice Scalia has distinguished himself by his ‘originalist’ approach to constitutional interpretation,” Bachmann said.

crikey.

• Link
• Report this comment

OT, but I wonder when Jay will get around to discussing how the administration is doing in Afghanistan? We don’t hear much about it lately–criticizing the president is sooo two years ago, eh?

• Link
• Report this comment

TH: Remember when the Idiot Messiah blowing through $800 billion borrowed from China was going to keep unemployment from going above 8%?

• Link
• Report this comment

Has anyone seen my twin brother Barry. He has escaped from the asylum again. He may be going by the name Idiot Messiah. I’m not sure, but he keeps repeating that over and over.

I don’t see how he escaped. He got out the window somehow, but the window is only 2 foot wide and Barry is 5 foot 3 inches 475 pounds.

Me and his brothers Lil’Terry and BigAIGBailout are worried about him. He can’t take care of himself and has never worked a day in his life. He has always had the bottom bunk in momma’s 2 bedroom singlewide and don’t know how to do anything.

BigAIG says he can move into the shed with him (since he lives alone and is the rich brother). He even has a 2 holer for when he has company.

Iffn anyone sees him please call animal control, they know how to catch him and will call us after he calms down.

• Link
• Report this comment

We certainly would not want to discuss “Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&sq=Obama%20Institutes%20End-of-Life%20Plan%20That%20caused%20Stir&st=cse&scp=1

Won’t need no ‘death panels’ once we get NHS style QALY assessments.

• Link
• Report this comment

james

December 28th, 2010
8:35 am
———————————————–
We are not only the world’s policeman, we are
also the world’s financier. The english furnished
the world a language. We furnished it a currency.

• Link
• Report this comment

I suppose none of the Republicans are going to give us a preview of their interpretation of the Constitution in this matter. We’ll just have to wait and see how it really plays out. I think there will be many a disappointed Republican once they see their newly elected ones in action.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bob

“Granny, you still don’t believe in paygo do you ?”

Whatever would lead to to such a goofy conclusion? Perhaps you just want to be a contrarian today. Ok with me.

Do you support Cut Go? Do you believe tax cuts don’t have to be paid for?

• Link
• Report this comment

Well the Peace on Earth Goodwill toward Man was fun while it lasted Jay

• Link
• Report this comment

Stands

I was just amazed by the Scalia thing…..

• Link
• Report this comment

GG – what are they going to do about Scalia Vote him out of office LOL

• Link
• Report this comment

TaxPayer: Why do roads have to line up at county lines.
—————–

TaxPayer would vote for local politicians who can’t get the roads to line up? He voted for the Idiot Messiah, so I guess it’s possible.

• Link
• Report this comment

If the ideas and concerns of the right wing are some persuasive and logical, then surely they can apply it to a simple example and show us how this works in actual practice

One would certainly hope that they are indeed capable of as much especially given their claimed expertise on such a diverse range of subject matter including climate change and the Laffer curve, etc. Then again, I do not recall them actually demonstrating an understanding of said subject matter, only a willingness to whine about anyone else’s words.

• Link
• Report this comment

U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan:

2001 12
2002 49
2003 48
2004 52
2005 99
2006 98
2007 117
2008 155
2009 317
2010 497

• Link
• Report this comment

barking frog @ 8:16

I had been thinking of how the U.S.S.R. was dissolved in 1991 and the states within it received their own automomies as separate governments. One wonders, as the American citizens are led to interpret the U.S. Constitution by the “letter of the law” rather than the “spirit of the law,” if the U.S. unwittingly is headed in the same direction.

I have thought, by analogy, that those who interpret the Bible by the “letter of the law” rather than by the “spirit of the law” have missed the basic point of the Bible. The “Holy Spirit” springs from within one’s soul, and guides one more broadly in vision in matters of humanity than specific commandments do. Jesus said, “I come not to deny the law, but to fulfill it.” (paraphrased)

Likewise, those who insist upon “letter of the law” being followed in the U.S. Constitution are perhaps missing the basic “spirit of democracy” of the Constitution, which should guide the U.S. government more profoundly than more specific, and more limiting provisions within it.

Perhaps the GOP is not interested in “fulfilling” the spirit of the law of the U.S. Constitution, but in simply giving states more rights relative to the federal government so that more local powers dominate the populace.

From Wikipedia:

“Several Soviet Socialist Republics began resisting central control, and increasing democratization led to a weakening of the central government. The USSR’s trade gap progressively emptied the coffers of the union, leading to eventual bankruptcy. The Soviet Union finally collapsed in 1991 when Boris Yeltsin seized power in the aftermath of a failed coup that had attempted to topple reform-minded Gorbachev.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Why does the state of Georgia own a port? Sell it and let the new owner worry about it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Just thought you’d like to know, since the media lost interest on January 20, 2009.

• Link
• Report this comment

Common Sense

maybe we’ll get around to term limits or reviews of supreme court judges….

we could hope he slips up and reveals something criminal like Porteous of LA…

• Link
• Report this comment

“If the powers that be in Georgia want the port deepened, then they should raise Georgia taxes to pay for it.”

Absolutely correct. Georgia will then charge a tariff for every load of cargo that originates or terminates in other states.

• Link
• Report this comment

Rent the Port of Savannah to the Arabs.

• Link
• Report this comment

well he could end up like Reagan and have Alzeheimers and not realize it.

• Link
• Report this comment

JB wrote; “For example, the top priority of Georgia’s political and business establishment”. in the interest of Holiday Cheer, I will not insult you with a “fixed your typo” jab. but less is more. replace “political and business establishment” with PLUTOCRACY and those of us who are not part of the “political and business establishment” will have a better understanding of the Constitutuion. with respect to jconservative, while the the Constitution is a remarkable, “living” document, like the slaves (not protected in 1791), it has become the “property” of the plutocracy; the “political establishment” sells access to “the law” and the “business establishment” buys the legislation necessary to grease the skids of whatever commercial interest (what Ayn Rand foolishly refered to as “rational self-interest”) it embraces. so pick your poison, folks; warfare, welfare (social or corporate); if Uncle Sam can levy taxes, and use the funds to pay for harbors to be dredged, healthcare, Section 8 housing, food stamps, farm subsidies, wars, etc., THERE IS NO PRIVATE SECTOR. any chance Congress might read the “preamble” to Thomas Paine’s Common Sense?

• Link
• Report this comment

The game changer in all of your arguments was the passage of the federal income tax. Before then states kept the revenue and therefore had the funds for such projects. All of the presidents you cite were hampered by limited federal dollars and therefore had to toe the line on the budget unlike today’s free spenders who think they have an endless supply of our money to spend. Maybe if the feds returned all of the tax dollars we send to them we could fund the project.

• Link
• Report this comment

Where are the “peace” activists, SoCo? Where are the protests?

