Full faith and credit and showdownarama 2013

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by chappy

This isn't a red-team/blue-team thing--its a how we respond to fake crises thing. Just because the red-team has currently staffed themselves with crazy doesn't mean that they will always be in the wrong. That doesn't change that right now they are wrong.

[Applause!]

Beautifully said!

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by chalsall

[Applause!]

Beautifully said!

And Ernst carefully ignored the fact that during the most intense parts
of the debates over NSA spying I made hardly any posts at all because I
was very sick from chemo. This was over a period of 3 months.

[chappy]

To be fair I don't believe he was saying that any of us were in favor of the wiretaps.

this was written by the uncle of a friend of a friend of mine...which means absolutely nothing...but it is an historical look at the Government shutdown weapon.

[kladner]

I second the applause. Well said, Chap.

RDS- I intensely hope to avoid the sort of ordeal you are enduring. I worked at M. D. Anderson when I was much younger, and saw patients under extreme chemo treatments at very close range. I sincerely hope there is some significant improvement possible for you, and that such a possibility comes to pass.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

I have spoken against the illegal spying.

Where?

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

And Ernst carefully ignored the fact that during the most intense parts
of the debates over NSA spying I made hardly any posts at all because I
was very sick from chemo. This was over a period of 3 months.

Not being "in the loop" on your day-to-day medical status, I only recall seeing various posts from you in other areas of the forum, and getting a curious impression of "silence" on your part with respect to the NSA spying issue. Let me do a quick check:

o NSA spying thread begun on 6/6/2012; your first {and only] post there not until 20 September, one strictly of the crypto-technical variety;

o You average roughly 2 posts per day, and I see no major "period of silence" in your overall forum usage/postings since the above date. In fact I - perhaps wrongly, but I hope not - took your continued engagement hereabouts as a good sign.

So I would be genuinely curious to see the"speaking out against" posts you mention.

Perhaps I got an erroneous impression based on that I spend little time in the Factoring forums - but as we are speaking here of government-agency legality and ethics, I wouldn't expect much discussion of that in Factoring; rather, this is precisely the sort of thing Soap Box was created for.

----------------

But - let us continue any discussion of the above in the appropriate neighboring thread. I brought the issue up only in the "people who are alleged to be flouting the constitution" sense. I now return the discussion to its previous and proper "Republicans are douches, man" theme.

[only_human]

What does it matter how much anyone spoke out against illegal spying? What a strange shibboleth. I don't think I posted in it at all, or maybe very little - but mainly because I didn't think that I was holding any special point that hadn't been made.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

The U.S. Constitution requires that the U.S. can not default on its debts.

If Congress has no legitimate right to impose a debt ceiling, that is something that may need to be determined in the Supreme Court. I think it could be possible for that court to find that Congress's authority in this matter is somewhat less than has been supposed for a long time.

If Boehner will not bring it to a vote, can the Justice Department
have him arrested for treason (probably not)
or a simple violation of his oath of office?????

He swore to uphold the Constitution........

... but there is no constitutional requirement that the Speaker of the House bring a debt ceiling bill to a vote. It is neither a violation of oath of office nor treason.

You present no evidence that Boehner's not bringing a certain type of bill to the House floor for a vote is any violation of his oath of office, much less is treason.

I think you have sufficient legitimate argument on your side so as not to need to resort to exaggeration or hyperbole.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Does that carry with it the responsibility to not pass unfunded laws?

Define "unfunded law".

I think it has been quite rare for Congress, at the time it passes a bill creating a new executive-branch power or obligation, to have simultaneously appropriated sufficient funds for the entire future carrying-out of operations in support of that power or obligation.

Also, what precisely constitutes "default" in a context of a government which can emit unbacked currency at will?

Despite your frequent declaration of the latter emission's existence, that is not the same as the Treasury's having enough money to pay all bondholders who present matured bonds for redemption.

[Xyzzy]

.

[LaurV]

That was a woman. A man would not forget "the association of politicians' wives and mistresses" or something equivalent... Don't tell me any of the mentioned organizations have more influence on the mentioned subject...

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

(blah blah blah).

Pretty good list, but I fear the Pope and the Queen of England will feel slighted.

Oops. The Vatican IS listed. Poor HRM Liz is left out in the cold.