Posts
-----
Let's hope this doesn't spread to medium-sized law firms in the Midwest.
-__-
Friday, February 27, 2009
Obama's Hyperboles
-----
CALVIN WOODWARD and JIM KUHNHENN seem to have proof that Obama either doesn't know what he is talking about, or just doesn't care.
Either way, we are in trouble.
CALVIN WOODWARD and JIM KUHNHENN seem to have proof that Obama either doesn't know what he is talking about, or just doesn't care.
Either way, we are in trouble.
Give me a break, Obama.
-----
Tuesday night I listened to most of Obama's speech and found myself wanting to yell at the radio and contradict the President's rhetorical slights at his dissenters. But I was only upsetting my wife, who suggested that I just turn off the radio, and I didn't have evidence to support my distrust of Obama's remarks (after all, I'm still new to this game). However, Karl Rove has produced an article that very simply put facts behind my distaste for Obama's rhetoric.
ht: neo-neocon
Tuesday night I listened to most of Obama's speech and found myself wanting to yell at the radio and contradict the President's rhetorical slights at his dissenters. But I was only upsetting my wife, who suggested that I just turn off the radio, and I didn't have evidence to support my distrust of Obama's remarks (after all, I'm still new to this game). However, Karl Rove has produced an article that very simply put facts behind my distaste for Obama's rhetoric.
ht: neo-neocon
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Taxation Without Representation (a solution?)
-----
Just caught this on WSJ's law blog.
Apparently the Senate has been supportive of the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, which gives Washington D.C. Representation in the House of Representatives. The Wall Street Journal is quite obviously against the act claiming that this will be a permanent seat and will most definitely be a solid seat for the democrats. They also mention that it may be unconstitutional.
According to the plain language of the Constitution, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." The Constitution further dictates that the Person must be an inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen.
For those of you who aren't aware, Washington D.C. is federal jurisdiction. It is not our 51st state. This act ignores the plain language of the Constitution and would provide representation to individuals living in a federal jurisdiction.
However, an argument may be made that refusing to provide citizens a voice through representation in the House of Representatives is against the purpose of the Constitutional provision of a House of Representatives. No one likes the idea of taxation without representation, and an argument can be made that the resident's of Washington D.C. are struggling with this very notion. The House is supposed to be the representation of individual rights, while the Senate is supposed to be the representation of state rights. Why then can't Washington D.C. residents have representation?
I dare say that an argument that this seat is simply a give away to the democrat party is not a reasonable argument and should be disqualified immediately. The question is whether the letter of the law rules or the intention of the law.
I tend to fall on the side of "letter of the law". I tend to view the Constitution as a purposefully simple document that has been distorted and compromised by the actions of the Supreme Court (and FDR). Though I see the importance of the argument made for the "intention of the law", there is no good test for true intentions. It is the belief in intentions that has created the mass of gibberish we call Constitutional Law, full of doctrines, bright line tests, and contradictions. If we want to change the Constitution, the founders provided both the opportunity to rewrite our Constitution and to amend our Constitution.
Only then can we provide representation to the citizens residing in Washington D.C.
*UPDATE* I just thought I might clarify that there may be times when arguments as to intention are necessary due to ambiguous language. Determining the ambiguity of language creates a new problem that is not established in this matter.*UPDATE*
Just caught this on WSJ's law blog.
Apparently the Senate has been supportive of the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, which gives Washington D.C. Representation in the House of Representatives. The Wall Street Journal is quite obviously against the act claiming that this will be a permanent seat and will most definitely be a solid seat for the democrats. They also mention that it may be unconstitutional.
According to the plain language of the Constitution, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." The Constitution further dictates that the Person must be an inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen.
For those of you who aren't aware, Washington D.C. is federal jurisdiction. It is not our 51st state. This act ignores the plain language of the Constitution and would provide representation to individuals living in a federal jurisdiction.
However, an argument may be made that refusing to provide citizens a voice through representation in the House of Representatives is against the purpose of the Constitutional provision of a House of Representatives. No one likes the idea of taxation without representation, and an argument can be made that the resident's of Washington D.C. are struggling with this very notion. The House is supposed to be the representation of individual rights, while the Senate is supposed to be the representation of state rights. Why then can't Washington D.C. residents have representation?
I dare say that an argument that this seat is simply a give away to the democrat party is not a reasonable argument and should be disqualified immediately. The question is whether the letter of the law rules or the intention of the law.
I tend to fall on the side of "letter of the law". I tend to view the Constitution as a purposefully simple document that has been distorted and compromised by the actions of the Supreme Court (and FDR). Though I see the importance of the argument made for the "intention of the law", there is no good test for true intentions. It is the belief in intentions that has created the mass of gibberish we call Constitutional Law, full of doctrines, bright line tests, and contradictions. If we want to change the Constitution, the founders provided both the opportunity to rewrite our Constitution and to amend our Constitution.
Only then can we provide representation to the citizens residing in Washington D.C.
*UPDATE* I just thought I might clarify that there may be times when arguments as to intention are necessary due to ambiguous language. Determining the ambiguity of language creates a new problem that is not established in this matter.*UPDATE*
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)