They were almost all just Bush haters. They didn’t give a damn about our troops, or peace.

• Link
• Report this comment

Being a republican who is serious about America and the rule of law, I carry a copy of the constitution everywhere I goes. I read it every night before bed. Anyone who doesn’t know the constitution should be prosecuted for treason!

• Link
• Report this comment

Somehow the GOP has convinced its followers that things like this are only hypocritical when the Democrat’s do it… I guess not hard to believe, considering the base of the GOP.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thanks for pointing out the rounding error, BULLSEYE.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jawja loves Fed money. So do the rest of the small government southern states. Closet socialists.

• Link
• Report this comment

bullseye@9:24

Right on brother…the hypocrisy is a damn joke..

• Link
• Report this comment

barking frog 9:13

And here I will be – stuck in the heart of conservatism – when I am a liberal.

I will definitely have no voice if that scenario takes place. And, no, conservatives,
I won’t be able to move for my beloved family is here. Otherwise. . .

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny Godzilla: May I suggest the websites Veterans for Peace or Cost of War?

If you had done this you might have known that Daniel Ellsberg was arrested early this month after chaining himself to the White House fence during an anti-war protest.
—————

Back in the good ol’ Bush-hatin’ days, this would have been front page news.

Bottom line, it was never about peace, or Iraq, or bringing our troops home, it was about stoking the Bush hatred.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hmm… This is a complicated situation. I hope Redneck Convert comes along to clarify the issue.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, us Tea Party folks think guvmint is too big and shouldn’t get involved in state projects. That is, unless it’s a state project we support. Now we support the pork port project. We got good Conservatives that can’t make much money if all the big ships pass us by. Including our worthless, shiftless guvner Sonny that’s about to be a private citizen and needs to make money soon while he’s waiting for the state to buy up the land he has to build a lake. He can’t make a living off of the money his buddies are going to get from selling that Oakey Woods place to the state at double what they paid for it.

So let’s get the feds out of shoveling money to Those People and other bums on welfare and the old geezers on SS. But we need close to half a billion to dredge that port. Besides, the federal guvmint shouldn’t be holding on to our money that way.

I hope things are alot clearer now. Have a good Tuesday everybody.

• Link
• Report this comment

“paleo, seen any Obama haters protesting the Afghanistan war lately, or disrupting Congressional hearings, or wishing for our troops to fail? me either”

Bailout: you won’t see any but the most extremist left wingnut jobs like Code Pink(o) continue to do that. On the other hand, I haven’t heard any Obama supporters whine about the 10% plus unemployment rate and $3+ gas prices either. However they sure did whine about 6% unemployment under Bush and $3+ gas prices under Bush.

• Link
• Report this comment

Barry

Then perhaps your whine is more appropriately addressed to the media.

U.S. Media Blacks Out Coverage of Anti-War Protests at the White House

This is something you could positively affect by contacting your favorite network and chastising them a bit….

AS to it never being about war, that’s nonsense.

Bush took us to war in the wrong country and that’s just another part of 43’s long term legacy. Own it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Li’l Barry Bailout, again your “liberal plan” vs. “conservative plan” (like the Constitution itself) makes sense on paper, but in reality, there is only one plan; the “plutocratic plan” and unfortunately, taxpayers (regardless of political leanings) do not, and perhaps have never had a “choice”. I’m gonna give this one more try; how is the TARP money that flowed through AIG and ended up at Goldman Sachs any different than the Section 8 monies that flow through some unemployed single parent and his/her landlord, but end up at Wells Fargo, Bank of America, or SunTrust (mortgage lenders)? ALL Americans are both “producers” and “moochers” because the “illegally confisctaed wealth” of working Americans ultimately ends up in the coffers of a handful of private sector corporations (the proverbial 2% who “own” 85%). I have asked this many times; do you think ADM, Coca Cola, Kroger or Anheuser-Busch (InBev) care about food stamps? Corporate America does not make a distinction between “producers” and “moohcers” (or as you like to say; parasites). to Corporate America, we’re all consumers.

• Link
• Report this comment

Lil Barry

It’s a wonder you never saw any talk about speculators.

A bright guy like you and all…

• Link
• Report this comment

All wars are “wars of choice”. We chose to go into Iraq to form a less threatening, more democratic country in the heart of the Middle East. “Mission accomplished”, thanks to our President Bush and the troops.

Let’s hope the Idiot Messiah gets to hang a banner too.

• Link
• Report this comment

“But strictly interpreted, the Constitution does not allow the federal government to spend money on such projects,”

Agreed.

Neither does it allow the Feds to provide Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, etc, etc, etc, yet you are strangely in favor of all those things; because you “interpret” the Constitution any way you can to move your Socialist agenda forward.

Jay, you’re the LAST person who should be throwing the Constitution in the face of – anybody.

• Link
• Report this comment

Barry

It was always about peace…..again look to the media.

• Link
• Report this comment

bring back gitmo and wiretaps!

• Link
• Report this comment

LBB

It’s out there if you want to see it. If you don’t want to see it, you never will. It’s no different than the Tea Party. When the protests first started, you couldn’t flip a channel without seeing them. Now that you don’t see them all the time on tv, does that mean that they’ve also gone away?

• Link
• Report this comment

Perhaps this would be a good time to get back on topic!

I’ll do my part as I have to go do something else this morning besides chat here.

• Link
• Report this comment

The war in Afghanistan is the stupidest adventure the
US has ever been involved in. That is precisely why the
President chose it to destroy Petraeus. No way to
win and the General is blamed. McChrystal took the
easy way out and helped shaft Petraeus on his way
out the door.

• Link
• Report this comment

This Week on ABC lists the names, rank, hometowns and ages of all soldiers who are kia the week before.

As has the PBS NewsHour on any given weekday evening, as these soldiers’ names are released to the public. Which has been, in our household, a moment-of-silence time whenever we’ve seen them, all these very long years.

• Link
• Report this comment

The same percentage of troops killed in Iraq and
Afghanistan, had they been stationed in the US,
would probably have died in accidents on US
highways. This is truly a tragedy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Barry,

By invading Iraq for no apparent reason other than he wanted to, GWB has put the world on the slippery edge of a cliff. We will never be able to leave Iraq because if we do, Iran will take Iraq and form a United Nation of Islam which will then take Kuwait and threaten Saudi Arabia. With control over all that oil, battlefield nukes and the will to use them, we would never be able to contain them, much less win a war there. We might win the war nuke for nuke, but radiated oil isn’t going to do us much good…unless someone invents a small reactor for vehicles. I could go on but, bottom line, GWB screwed the pooch and he screwed us royally. One day our grandkids will thank us for that.

• Link
• Report this comment

Maybe if the feds returned all of the tax dollars we send to them we could fund the project.

