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

[thehawk]

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.

Another point is that, if people think the Constitution requires somthing that people really really do not want, the Constitution is amendable [which would of course have the effect of overturning any Surpreme Court decision), and the amendment process starts in the Congress.  While I do not think Obama was going there with campaign finance yet, other presidents have recommended amendments (Reagan recommended a balanced budget amendment, I think the Equal Rights Amendment was pushed by a few democrats as well).  I don't see a problem with Obama complaining about a Surpreme Court decision as he did in the speech.

[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.

Another point is that, if people think the Constitution requires somthing that people really really do not want, the Constitution is amendable [which would of course have the effect of overturning any Surpreme Court decision), and the amendment process starts in the Congress.  While I do not think Obama was going there with campaign finance yet, other presidents have recommended amendments (Reagan recommended a balanced budget amendment, I think the Equal Rights Amendment was pushed by a few democrats as well).  I don't see a problem with Obama complaining about a Surpreme Court decision as he did in the speech.

I don't have a problem with asking for an amendment to fix anything, if that's what Obama was trying to do. Obviously an amendment would be constitutional and the process is so long and arduous that it would have to be a worthy proposal in order to get that far. But just passing a bunch of hokey legislation to work around the Constitution bothers me, but, like I said, given that I forgot that the Supreme Court can just take that down as well (which was a big FAIL on my part), it's not really an issue for me.

[Chuck to Chuck]

the amendment process starts in the Congress or the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments. 

Article V'd.

[MikeC]

I have been looking more into the Supreme Court decision in the last few days and its turning out to be less of a shit storm than what its made out to be.

The high court's 5-4 ruling in a First Amendment case, Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission (FEC), lifted restrictions for companies, unions, and other organizations to make independent expenditures in political campaigns.

The court decision, however does not allow corporations to contribute directly to a campaign or coordinate expenditures with a campaign. Nor did the ruling lift existing law that blocks foreign contributions to political campaigns.

In his speech, Obama also claimed the court reversed 100 years of law when, in fact, it overturned a 1990 decision in Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. Also, parts of the McCain-Feingold reform bill from 2002 that restricted independent political advertising in the closing days of an election were struck down.

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said.

"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities," the president said. "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."

Under the FEC regulation 11 CFR 110.20(i): "A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee."

Further, federal law, under 2 USC 441-Sec. 441e, also prohibits foreign donations.

I don't have layers of fact checkers, speech writers, and a Harvard degree, much less an open mic to the entire country. It wouldn't hurt the Administration to actually invest in some level of fact checkers before saying something he looks to be so clearly wrong on.

I believe Dennis Miller had a nice quote on the subject...

"Obama chose to call out the only 9 guys in the room that did their homework in law school. And the rest who ended up settling for politics stood and and cheer[ed] it. That's the embarrassment."

[Brownie]

State of the Union Addresses are hokey political theater no matter if it's being staged by Rove, Mike Deaver, James Carville, Mary Matalin, or David Axelrod. Why are we wasting time on this? Shouldn't we be discussing something more important like the bipartisan agreement that the Bears are run by a bunch of dumbasses? Or maybe a thread of "examples of how Patrick Kane and John Madden could have done better in Vancouver, complete with photos."

I come to unite, not divide. We can argue politics later. We're arguing over another SOTU address which shocked everyone by having these never-before seen elements:

1) The political hacks from both parties staking out spots near the aisle so they could shake hands/hug/kiss/grope/make a snarky comment at the president;
2) The facial expressions of the veep and speaker throughout the speech, no doubt assuring the physical safety of the President since at least 1989;
3) The introduction of the "common American" that the President brings into the speech at some point;
4) The well-designed applause lines that become a cause for the President's side of the aisle to make noise as if their team just won the World Series (do you make noise when this happens? I wouldn't know) These applause breaks make the speech approximately 4 times longer than it should be.
5) The shots of some lawmaker/cabinet member snoozing or misbehaving;
6) Red meat proposals for the President's party base;
7) An opposition response that's as silly and staged (if not more staged; come on, did Gov. McDonnell have to act like he was doing a SOTU too?) as the actual SOTU;
8) A couple good lines that we will later learn were written by one of the President's speechwriters who later goes on to greater glory as a newspaper columnist, author, cable TV talking head, or candidate for office him(her)self.
9) A lot of us bickering when we could be doing something more productive (like discuss Vancouver's ladies or Xavier Nady's physical or why Chuck is wrong or why Mike Tice and Rob Marinelli = BONERTIME in the fall).

[Quality Start Machine]

All politics aside, Dennis Miller can eat a bag of dicks.

[Gil Gunderson]

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.

