And if Ben Bernanke IS running for office, but they make the same ruling, in an obvious breach of their own rules?
The simple fact is that by allowing the federal government (via the supreme court) SOLE discretion in deciding what is and isn't constitutional, you make the constitution irrelevant. There's no sense in even having one. The federal government has absolutely unlimited power. This is OBVIOUSLY not what the founders intended. They wouldn't have wasted all those weeks precisely drafting a "charter of negative liberties" (as Obama calls it) if they really just wanted it to say "the federal government has all power to do whatever it wants to the states and the people in all cases whatsoever"
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
And if Ben Bernanke IS running for office, but they make the same ruling, in an obvious breach of their own rules?
You're probably still screwed. You still can't display the Ron Paul signs. You might be able to force them to make your neighbor take down his signs too, but that's probably not what you really wanted.
The simple fact is that by allowing the federal government (via the supreme court) SOLE discretion in deciding what is and isn't constitutional, you make the constitution irrelevant. There's no sense in even having one. The federal government has absolutely unlimited power. This is OBVIOUSLY not what the founders intended. They wouldn't have wasted all those weeks precisely drafting a "charter of negative liberties" (as Obama calls it) if they really just wanted it to say "the federal government has all power to do whatever it wants to the states and the people in all cases whatsoever"
Well, on the practical side, a court is not a government and the US Supreme Court has had a pretty good record (you might be interested in what they said in Erie Railroad). The fact that the Constitution gives it the power to settle disputes between states indicates the framers thought that was the best approach wrt the federal government too. After all, a majority of the people in the country can force the federal government to change through the political process. And a supermajority of 75% of states (even without a majority of people) can ram through any changes they want by constitutional amendment. Thus, if the federal government does something, it can be presumed that there are states that want it, and the Supreme Court has been delegated power to settle that dispute.
On the theoretical side, giving state supreme courts final power is going to be even worse. Probably the best approach is to give states more input into the selection of US Supreme Court justices.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
According to whom? One state? It can't be something 75% of states agree on, because then they would have forced the federal govt to change. If it's less than 75% of states, the Constitution delegates the power to decide if something is unconstitutional to the Supreme Court.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
In that case, what you really need is independent countries. I.e. secession. Even the CSA did not choose to enshrine nullification in its constitution, but only secession, because nullification makes union completely pointless. Just stay separate states if that's what you want.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
A round of applause to Mark Zuckerberg for going to a meeting of investment bankers dressed in a hoodie ahead of the Facebook IPO. They can be as upset as they like, but they'll still buy the stock, or if not, lose out even more. Facebook has done more for the American people than any of their banks have in about 30 years, and soon, it will probably be worth more than any of the banks. Hahahahahahaha
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Well, the most valuable bank right now is Wells Fargo at 177B market cap. Facebook will open around a market cap of 100B, so they need to rise 77% to beat WFC. They could do that the first day. In the long run, you may be right- but that's no reason Americans everywhere shouldn't hold parties celebrating the triumph of genuine entrepreneurship over the socialist banks that use the government to prey on the taxpayers if/when FB becomes more valuable than any bank.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
From: red sox 777 | #258 In that case, what you really need is independent countries. I.e. secession. Even the CSA did not choose to enshrine nullification in its constitution, but only secession, because nullification makes union completely pointless. Just stay separate states if that's what you want.
Once again though, the point is that nullification is a much more peaceful and reasonable alternative to secession.
One point made in the book that I have made here previously is that in many aspects, we already have nullification going on right now and not just by those crazy evil red states who only hate Obama because he's black. California's medical marijuana laws are a de facto nullification of federal drug law. Same thing with the various firearms freedom laws and food sovereignty laws sweeping the more conservative states.