Better yet, use what would normally go to the feds to fund projects that directly impact the states. Let the feds have the leftovers.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mary Elizabeth

December 28th, 2010
10:05 am
——————————————
The US is the example for the world, for good or bad.
However we need to learn that egality cannot be delivered
at the point of a gun. If we are going to take what we need,
we should just do it, and come home.

• Link
• Report this comment

All citizens of Georgia should be aware of the following:
An auditor working in our Savannah office discovered in the early 1990s that shipping companies coming to the Savannah Ports were not paying the “use tax” due to the state of “first entry” to the USA. His “test” audit was against Chiquita Bananas. The audit was for 4 million dollars covering about a 4 year period. Chiquita used it’s political muscle to stall while appealing the audit. Then Revenue commissioner, Jerry Jackson, played along, long enough for the Georgia Legislature to change the “use tax” law to exempt all shipping containers coming into Ga ports. La, Ala and SC also have this same use tax. When Chiquita was previously audited in those states, the company moved from state to state before landing in Ga. These states still, last I am aware of, collect this use tax.
Although changing the use law cannot be made retroactive, Chiquita never paid a dime. Jerry Jackson, writing in behalf of Chiquita, yes, you read that right, argued that the law could be interperted as retroactive. Jackson was overruled by our Attorney General who rebuffed Jackson’ logic and demanded that the 4 million assessment be collected.
A few months later, Our Sav office received the original Tax lien stamped “withdrawn and Cancelled”…signed by guess who…Commissioner Jerry Jackson.
Think about all the tax money lost because these politicians. Certainly a billion or more. Now, the companies pay nothing to this state but we are willing to pay 400 million to- further- deepen our harbor without any help from the very companies that benefit the most.
This story is even better than I could tell it here. Most of it is Public record.

• Link
• Report this comment

barking frog @ 10:17

“we need to learn that egality cannot be delivered at the point of a gun.”

How well I agree with that.

Please read my blog’s new year’s post entitled, “A New Year: A Budding World Consciousness,”
found at “Mary Elizabeth Sings,” for an expansion of that thought. I present George Washington’s modeling for America’s future leaders through his deliberate choices in his actions.

• Link
• Report this comment

Actually, a lot of folks here are correct. The Federal government is NOT empowered by the Constitution to make Georgia more competitive… to deepen the port in Savannah. The Feds should not be allowed to pick and choose winners and losers in this battle. OTOH, they should not be allowed to collect the taxes that they do in order to be able to dole them out … picking those winners and losers using the taxes collected from all.

Sorry, but there is no hypocrisy here. I will say that until the FEDERAL government stops taking our tax dollars at the force of a gun (don’t pay your taxes. See how long it takes a federal representative and law enforcement… with a gun… to show up at your door), it is up to our elected officials to get as much of our tax dollars back as they can. The Feds divvy up about $200 BILLION in funds taken from all citizens in all states. To suggest that is is hypocrisy to try to get some of it back simply because it is not authorized in the Constitution (neither is the taking in the first place!) is stupid.

• Link
• Report this comment

Lil’ Barry Bailout@9:17 am

There’s no need for the US to split up. Just have everyone sign up for the Libbtard Plan or the Conservative Plan. Libbtards pay the tax rates necessary to fund libbtard programs, likewise for Conservatives. Switching plans would be no problem, since libbtards just want to help people, and conservatives welcome anyone willing to pull their weight.
——————————————-
progressives are more for clean air and water something the regressives are against. I hope YOU like buying it from progressives.

• Link
• Report this comment

I suggest Progressives like Jay and others turn their attention away from mocking Republicans to troubles ahead. Califorina, Illinois, and New York are almost bankrupt and will be coming to Congress soon asking for a bailout (pray they don’t get it). There is a nationwide gap between public employee pension obligations and funds available to pay of between 1.8 to 3.4 trillion dollars. Progressives bathing in recent Obama victories handed him by weak Republican leadership need a cold shower. There remains very tuff times and decisions ahead, least of which is whether Federal dollars we don’t have go to the Savannah port project.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well I see the left wing babble continues through the holiday season into and undoubtedly through 011. GWB, Iraq, corporate greed and the diabolical GOP. Have a great day blogging got some errands to run.

• Link
• Report this comment

JohnnyReb: Progressives bathing in recent Obama victories handed him by weak Republican leadership need a cold shower

But I thought Obama was the one who was the weak leader? He somehow got 6-11 Republicans on board with some major legislative pieces in the lame duck session, but surely that means he is still a bad leader… right? right?

• Link
• Report this comment

Stop the madness, you got any idea what damage will be done to the beach at Tybee?

• Link
• Report this comment

BULLSEYE @9:19 am Grunt, Jawja takes in 1.01 of every 1.00 “sent to the Feds”
Just another socialist loving Red State.

That was true in 2005 (the latest year for which I can find data), but not for most of the last 20 years.

For most of the 80’s and 90’s GA was easily a net payer, receiving 97 cents on the dollar, and in 1990 and 91, only about 92 cents. GA’s recent net numbers look like (dollars received for dollars paid)

2000 $1.00
2001 $1.02
2002 $1.02
2003 $0.98
2004 $0.98
2005 $1.01

GA has been essentially a break-even state over the last 30 years or so.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. Andy Jackson said the Supreme Court Ruled, now let’s see them enforce it. Abraham Lincoln said “there is a higher law than the Constitution.” The latter two won out. So, does it really matter anymore?

• Link
• Report this comment

On the other hand, if they fail to do so, if instead they press ahead with demands that federal taxpayers foot the bill, they will in effect be acknowledging what they claim to reject, that time and necessity have quietly altered the meaning of Madison’s Constitution, and that their protestations to the contrary are mere cynical theater
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Unfortunately or fortunately, James Madison doesn’t get define what the constitution.. The Supreme court as 1824 decided that the states have little authority over navigable waterways. Jay point that the state should pay in accordance with Madison’s philosophy, however, that would also mean that the state could tax the goods coming into the port and regulate what came in. Anyone with a knowledge of the articles of confederation and early history of the United States remembers the problems with the 13 states acting as independent states in regards to international commerce.

Jay’s argument would be more appropriate in regards to the millions of dollars spent on airports but on the ports I believe it has been long establish that this a purview of the federal government.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Navigable+Waters

The basis for federal jurisdiction over navigable waters lies in the U.S. Constitution. Since the early nineteenth century, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section gives the federal government extensive authority to regulate interstate commerce. This view originated in 1824 in the landmark case of gibbons v. ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 6 L. Ed. 23. In Gibbons, the Court was faced with deciding whether to give precedence to a state or federal law for the licensing of vessels. It ruled that navigation of vessels in and out of the ports of the nation is a form of interstate commerce and thus federal law must take precedence. This decision led to the contemporary exercise of broad federal power over navigable waters, and in countless other areas of interstate commerce.