Another point is that, if people think the Constitution requires somthing that people really really do not want, the Constitution is amendable [which would of course have the effect of overturning any Surpreme Court decision), and the amendment process starts in the Congress.  While I do not think Obama was going there with campaign finance yet, other presidents have recommended amendments (Reagan recommended a balanced budget amendment, I think the Equal Rights Amendment was pushed by a few democrats as well).  I don't see a problem with Obama complaining about a Surpreme Court decision as he did in the speech.

Overturning statutory interpretations of SCOTUS decisions is often done.  In 1982 Congress amended the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to overrule a narrow Supreme Court holding in Mobile v. Bolden, a 1980 decision that addressed whether intentional discrimination must be shown before the act could be invoked. In 1988, Congress overruled another Supreme Court decision (in  Grove City College v. Bell) by passing the Civil Rights Restoration Act, which broadened the coverage of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The legislative history of that law specifically recited that "certain aspects of recent decisions and opinions of the Supreme Court have unduly narrowed or cast doubt upon" a number of federal civil rights statutes and that "legislative action is necessary to restore the prior consistent and long-standing executive branch interpretations" of those laws.

And in 1991, Congress passed a broad, new Civil Rights Act that specifically reversed no fewer than five Supreme Court cases decided in 1989--decisions that severely restricted and limited workers' rights under federal antidiscrimination laws.  The new law recited in its preamble that its purpose was "to respond to recent decisions of the Supreme Court by expanding the scope of relevant civil rights statutes in order to provide adequate protection to victims of discrimination."

The trickiest issue is whether or not Congress can overturn CU with remedial legislation.  This decision was rendered under first amendment grounds, aka constitutional interpretation, and I doubt the further legislation would satisfy the compelling state interest test that SCOTUS would impose on the new law.  Unless one of the Five Horsemen kicks the bucket soon, this is the law of the land.

Also, SKO, remember this.  Article 1 is number one for a reason.  The founders may have envisioned separate and equal branches, but Congress comes first.

[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?

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.

I should've added some of my own wordage to clarify - Reagan was just the most recent example I found of a President talkin' jive to Congress about the Supreme Court in the SOTU. FDR spent about 1/4 of his 1937 talkin' mess to those robed weirdos. Just as the Constitution intended.

Also, what everyone else said about separation of powers. The Supreme Court declaring whether or not something is constitutional isn't the last word. That's why we've got the Execulative and Legisdicial branches.

[Chuck to Chuck]

I don't have layers of fact checkers, speech writers, and a Harvard degree, much less an open mic to the entire country.

No shit, no shit, no fucking kidding, and this board is what you use as a substitute.

[MikeC]

Also a James O'Keefe update.

The government has now confirmed what has always been clear:  No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu's office.  Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines.  Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false.

As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetrated by ACORN.  For decades, investigative journalists have used a variety of tactics to try to dig out and reveal the truth.

I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu's constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn't want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill.  When asked about this, Senator Landrieu's explanation was that, "Our lines have been jammed for weeks."  I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for "weeks" because her phones were broken.  In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu's district office – the people's office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.
On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building.  The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator.  We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I'm eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media.

It has been amazing to witness the journalistic malpractice committed by many of the organizations covering this story.  MSNBC falsely claimed that I violated a non-existent "gag order."  The Associated Press incorrectly reported that I "broke in" to an office which is open to the public.  The Washington Post has now had to print corrections in two stories on me.  And these are just a few examples of inaccurate and false reporting.  The public will judge whether reporters who can't get their facts straight have the credibility to question my integrity as a journalist.

Retractions are being printed and he has video of the entire thing, which the Government has its hands. So he is awfully confident about the outcome of the entire matter. Much like with the ACORN matter, liberal media came rushing to defense of ACORN only to watch more and more videos drop exposing the sheer hypocrisy of ACORNS leaders but also their cheerleaders in the media.

I will give the kid the benefit of the doubt, because the main stream media is already backing down on their wild claims against O'Keefe. A dumb stunt that probably could have been thought out better, but not a wire tapping case of some criminal mastermind bent on evil.

As with the ACORN videos.....let's watch the video footage when it comes out.

[BH]

Also a James O'Keefe update.

The government has now confirmed what has always been clear:  No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu's office.  Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines.  Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false.

As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetrated by ACORN.  For decades, investigative journalists have used a variety of tactics to try to dig out and reveal the truth.

I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu's constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn't want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill.  When asked about this, Senator Landrieu's explanation was that, "Our lines have been jammed for weeks."  I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for "weeks" because her phones were broken.  In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu's district office – the people's office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.
On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building.  The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator.  We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I'm eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media.

