Fuck its silent in here.......

[ChuckD]

I read somewhere that he turned off the AVS checking of credit card donations (checks donor's name, address, etc. against the credit card company's records) or something, which could have led to such behavior... but I never saw anything that established that such behavior was in fact occurring.  It may well have, but that's a serious allegation which requires some backup.

Name isn't checked by AVS. Only the address, zip, and the CVV on the back are checked. Seriously, though: responding to MikeC, morph? Hasn't Andre Bauer taught you anything about feeding stray animals?

[Eli]

If your talking about being transparent but hiding who and where people are donating from it means your lieing through your teeth.

I can appreciate you're philosophy of sticking with won version of this word, because it insures that your gonna be write at least maybe halve the thyme.

[R-V]

I read somewhere that he turned off the AVS checking of credit card donations (checks donor's name, address, etc. against the credit card company's records) or something, which could have led to such behavior... but I never saw anything that established that such behavior was in fact occurring.  It may well have, but that's a serious allegation which requires some backup.

Name isn't checked by AVS. Only the address, zip, and the CVV on the back are checked. Seriously, though: responding to MikeC, morph? Hasn't Andre Bauer taught you anything about feeding stray animals?

Go fuck your FACE, man.

[morpheus]

I read somewhere that he turned off the AVS checking of credit card donations (checks donor's name, address, etc. against the credit card company's records) or something, which could have led to such behavior... but I never saw anything that established that such behavior was in fact occurring.  It may well have, but that's a serious allegation which requires some backup.

Name isn't checked by AVS. Only the address, zip, and the CVV on the back are checked. Seriously, though: responding to MikeC, morph? Hasn't Andre Bauer taught you anything about feeding stray animals?

Go fuck your OWN FACE, man.

Pedant'd for accurate quoting purposes.

And the fact that AVS doesn't check the name (which is my mistake in stating that it does) doesn't change the fact that turning off AVS is still not a good idea unless you're trying to enable bad behavior.

[SKO]

I realize it's been done before, and I realize that probably both sides have done it, and I'm not trying to turn this into any kind of partisan slugfest, but is it wrong that I still find it unsettling that the President (and I don't mean it as an attack on This president, it could have been any other and I'd still be bothered) derided a Supreme Court decision and is urging Congress to find a way to legislate around something that the Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional? I'm not really sure how I feel about the donations, and this is obviously an unpopular decision, but where do you draw the line? It just bothers me that we can legislate our way around the constitution (outside of passing an amendment, of course).

[R-V]

I realize it's been done before, and I realize that probably both sides have done it, and I'm not trying to turn this into any kind of partisan slugfest, but is it wrong that I still find it unsettling that the President (and I don't mean it as an attack on This president, it could have been any other and I'd still be bothered) derided a Supreme Court decision and is urging Congress to find a way to legislate around something that the Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional? I'm not really sure how I feel about the donations, and this is obviously an unpopular decision, but where do you draw the line? It just bothers me that we can legislate our way around the constitution (outside of passing an amendment, of course).

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

The Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being. Yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. I believe Congress should pass our school prayer amendment.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

...but is it wrong that I still find it unsettling that the President... derided a Supreme Court decision and is urging Congress to find a way to legislate around something that the Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional?

Isn't that just part and parcel to separation of powers?

I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

There's still room to work around the edges of it. And, if they overstep the bounds of Constitutionality, there's the court to slap them down again.

The more pertinent question is how anyone could expect Congress to actually do anything to turn off the huge campaign fund spigot that just got opened, full-bore.

[CBStew]

I realize it's been done before, and I realize that probably both sides have done it, and I'm not trying to turn this into any kind of partisan slugfest, but is it wrong that I still find it unsettling that the President (and I don't mean it as an attack on This president, it could have been any other and I'd still be bothered) derided a Supreme Court decision and is urging Congress to find a way to legislate around something that the Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional? I'm not really sure how I feel about the donations, and this is obviously an unpopular decision, but where do you draw the line? It just bothers me that we can legislate our way around the constitution (outside of passing an amendment, of course).

There is ample precedent from every Republican president condemning Roe v Wade in their State of the Union addresses and calling for its overturn.   If a decision creates a problem that can be cured by legislation a president would be remiss if she did not address it.

[R-V]

I realize it's been done before, and I realize that probably both sides have done it, and I'm not trying to turn this into any kind of partisan slugfest, but is it wrong that I still find it unsettling that the President (and I don't mean it as an attack on This president, it could have been any other and I'd still be bothered) derided a Supreme Court decision and is urging Congress to find a way to legislate around something that the Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional? I'm not really sure how I feel about the donations, and this is obviously an unpopular decision, but where do you draw the line? It just bothers me that we can legislate our way around the constitution (outside of passing an amendment, of course).