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam,

Of course they will continue to be the “abusive lover” you reference. That’s because the people just keep taking them back again, over and over, based on lame promises (made half-heartedly, w/o even trying to be convincing anymore), while ignoring Dr. Phil’s primary tenet: The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Americans are just insecure b!tzches.

• Link
• Report this comment

josef nix

December 28th, 2010
10:49 am
———————————————————-
The Constitution matters only to the extent that the
Federal Government chooses to honor it. No other
government has the power to enforce it, unlike when
it was written.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay

December 28th, 2010
11:01 am
————————————–
I believe the Feds circumvent that prohibition with ‘earmarks’.

• Link
• Report this comment

MPercy

An individual as wise as you probably also is aware that those folks were lied to….WMD and Colin Powell and the cartoon mobile labs and all that.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay,

We are not talking about among the several States, we are talking about “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations…”

And as I stated, it was at best a maybe.

• Link
• Report this comment

Again, no one pays any attention to reality.
Whenever any former Confederate State activates
the National Guard, the Guard is immediately Federalized.

• Link
• Report this comment

retired early, Who was in charge of the State of Georgia in the early 1990’s?

WE ALL, regardless of party affiliation, need to keep a watch on OUR government. I am a frequent critic of Republicans when they spend too much. where is the dem criticism of this president and congress? It hardly exists.

• Link
• Report this comment

chuck

I hope your frustration with the lack of war coverage in our corporate media is as great as that of the liberals. On the left wing blogs this is very frequently a major topic. Rachel Maddow does war coverage nightly. We see main stream media nearly ignoring it.

Is that true of the right wing sites as well? Are they giving you the war coverage you need?

May I suggest you contact your favorite media outlets and let them know how strongly you feel?

• Link
• Report this comment

Are you willing to criticize the President for not bringing the troops home?

I am. I am also willing to restate the point I beat to death lately: The notion that there are two opposing sides in D.C. — one fighting for your freedom and integrity and the other fighting to destroy them — is a RUSE, just like the whole “Liberal media” fabrication. Most of the media is corporate media, concerned only with the dollars they make pretending to feud with each other and amping up ratings with the faux outrage they spin and fling to whip us into a gotta-tune-in-for-the-latest! panic. Coroporations are still making money off the blood of our soldiers, politicians are still using them for political brownie points, and no, I do not think for one minute that I’m “safer” now.

As Joe the Plutocrat explained earlier, we do not own the horses being traded, nor do we see any profits. We merely feed them and clean up the steaming piles.

• Link
• Report this comment

We now have a standing army and National Guard
that has expertise in ‘door to door’ rebellion control.
We have uniformed Federal enforcement officers in
all major cities and along all our borders with those
agencies having the power to ‘deputize’ the National
Guard. All US citizens who travel outside our borders
must have US Passports. The war on terror seems to
be directed at US.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Sorry, just like the Dems owned Viet Nam, the fake conservatives own Iraq…”

And the fake liberals own Afghanistan….

• Link
• Report this comment

“their protestations to the contrary are mere cynical theater.”

My initial thought was ‘grandstanding,’ but ‘cynical theater’ is more apropos.

But, ‘cynical theater’ implies those engaged are aware of the contradictions in their positions. Somehow, I’m not convinced that’s the case.

Ah, well, it does provide entertainment for seven more days –

Oh, and nice job by the Air Force over Georgia Tech yesterday. Dang, that must be embarrassing -

• Link
• Report this comment

Mary Elizabeth, you feel free to be as “egalitarian and humanitarian” as you want to be. JUST do’t try to use MY MONEY to do it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny, that dog won’t hunt. Have you ever read HJ 114? I have. Not one word about yellow cake. Very little of it hinges on anything that could possibly be considered a “Bush lie”. And the many members of Congress who sit on defense, intelligence committees were waylaid by these “lies”, too?

Mrs. Clinton was so stupid as to allow the idiot in charge (that’d have been Mr. Bush) to trick her into voting for his war of choice? But she was considered a front-runner for the Presidency?

Actually, Mrs. Clinton tried to backpedal from her war vote a few year back. It was funny then, and still is, as she paints herself as either utterly incompetent (cannot understand the title of the bill she is voting on, let alone the actual text…and this wasn’t one of those “Good Things for American Consumers” feel-good bill titles either) or utterly gullible, to the point she is led about by the nose by someone her party long derided as an idiot.

————————-

This morning on Meet the Press, Hillary Clinton defended her 2002 vote for the Iraq war resolution, saying that she “thought it was a vote to put inspectors back in” so Saddam Hussein could not go unchecked. She insisted that she and others were “told by the White House personally” that this was the purpose of the resolution, and cited President Bush’s assurances to defend her position.

Moderator Tim Russert pointed out that the title of the resolution was the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.” Clinton responded saying, “We can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. But when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution said, ‘It was not a vote for war,’ What I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, ‘If you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job,’ I was told that’s exactly what we intended to do. “

• Link
• Report this comment

chuck

December 28th, 2010
11:29 am
JUST do’t try to use MY MONEY to do it.
———————————–
chuck, you have no money, you only have iou’s
from a Federal Reserve Bank.

• Link
• Report this comment

Amvet, I’d say it was a lot stronger than, say, Republican support for the health care bill, stimulus, or even the recent tax deal.

• Link
• Report this comment

If it is all the same josef, I’ll stick with the representative republic that we have which allows us to change the constitution or at least what remains of both.

• Link
• Report this comment

The whiny liberals and progressives are crying about the republicans being hypocrites. Well guess what, that titles applies to both parties.

Commerce is what built this nation and commerce is what the left wants to destroy. Let us foreign oil instead of our own. Let’s restrict coal use and make everyone pay more for electricity. Let’s have the second highest corporate tax in the world so the consumer can pay more for any item locally made. Let’s let unions set wages instead of the market place. Let’s let people legally bribe a Congressman with “campaign funding” and other “gifts”.

Until Congress takes it upon themselves (and cows will fly) to correct the excessive spending and excessive taxing, we will continue to have these inane arguments about whom is worse.

Congress proven by example and past history they are incapable of handling the nations finances, yet “We The People” keep re-electing the same bozos.

When we become Iceland or Greece we might have a chance to wake up and have real reform.

• Link
• Report this comment

Josef @ 11:16

See my posting at 11:30. I think Lincoln is one of the few leaders of our nation, who had “tapped into” that “higher law” that you mentioned earlier. His Gettysburg Address and his Second Inaugural Address speak for his higher, more evolved consciousness,150 years later, even with all of his complexities.