It has been amazing to witness the journalistic malpractice committed by many of the organizations covering this story.  MSNBC falsely claimed that I violated a non-existent "gag order."  The Associated Press incorrectly reported that I "broke in" to an office which is open to the public.  The Washington Post has now had to print corrections in two stories on me.  And these are just a few examples of inaccurate and false reporting.  The public will judge whether reporters who can't get their facts straight have the credibility to question my integrity as a journalist.

Retractions are being printed and he has video of the entire thing, which the Government has its hands. So he is awfully confident about the outcome of the entire matter. Much like with the ACORN matter, liberal media came rushing to defense of ACORN only to watch more and more videos drop exposing the sheer hypocrisy of ACORNS leaders but also their cheerleaders in the media.

I will give the kid the benefit of the doubt, because the main stream media is already backing down on their wild claims against O'Keefe. A dumb stunt that probably could have been thought out better, but not a wire tapping case of some criminal mastermind bent on evil.

As with the ACORN videos.....let's watch the video footage when it comes out.

BC has cold popcorn and pizza if you want to go over and watch it with him. It's BYOB.

[Gilgamesh]

Also a James O'Keefe update.

The government has now confirmed what has always been clear:  No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu's office.  Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines.  Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false.

As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetrated by ACORN.  For decades, investigative journalists have used a variety of tactics to try to dig out and reveal the truth.

I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu's constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn't want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill.  When asked about this, Senator Landrieu's explanation was that, "Our lines have been jammed for weeks."  I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for "weeks" because her phones were broken.  In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu's district office – the people's office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.
On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building.  The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator.  We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I'm eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media.

It has been amazing to witness the journalistic malpractice committed by many of the organizations covering this story.  MSNBC falsely claimed that I violated a non-existent "gag order."  The Associated Press incorrectly reported that I "broke in" to an office which is open to the public.  The Washington Post has now had to print corrections in two stories on me.  And these are just a few examples of inaccurate and false reporting.  The public will judge whether reporters who can't get their facts straight have the credibility to question my integrity as a journalist.

Retractions are being printed and he has video of the entire thing, which the Government has its hands. So he is awfully confident about the outcome of the entire matter. Much like with the ACORN matter, liberal media came rushing to defense of ACORN only to watch more and more videos drop exposing the sheer hypocrisy of ACORNS leaders but also their cheerleaders in the media.

I will give the kid the benefit of the doubt, because the main stream media is already backing down on their wild claims against O'Keefe. A dumb stunt that probably could have been thought out better, but not a wire tapping case of some criminal mastermind bent on evil.

As with the ACORN videos.....let's watch the video footage when it comes out.

He's not a journalist; he's a Hearstian, propagandizing, partisan, Yellow Journalism-peddling, charlatan.

But hey, he didn't bug a federal telephone.  THAT'S A PLUS!!!

This message brought to you by ACORN!!!

[Eli]

I don't have layers of fact checkers, speech writers, and a Harvard degree spellcheck.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

I will give the kid the benefit of the doubt...

We're giving benefit of doubt now?

[MikeC]

I don't have layers of fact checkers, speech writers, and a Harvard degree, much less an open mic to the entire country.

No shit, no shit, no fucking kidding, and this board is what you use as a substitute.

Hey Chuck contrary to what you may believe, you don't know everything, but you act like you do. But we are not Presidents, with an entire fucking White House at his disposal to get simple facts correct. I do politics in passing, the President of the United States is politics in its highest form. And if your writing a State of the Union Speech it wouldn't hurt to get what the Supreme Court Decision actually did rather than what you think it did. If you gonna stand at your podium and bitch slap them in front of the cameras for the entire nation to see, atleast get the facts corrects. Thats all I am addressing, the biggest most talked about thing with the SOTU address was the Alito, Obama reaction with Democrats standing up and cheering something Alito was correct about and Obama was wrong about.

I didn't have the time to actually look into the matter until recently, and i tended to believe Obama's position. Now that I have looked at it (took like 30 minutes) it doesn't really change much. What is embarrasing is the entire Democratic party standing up and cheering about something they too probably never looked at but as politician it is their job.

Me, you, everyone else on this board has their opinions, beliefs, and time constraints to give a shit about 1/10th of what politicians do. Some of its right or wrong based on your political leaning or what you give a shit about. No one is perfect on this site And guess what? The politicians know we don't have the time to fact check every single word that comes out of their mouth. But you should expect better from the President of the United States who is going to publiclly call out a Supreme Court decision to get his facts in order first. I guess the short story of it is, he has a whole team of people paid to pour over his speeches, were just people on message boards who do it for free and by ourselves.