There is ample precedent from every Republican president condemning Roe v Wade in their State of the Union addresses and calling for its overturn.   If a decision creates a problem that can be cured by legislation a president would be remiss if she did not address it.

Are you typing from PPE's PUMA alterna-verse?

[SKO]

I realize it's been done before, and I realize that probably both sides have done it, and I'm not trying to turn this into any kind of partisan slugfest, but is it wrong that I still find it unsettling that the President (and I don't mean it as an attack on This president, it could have been any other and I'd still be bothered) derided a Supreme Court decision and is urging Congress to find a way to legislate around something that the Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional? I'm not really sure how I feel about the donations, and this is obviously an unpopular decision, but where do you draw the line? It just bothers me that we can legislate our way around the constitution (outside of passing an amendment, of course).

There is ample precedent from every Republican president condemning Roe v Wade in their State of the Union addresses and calling for its overturn.   If a decision creates a problem that can be cured by legislation a president would be remiss if she did not address it.

Are you typing from PPE's PUMA alterna-verse?

Okay. Since my request that this not turn partisan was answered with "well Reagan did it, as did the Republicans in every..." We all know the prayer in school thing is legislation that would never pass and it's lip service to the base of the Republican Party. Like I said before, isn't the very precedent  of legislating around the decisions of the Supereme Court concerning in and of itself, be it a retarded school prayer amendment or the current issue of campaign donations? Anyways, Tank makes a good point about the Court just slapping down any further legislation, so I thank him.  And as for the bolded part, I find that notion unsettling. I'm not sure I trust Congress to judge whether a problem (meaning something the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional being reinstated) needs to be "cured" by leglislation.

[Chuck to Chuck]

And as for the bolded part, I find that notion unsettling. I'm not sure I trust Congress to judge whether a problem (meaning something the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional being reinstated) needs to be "cured" by leglislation.

So, you are against all abortion restriction legislation?

[morpheus]

I realize it's been done before, and I realize that probably both sides have done it, and I'm not trying to turn this into any kind of partisan slugfest, but is it wrong that I still find it unsettling that the President (and I don't mean it as an attack on This president, it could have been any other and I'd still be bothered) derided a Supreme Court decision and is urging Congress to find a way to legislate around something that the Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional? I'm not really sure how I feel about the donations, and this is obviously an unpopular decision, but where do you draw the line? It just bothers me that we can legislate our way around the constitution (outside of passing an amendment, of course).

There is ample precedent from every Republican president condemning Roe v Wade in their State of the Union addresses and calling for its overturn.   If a decision creates a problem that can be cured by legislation a president would be remiss if she did not address it.

I agree with Obama's right to urge passage of legislation.  If the Congress can come up with a way to legislate this that is also Constitutional, then surely Obama is within his rights to call for it.  And I agree with SKO that Congress (and the President, for that matter) is not exactly great at judging what a "problem" is, but that's not the point.  The point is that our system is set up such that there is a give-and-take between the three branches, and each is expected to keep the others in check, which is what Obama's jawboning of the Supremes and Congress is all about.

I don't think that the "spigot turned on full-bore" will turn out to be as high-volume as others on this forum seem to think.  Corporations still have to 1) keep their clients and 2) keep people interested in owning their stock.  Spending tons of cash on campaign messages is a good way to eliminate 1/3 to 1/2 of the electorate from being in these categories.

[morpheus]

And as for the bolded part, I find that notion unsettling. I'm not sure I trust Congress to judge whether a problem (meaning something the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional being reinstated) needs to be "cured" by leglislation.

So, you are against all abortion restriction legislation?

Did the Supreme Court find it all unconstitutional?

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

And as for the bolded part, I find that notion unsettling. I'm not sure I trust Congress to judge whether a problem (meaning something the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional being reinstated) needs to be "cured" by leglislation.

But that's their job.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Why do you hate the Constitution so much?

[SKO]

And as for the bolded part, I find that notion unsettling. I'm not sure I trust Congress to judge whether a problem (meaning something the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional being reinstated) needs to be "cured" by leglislation.

But that's their job.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Why do you hate the Constitution so much?

Yes, I understand that Congress passes legislation. I just don't think Congress passing legistlation that's basically designed to overturn a Supreme Court decision is a great idea. Frankly, though, the answer I wanted has been given, because I didn't really think about the Court just turning over said legislation. The system works, I guess. Thank you, Desipio roundtable.