• Link
• Report this comment

We’re sitting on $55 trillion in household wealth. All the politicians have to do is have the guts to pay for the government they’ve given us.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sounds like a plan to me — lets get all according the Constitution. The problem lies when politicians forget they are the government and start delving into the business of the project. They just can’t keep their fingers out of the pot. Let the business people put up the risk and deal with the consequences if it goes bad and stop asking the politicians for bailouts. When business people realize that the government won’t be there when they over pay their executives to the point that their own bottom lines don’t mesh out and the money won’t be there to help them out, then maybe they’ll adjust their practices.

The federal government does have the power to tax and business people need to realize that needs to be part of their expenses.

• Link
• Report this comment

Josef @ 11:35

Lincoln and the Lord’s name in vain: Picky Picky

• Link
• Report this comment

Michael

I am a citizen of the United States of America, a representative republic, and acknowledge no higher law in that than the Constitution on which it was founded. It is not the state and its structure with which I have arguments, but the three-toed cretins we consistently elect as governments of that state under that Constitution…

• Link
• Report this comment

If deepening the port is such a good idea for Georgia, then tax Georgians to do it.

I, too, am tired of the two-faced GOP. If we need to get it done because it is a good idea for Georgia, then do it. I am willing to be taxed for things that can make a difference to the state.

Of course, I don’t make much so my taxes won’t be much unless it is sales taxes. And, if the sales taxes get too high it will mean, literally, food out of my mouth. I can budget the income tax better than a sales tax. And, I do believe the benefits from the deepening of the port are more likely to flow much more highly to a few big wigs and well connected (think Purdue) than to the general public. so income taxes are more likely to provide that those who make the most (from the investment of our tax dollars) will pay more of it back in taxes. those who benefit most should pay more back than those who benefit less.

So, GOP, tax us. It is okay. Make it an income tax. Act on what you claim to believe.

• Link
• Report this comment

Which argument would you make, Jay?

• Link
• Report this comment

WillieRae, Jay will trot out the 8th Amendment occasionally to defend some murderer facing the death penalty (even though CLEARLY the Constitution did not mean to overturn use of the death penalty since it was in operation at the time and used by the federal government). In fact other than that I don’t know that Jay has ever argued that ANYTHING violated it.

For those who think otherwise, be aware that Jay does NOT THINK that this spending is unconstitutional. It is just a lame attempt to point out what he BELIEVES to be hypocrisy.

Matti, I can see your point. I’m just not ready to be quite that cynical.

• Link
• Report this comment

chuck,

Just a suggestion, but why not post only what YOU think instead of speaking for others. Crystal balls, while cool, really don’t work.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mary Elizabeth
Lincoln plunged us into a war which killed more of our sons than have died in all other wars combined when it was unnecessary, leaving scars which have yet to heal. He was an evil and self-aggrandizing politician in my view. Could he make a speech? Oh, as a wordsmith, he has had few equals. A higher and more evolved consciousness…? Not really…killing, maiming, burning cities, towns, farms and factories and claiming G-d told him to sounds pretty Medieval and unevolved to me…

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet
And those flag draped coffins are still coming home and the media is still not making a to-do…chest pounding or the soft-shoe shuffle, the net result is the same…

• Link
• Report this comment

I think we can all agree that government at all levels has gotten too big and costly. I prefer the fee for service approach locally, including education, and bringing the education system into the 21st century. We’re spending as much on public education as we are national defense. We’re probably hindering our children with so much structure when so many of them are high tech savvy and free spirits. As for the federal budget, start with ending the three wars (Iraq, Afghan, drug) and go from there.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay

December 28th, 2010
11:52 am

And at what cost? Do you agree or disagree that it was unnecessary and he could have avoided it?

• Link
• Report this comment

josef @ 11:15 ” the earthly is that we’re a constitutional republic and there is no higher law…”

Testify!

• Link
• Report this comment

I certainly wish our three-toed cretins would acknowledge no higher law than the Constitution exists in the United States of America. Unfortunately, it isn’t so, as they all seem ready to depart from it rather than confront the people who can change it to suit their agenda, if we agree with it. Then again, our cowardly three-toed cretins fear that we will totally reject such things e.g. as international law taking precedent over our Constitution or even being consider to have any legal weight at all in this country.

We are not subjects of the world or any foreign power, we are not the subjects of a King or political party. It is time to constantly remind our three-toed cretins that we are not their subjects either. We are their lords and masters.

• Link
• Report this comment

Yes, my friend, the corporate-owned coverup artists in the lamestream media and Charlie whatshisass told Cindy Sheehan to go home (enough already) after GWB II had his coronation…

So yes, in this regard, the BHO sycophants are eerily similar to the Bush suckups, aren’t they?

It’s enough to make me think that had conscription been implemented, it would have been BIG fun to see who moved the most members to Canada. The faux peaceniks or the Young Republicans at UGA…

OK, off to pay for those botched but highly profitable occupations…

• Link
• Report this comment

What is unforgivable about “that war”, Jay, is that it might have been avoidable.

• Link
• Report this comment

El Jefe,

“No where in the founding documents is such a lame idea as the common good. ”

You are conveniently forgetting the definition of our government which involves it to represent all the people.

• Link
• Report this comment

I would cite the Interstate Commerce Clause. Republicans hate it, except when they don’t.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mr. Madison did not envision Medicare, Medicaid, Social Insecurity, public screw-els, social debauchery, Godlessness, a weakened military, a president who has contempt for freedom, disrespect for the Oval Office and the rule of law, the pill, giving the store away to jihadists in Iraq and abortion-on-demand. This list balances out your failed attempt at interpreting the Constitution for your readers, Liberal Jay – nice try. The fact is that the Honorable Senator Chambliss and his colleagues believe in getting this nation’s priorities right with an important project like the Savannah Port. This port creates jobs and will get us out of Hussein Obama’s self-inflicted recession. Just like the nuclear plant expansion, the Savannah Port will contribute to Speaker Boehner’s economic revival program. If the economy ever gets better under Hussein Obama, don’t create this installed joke of a “leader.” Thank Rep. Boehner, your Senator Chambliss, Rep. Cantor and Senator McConnell.
Amen,
Bill

• Link
• Report this comment

“Mr. Madison did not envision”

“social debauchery, Godlessness, a weakened military, a president who has contempt for freedom, disrespect for the Oval Office and the rule of law”

Oh, i feel certain he could — you think this is new?

• Link
• Report this comment

If it isn’t unconstitutional, then the application should be up to the individual states. The issues that you speak of came about through federal meddling in the practice. Why do you think it takes so long? It’s because the federal courts have been filled with ACLU legal retards who make the state jump through too many hoops to carry out JUSTICE. It is the whole reason FOR STATE’S RIGHTS.

That said, IF our congressional delegation pushes for the spending on the port, then I will certainly agree with you on this issue. Is there any indication that Johnny, Saxby and the 13 reps are pushing for this spending? OR, is it just STATE POLITICIANS?

• Link
• Report this comment

El Jefe @ 12:04

Preamble to the U.S. Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.”

