Posted on 01/25/2008 12:49:01 AM PST by Aristotelian
yes, correct. thanks for correcting me publicly
Read my lips, Margaret, no new news here. Reagan had conservative heads exploding when he, among other things, raised taxes, increased the deficit and gave amnesty to millions of illegals. Yet, he is the standard bearer of conservatives today. Noonan isn't the only overreactor. The chicken little syndrom is flourishing here on FR as well.
We are only now able to identify some of these pukes. Several were removed ~ Valrie Plame, Mary McCarthy, etc. You'll see even more of them gone as the lawsuits Dr. Hatfill has filed surface uncomfortable truths.
The only conclusion we can draw is that The Left was involved in the attack.
OUCH ... we'll deserved smack
Sounds like something from a Jim Webb novel.
Bwahahahahahahaha! LMAOROTFLMPMP ~
“Do you really want Hillary to appoint the next 3 or 4 Supreme Court Justices? If that happens it’s all over.”
Bullcarp. It’s over when the last bullet is spent and a dictator shoves a bayonet through my skull.
Thanks. I appreciate the kind words.
BTW, wouldn’t that be a great job...
Thank you for that. It had been my understanding that the City itself had been taken to task on the grounds of constitutionality, could they ban a class of weapons or not.
Wouldn’t you still say that if their law stands, it opens pandora’s box? And didn’t the solicitor argue for provisional denials.
Thanks for realting what you had observed.
Moral of the story: never turn down a woman writer who offers to serve as a speech writer for your guy in the White House.
I realize that Congress is the ultimate authority in the district. Does that preclude the city itself from devising any city measures such as the one we’re addressing?
For instance, a city in a state doesn’t have to check with the state capital to implement city ordinances.
Is that forbidden in D.C.?
The Dillon Rule is the one that says a city cannot enact any rules without specific state authorization. The Home Rule is the one that says a city can enact rules provided they aren’t specifically disapproved by the state.
Congress has what is described in the Constitution as “Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction” ~ and that means there’s no subordinate body with authority to legislate over the district.
I think the Constitution prohibits the form of city government Congress established because it has independent authority to legislate.
The implementing legislation passed by Congress gave Congress the power to disapprove specific legislative items.
I don’t think that is going to pass Constitutional review by the Supreme Court.
BTW, this question has never been before the Court.
So true. GW's presidency has been a disaster for the Republicans and the nation. It has almost completely reversed the Reagan revolution.
Guess what? I still like President Bush. I think he has done a terrific job, and no one can change my mind, not even Peggy whom I admire! A President has to do what he has to do!
Thank you for the clarifications. The true nature of the D.C. goverment has been somewhat confusing to me. If the city government cannot do anything, why have one? Strange setup...
McCain is a Rockefeller Republican who compromises and goes along with Liberal Democrats at every available opportunity. He also has also demonstrated a clear and unmitigated contempt for the First Amendment and for American sovereignty. I don't see "leadership" in either of these traits.
Rush is spot on with his analysis. A McCain Presidency will return the Republican party to they days when Republicans in Congress were irrelevant because of their country club "go along to get along" mentality. This is not what I or any other true Conservative wants to see happen to this country. You don't compromise your principles to appease the opposition. That is not leadership. That is the absence of leadership.......
The end of this editorial is controversial, but it clearly has merit:
“On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, “I’m here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it’s going to destroy the Republican Party. It’s going to change it forever, be the end of it!”
This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.
Were there other causes? Yes, of course. But there was an immediate and essential cause.
And this needs saying, because if you don’t know what broke the elephant you can’t put it together again. The party cannot re-find itself if it can’t trace back the moment at which it became lost. It cannot heal an illness whose origin is kept obscure.
I believe that some of the ferocity of the pundit wars is due to a certain amount of self-censorship. It’s not in human nature to enjoy self-censorship. The truth will out, like steam from a kettle. It hurts to say something you supported didn’t work. I would know. But I would say of these men (why, in the continuing age of Bill Clinton, does the emoting come from the men?) who are fighting one another as they resist naming the cause for the fight: Sack up, get serious, define. That’s the way to help.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.