Notice the words “promote the general Welfare.”

• Link
• Report this comment

MPercy

Interesting twist, but they were lied to, we were lied to…..

Perhaps you missed Colin Powells performance at the UN.

And Hillary….Her vote on the war was the main reason I could not vote for her.

You can hold to your beliefs that the Iraq war was executed all fair and square, but you might as well believe in the tooth fairy while you are at it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bosch,

You seem to forget that the powers of congress are few and defined. It is to promote health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being, or life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is not to feed the poor or house the homeless. Those were left to the states, but our magnanimous federal government said they knew better and took that away from the states with Johnson’s Great Society.

• Link
• Report this comment

BOSCH, who is reading minds NOW? How do YOU KNOW HE FORGOT, especially when you can’t FORGET something that doesn’t exist.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay is still upset the GOP took back so many seats. The constitution also doesnt make a provision for ObamaCare or the likes thereof yet Mr Bookman raises no protests.

• Link
• Report this comment

If Lincoln preserved anything, it was not the
US Constitution. If he finished anything it
was the pretense by the central government
that the Constitution was the law of the land.
Following and during the War the ‘might is right’
philosophy became the law of the land and has
continued to this day as invoked by GW Bush
when he invaded Iraq. I don’t disagree from a
practical standpoint, but I hate the hypocrisy
of the idealists who will not admit it. Unless
we admit it we cannot defend against it.

• Link
• Report this comment

We are witnessing the typical so-called conservative playbook on all problems that require more than two or three words; CONFLATE, EXTRAPOLATE, OBFUSCATE.

Now that the Repubs have control of the House, what are they going to do with it? To all citizens of this country, HANG ON TO YOUR SEATS, the turbulence is going to be horrific.

• Link
• Report this comment

@@…@7:53am …Ha Ha …guess the devil can find some way of quoting scripture!!

• Link
• Report this comment

The ‘might is right’ philosophy isn’t always correct, though, I’m glad it isn’t always wrong when it is at times, incorrect.

• Link
• Report this comment

Frog…

As Ang Lee says “I grew up in Taiwan, where older people always complained that kids are becoming Americanized: they don’t follow tradition, and so we are losing our culture. As I got the chance to go around a large part of the world with my films, I would hear the same complaints. It seems so much of the world is becoming Americanized. When I read Daniel Woodrell’s book Woe to Live On, which we based Ride with the Devil on, I realized that the American Civil War was, in a way, where it all started. It was where the Yankees won not only territory but, in a sense, a victory for a whole way of life and of thinking.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Common Sense isn’t very Common,

Actually, it was because different states provided different amounts of aid to the poor. Richer states had higher benefits and the poor flocked to them driving the cost to the state higher and higher. The old Catch 22.

• Link
• Report this comment

More than 25% of Kids and Teens in the U.S. Take Prescriptions on a Regular Basis. Viagra is reimbursed? We don’t need the gov’t (the great enabler) to take over healthcare. We need those evil insurance companies to stop reimbursing every limp *&&), every tennis elbow, every depressed person because they screwed up on how they raised their kids, and the list goes on- do you really think you need full mouth x rays every year?

• Link
• Report this comment

Is the death penalty cruel. Is the death penalty unusual.
If the constitution is not to be parsed it would have to be
‘cruel and unusual’ to be illegal. If you accept that the
constitution is irrelevant then the death penalty can
be the vengenance that it actually is and should be
carried out by the victim’s relatives.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bottom line, Madison stated that the general welfare clause does not give the government power to do anything.

Sorry Jay.

• Link
• Report this comment

chuck,

“Matti, I can see your point. I’m just not ready to be quite that cynical.”

I don’t want to speak for you, but I suspect what that means is that you’re having too much fun participating in the “divide and conquer” game. Those who control the money (and allow the stage production called “congress and elections” to continue as a distraction) want us at each other’s throats, vigorously debating “issues” they care nothing about. I’m sure they appreciate you playing along. Forgive me for calling BS on the whole thing, but that’s what it is.

The people who stand to make money off the dredging of our port will ensure that it happens, and they will ensure that somehow, WE (not those who profit) pay for it. Trust that we will not get a thank-you note.

• Link
• Report this comment

More from James Madison:

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

• Link
• Report this comment

General Welfare is the Commander in the War on Poverty.

• Link
• Report this comment

Lil’ Barry Bailout,

From your post, we can see where the current government thinking will lead us.

“…it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul

What gives me pause is confining predators among prisoners with non violent offenses. The state has a responsibility for the protection of those that are trying to pay their debt to society.

• Link
• Report this comment

General Malaise has allowed General Welfare to get
a death grip on our personal wealth.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Paul

Wonder why tinyurt.com offers to the discussion?

• Link
• Report this comment

The government cannot make everyone rich but
it can make everyone poor.

• Link
• Report this comment

The government cannot make everyone rich but
it can make everyone poor.

Good! Misery loves company…

• Link
• Report this comment

“they could raise
the price…simple bought and paid for economics…”

Riiiiggghht.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jackie

tinyurl is a site where you enter in a link about 5,000 characters long and it reduces it to about 8 characters.

PS – I hold the record for the longest link, BTW -

Hi there, josef nix!

Yeah, that was my Christmas present to ya’ll.

But, I still have the power!

• Link
• Report this comment

barking frog

December 28th, 2010
1:00 pm

Actually, if it did a better job of redistributing the wealth, $30 trillion could be doled out to 100 million households. I’m too lazy to figure out how wealthy we would all be. $300,000?

• Link
• Report this comment

JohnnyReb: Adam, just because Republicans made a deal when they should not, does not mean Obama is not weak

But why did they make the deal anyway? After 2 years of holding their ground suddenly 6-11 of them vote with most Democrats? That’s leadership!

• Link
• Report this comment

“Odd, isn’t it, that those so angered by the auto bailout weren’t equally angered by lucrative nuke subsidies?”

Meh. Not really. Two different issues.

• Link
• Report this comment

Barking Frog & Nice Guy,
If gas gets to 5.00 a gallon, I’m going to really love my motorcycle…I’ll even get a side car for grocery trips…

• Link
• Report this comment

For Ringo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6y4uY1WvTA

• Link
• Report this comment

The general welfare clause in Article I Section 8 is a *prelude* to the enumerated powers. As in “In order to provide for the defense and general welfare of the nation, the government may exercise the following powers:” which is then followed by the enumerated powers. If the government can be called upon to do anything that that constitutes “general welfare”, then an enumeration of limited powers would not have been necessary, nor would the 9th & 10th amendments.

The principle authors of the Constitution had several things to say about the “general welfare” clause making this eminently clear:

“For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?” Federalist No. 41, James Madison

“Our tenet ever was… that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.” –Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated is copied from the old Articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers.” James Madison’s view of the General Welfare Clause of Article 1. Section 8, from a letter written to Edmund Pendleton on January 21, 1792;

“The construction applied… to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to [the General Government's] power by the Constitution… Words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument.” –Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:385

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” –James Madison

“I hope our courts will never countenance the sweeping pretensions which have been set up under the words ‘general defence and public welfare.’ These words only express the motives which induced the Convention to give to the ordinary legislature certain specified powers which they enumerate, and which they thought might be trusted to the ordinary legislature, and not to give them the unspecified also; or why any specification? They could not be so awkward in language as to mean, as we say, ‘all and some.’ And should this construction prevail, all limits to the federal government are done away.” –Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1815. ME 14:350

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” James Madison

• Link
• Report this comment

Man, I admire you Constitutional scholars.

• Link
• Report this comment

Middle East oil may get less attention.. African oil
is booming.. We now have an African Command in
the Army. HQ was supposed to be in Atlanta but for
some reason they left it in Germany.

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny, hubbert assumed a finite supply of oil,
may not be true…Earth may be replenishing the
supply..

• Link
• Report this comment

Sense,
If you’re talking about the M-79 grenade launcher…nah. I’d prefer the M-19. Recoil’s a bit much, but it would clear any traffic jam you might come accross…

• Link
• Report this comment

barking frog

December 28th, 2010
1:27 pm

Interesting thought, how could that be?

• Link
• Report this comment

Normal

Gotta figure out where to put that rack for the walker, though…

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny, Normal, also if the yellowstone volcano blows
we will all become part of the future supply…

• Link
• Report this comment

Barking frog and josef nix

Oh hell, lot’s of stuff in life regularly “blows”…..all you can hope for is that you have time to get out of the way.

• Link
• Report this comment

josef nix

“PAUL Power corrupts. ”

Absolutely!

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay @1:25 pm

Yes, that’s pretty much what I’m saying. I don’t see how dredging the port of Savannah serves a legitimate Federal purpose under the enumerated powers.

But before you say “AHA! You’ve proven my point!”, I have never claimed to support any of the people you’ve cited as likely hypocrites (in fact, Mr. Chambliss’ work on the agriculture committee during the last big Farm Bill made my blood boil), and am willing to stipulate to the notion that there are indeed Republicans who are hypocritical regarding their purported Constitutional strictness. I hope you are willing to do much the same for Democrats–like those who voted for the Iraq war.

It seems to me that your whole article today is a lame attempt at a “gotcha” rather than any real respect for the principles you highlight. I feel that I have a right to point out their hypocrisy, since I have held that line of thought; for you to be tooting this horn, well, it seems to be something more like Ms. Tucker would pull.

• Link
• Report this comment

MPercy: Voting for the Iraq War is something I can forgive, since everyone was lied to about the reasons. If, in fact, Iraq DID have WMDs, it would have been a good idea to go in and get rid of them. They didn’t, and the intelligence was falsified to get us in there to force a coup. That is NOT something most Democrats, and even some Republicans, would have voted for if they had known that was the reason. On the other hand they might have gotten a few Dem votes if it was just “Get Saddam!” minus the WMD talk.

• Link
• Report this comment

On the other hand, I can see how some more, er, pragmatic members of Congress might find it easier to say to themselves, “Well, my principles are telling me that this is not really Constitutional as far a I’m concerned. But the courts have allowed previous Congressional actions to proceed under the flimsiest of Constitutional pretext, like the commerce clause and general welfare clause. So this is the current rules of the game, and I will go along with the rules as they are currently understood.”

Just like the Blue Dog Democrats who set aside their professed principles so that they could go-along-to-get-along, paraphrasing John Kerry, those who were against the stimulus before they voted for it. Or the Stupak Democrats who signed up for HCR on a promise from Pres. Obama (Executive Order 13535) that can be rescinded at any time it becomes useful for the President to do so.

• Link
• Report this comment

Normal

I’m sure you’ll have all the luxurious amenities any discerning fish would be looking for….

• Link
• Report this comment

At least when it blows, I’ll be warm! (Probably for some time afterward, too, if Scout and Co, are right!)

• Link
• Report this comment

Josef,
I got to tell ya, if heaven is really streets of gold and sitting around strummin’ harps,
give me a Hades any day…at least all my my friends will be there.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Voting for the Iraq War is something I can forgive, since everyone was lied to about the reasons. If, in fact, Iraq DID have WMDs, it would have been a good idea to go in and get rid of them. They didn’t, and the intelligence was falsified to get us in there to force a coup.”

Really, Adam? How many PDB’s did you attend during the Bush administration? None?

Well, how about CIA briefings on Iraq WMD’s? Oh, none there, either?

OK, maybe you attended some Intelligence briefings at the Congressional level then, right? No?

Then I guess that your claim that Bush & Co. “lied” about Iraq is your usual ‘I don’t know what I’m talking about” response, since again, you don’t know what went on in any facet of government during the Bush administration.

Or it could just be more psychic powers you claim to have, but actually don’t.

• Link
• Report this comment

Is this the same David Kay:

David Kay, the man who led the CIA’s postwar effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, has called on the Bush administration to “come clean with the American people” and admit it was wrong about the existence of the weapons.
In an interview with the Guardian, Mr Kay said the administration’s reluctance to make that admission was delaying essential reforms of US intelligence agencies, and further undermining its credibility at home and abroad.

Julian Borger in Washington The Guardian, Wednesday 3 March 2004

• Link
• Report this comment

While they dredge the port they need to build a
desalination plant and a pipeline to atlanta
to bring savannah river water and desalinated
water or just take it to macon and
put it on the high speed train.

• Link
• Report this comment

Michael H. Smith at 8:44 – I concur. My use of “Living Constitution” was intended as a jab at some Republicans who have declared war on the idea of a “living Constitution”. My argument is that since they will control the House once again they will ignore their previous dislike of a “living Constitution” and make full use of the idea of a “living
Constitution”. Hypocrisy as its American best.

As we all know the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. And the Roberts Court says that the Constitution is a “living constitution” and the Justices are at liberty to “legislate” to their hearts content.

• Link
• Report this comment

Great! When these federal pork barrel projects are canceled, we, The People, will get to keep more of our money. If the port in Savannah needs improvements, it should be paid for by the people who want it. Not taxpayers in Montana. The only thing The Federal Government should be funding is our national defense which is listed in The Constitution along with the Post Office. Toss in health care and education which are not found in The Supreme Law of the Land. BTW, does anyone know how to get the glue off my tongue these Kwanzaa stamps, which I’m putting on my Letters of Marquis and Reprisal, leaves? It tastes like, oh never mind.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ahhhh…. Jay…. Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to “collect duties, imposts and excises”, “regulate commerce with foreign nationals”, and “exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”, and Secton 10 specifically prohibits states from “lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.”

A Port of Entry, which Savannah clearly is, is clearly under the purview of Congress.

• Link
• Report this comment

Also Jay, I think you will find that they will not be doing as much of that because they are going to find out that one of our issues, FINALLY, is runaway spending that HAS TO BE STOPPED!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

chuck: Lip service to issues is not enough for me.

LBB: You must have missed the memo about the lie of the year.

• Link
• Report this comment

Chris: That would be more appropriate for the thread just prior to this one. Didn’t you “Fire Pelosi” in 2010? Oh that’s right, SHE STILL HAS HER JOB.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay
December 28th, 2010
11:05 am

And Moderate, I read the Gibbons decision before posting this. It says nothing about the right of the federal government to finance “internal improvements” and deals exclusively with whether the state of New York could grant a monopoly on steamship travel.
++++++
Jay argue with the website I cited. The opinion was the one of a legal website. From my perspective I going to take the opinion of a legal website over someone who has a personal vendetta to prove the Republicans to be hypocrites. You won’t hear me argue against the Republicans having their share of hypocrites but your argument in this case is very weak considering the over 150 years of precedent.

You just look like someone who stated something incorrect but your to stubborn to see the flaw in your argument.

• Link
• Report this comment

Wake up Adam. Obamacare is a huge federal power grab, and key parts of it are likely to be found unconstitutional.

Thanks for the NPR talking point though. Duly noted.

• Link
• Report this comment

deputy dipstick jay, comparing apples to oranges, but calling them the same.

• Link
• Report this comment

Wrong, Adam, it was an NPR talking point week before last, and a talking point for every libbtard who, like you, worships at the feet of your Idiot Messiah. Get off your knees, you’re embarrassing yourself.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay
December 28th, 2010
11:30 am

Moderate, the Constitution does NOT specifically address navigable waterways. Waterways, rivers, etc., are never even mentioned.

and “regulating” commerce — for alleged strict constructionists — cannot be redefined to mean financing port construction. Regulating means regulating.
++++
Where did I say the constitution specifically mentions navigable waterway. I don’t think strict constitutionalist have much of a problem with interpreting the commerce clause a pertaining to the ports. I can’t speak for strict constitutionalist concerning what they believe but I am not sure on I would rely on your opinion either.

Actually, McCulloch vs Maryland was the ruling which confirmed the Federal governments right to spend money on such things. I was only specifically pointing to the right of the federal government to be involved in ports. There is almost 200 years of precedent on this issue. I believe most of things the strict consitutionalist are against are those things the government started doing since 1932.

http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/mcculloch-v-maryland

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay
December 28th, 2010
4:43 pm

Moderate, I went to the actual decision, the source document, to reach my conclusion, a conclusion that your own website confirms. It states that Gibbon “ruled that navigation of vessels in and out of the ports of the nation is a form of interstate commerce and thus federal law must take precedence (over state law). This decision led to the contemporary exercise of broad federal power over navigable waters, and in countless other areas of intether areas of interstate commerce.”

Regulation of interstate commerce — but Gibbon did not say a word about a federal role in the dredging of waterways. In fact, it goes on to note that the extension of federal power over rivers and harbors dates much later, to the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, which “forbids building any unauthorized obstruction to the nation’s navigable waters and gives enforcement powers to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.”

Madison, on the other hand, expressly ruled out clearing waterways as a legitimate federal activity much earlier, in 1817. That was original intent.
++++++++
There is nothing in the constitution about funding a National Bank but yet one was established. The state of Maryland argued that the federal government had no right to establish a bank. However, McCulloch vs Maryland ruled in the favor of the federal government to establish a bank. This was accomplished in 1817 thus establishing the federal governments ability to fund things not specifically mention in the constitution.

The Rivers and Harbor Act was execution of that authority granted by the constitution to congress. The act did not grant the government the authority to regulate navigable waterways.

• Link
• Report this comment

LBB: If NPR talked about it, then fine they talked about it. So did other major news organizations. The “government takeover of healthcare” was and IS a lie. Get it through your head. That’s your memo. The source for it being lie of the year is Politifact. You just don’t like the evidence so you resort to attacking NPR. Yippe for you, you found the wek point! (not)

• Link
• Report this comment

Here is the reference to McCulloch vs Maryland

http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/mcculloch-v-maryland

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay
December 28th, 2010
5:35 pm

That’s right, Moderate.

Madison initally opposed a national bank, making just the argument that you describe: The Constitution did list that among the government’s enumerated powers, so government could not do it.

But by 1815, he had changed his mind. Even to Madison, the Constitution was apparently a living document.
+++++++++++++
I have found most people’s principles are “living principles” depending on their own self interest. Madison was opposed to the bank when it was expected that excise taxes would come with it’s charter. However, when the US because of the economic affects of the war of 1812.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sorry (Liberal) @Jay, Hussein Obama did more economic damage in his first 15 months of office than Jimmah Carter, Bubba Clinton and Ulysses Grant combined. Folk like you think it’s crazy to say that it’s GW Bush who started the recession – wrong! GW Bush was never able to crawl out from under the rock that Bubba Clinton and Bawney Frank left him in 2001. GW tried very hard to tamp down the irresponsible lending that Bawney and his pals Wiccan Pelosi and Brain-Damaged Reid strengthened, but he was stopped dead in his tracks when that awful liberal Congress went into effect in 2007.

Now, WE THE PEOPLE fired them and WE will see an increase in jobs, church attendance and a decrease in abortion-on-demand and debauchery.

I’m praying that Mr. Boehner will spend a lot of time investigating the chicanery under Hussein Obama and his weak-kneed “administration.”

Amen,
Bill

• Link
• Report this comment

@Adam
No one is revising history. I know that even your Mr. Boortz over there agrees with me. We ended up in a bad economy over this past decade because of the Clinton/Frank/Rubin troika of irresponsible policies. If we kept on GW low taxes/hands-off-business track, we would have seen unprecedented job growth. But no, Hussein Obama was installed to put in more unnecessary regulation that has stifled any hope of a recovery. It will take someone like Mr. Reagan to correct the damage that this current “administration” has created.
Amen,
Bill

• Link
• Report this comment

@Adam
It’s all called residual economic effects. It takes time for these effects to happen. The Clinton/Frank/Rubin plan took time to gestate and then hatch early on in GW’s administration. Likewise, GW’s free market models would have hatched by now, but Hussein Obama killed it with high taxe$, heavy, unnecessary and burdensome regulations.

I’m a small businessman and I’m now thinking about getting out because my taxe$ are shooting through the roof and Hussein Obama wants me to get health care for me and my workers. We don’t want it! We don’t need it! Just leave us alone and let us expand our business. The Socialist-Democrat party just doesn’t get it.

Amen,
Bill

• Link
• Report this comment