And although the justice department has occasionally raided marijuana dispensaries in California, it's not as if Obama has sent the army in to forcibly pacify the state as a whole, despite their open defiance of federal law. Jefferson never suggested that states simply nullify any bill they don't like. It's only supposed to be done in extreme cases where the bill is deemed to be not just bad, but unconstitutional. The idea is, if you limit it to these cases, the feds WON'T call your bluff and WON'T invade your state with the army. It's not worth it for them.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
California's medical marijuana law does nothing more than say that California state employees will not enforce the federal law in California, which the state is perfectly entitled to do. Action/inaction may or may not be a stupid distinction, but it's the distinction here. Nullification would be California banning federal agents from enforcing the drug laws in CA.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
And nullification is not more peaceful than secession. Secession can be 100% peaceful if the other states just let a state go. If they don't choose to allow it, there will be war. Just as if they don't choose to allow nullification, there will be war. And they are more likely to allow secession than nullification because a state that secedes cannot still partake of all the benefits the other states are providing.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
It's frustrating watching coverage of this 2 billion dollar loss at JP Morgan, because people keep saying that this means we should have more regulation, when that wouldn't help and no one sees the real problem.
If JPM couldn't avoid this mistake, what makes people think regulators would? It's a very big bank, it's inevitable that some mistakes are going to be made, because no one is perfect. And certainly not regulators any more than bankers. It's also no good if regulations are put in place in the future that would have caught this one but allow other and greater numbers of mistakes through the net. After all, do you really think JPM needs regulators' help to avoid making the exact same mistake that lost them 2 billion this time? No, the "next time" will feature an entirely new mistake that regulators won't be any more aware of than the banks.
And what exactly is the problem with JPM losing 2 billion of its own money? Shareholders may be angry, but why should the government or the general public care? They shouldn't, unless they are saying that JPM is part of the national network of too-big-to-fail banks that the government must backstop. And that tells you exactly what the real problem is: that there exist banks that are too big to fail.
If you want government action that helps, stop regulating. Just divide up banks like they did with Standard Oil and AT&T. If you have 50 major banks in play instead of 5, no one is too big to fail, and no one will be able to rely on the government to bail them out.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
And what exactly is the problem with JPM losing 2 billion of its own money? Shareholders may be angry, but why should the government or the general public care? They shouldn't, unless they are saying that JPM is part of the national network of too-big-to-fail banks that the government must backstop. And that tells you exactly what the real problem is: that there exist banks that are too big to fail.
This is what I really don't understand at all. Why is this a news story? Unless you're a shareholder, why do you care? And if you ARE a shareholder, you will probably be annoyed at the company, but it's not likely your favored solution will be something guaranteed to keep them even less profitable in the future (increased regulation).
Didn't the commies used to complain that these firms made too much money? Now they're mad that they lost too much money? What exactly are they supposed to do? Break even every single quarter?
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Oh man, 2 shareholders have filed lawsuits against JP Morgan over the 2 billion loss. Seriously people? You made your bet, and appear to have lost only 10% (the stock is down 10%, which is a lot more than 2 billion already), and your response is to file a lawsuit? Despite the bad rep lawsuits get, most of them really aren't frivolous, but these feel frivolous to me.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
As baseless as they probably are (if you invest in a company, you take on the risk of that company losing money!), I'm guessing they'll be settled quickly for a big enough sum to make the lawsuits profitable, so that JPM doesn't have to have its perception in the public ruined further by a trial. Which is important at this time when people are clamoring for more regulation.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
I don't think they've got anything to worry about. Nothing they did here was remotely illegal. Hope Mitt Romney has the guts to stand up for what is right instead of going along with supporting the government "investigation."
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Me too. Though that does raise an interesting question- if the government agreed to repay all your trading losses in exchange for annual investigations of your trading activities in which they search for stuff like insider trading that patently is not there, would you take the deal?
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
FB is going to price at $38 for a market cap of $104B. I wish I could buy some now and sell tomorrow......I have a feeling it might be up 100% at its peak tomorrow.
Meanwhile the yield on 10-year treasuries is down to 1.71%, almost a record low. Who is buying these? The Fed? Greeks and Spaniards who are pulling their money out of their banks and don't want to put it under their mattresses?
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
So, 99% of the time my Congressman (Peter Defazio) is a complete freedom-hating commie.
But I finally found something to agree with him about. He's repeatedly called for legislation to audit the DoD, and the GOP keeps torpedoing it. He's somewhat annoyed.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
So Tom Woods interviewed Rand Paul on the Peter Schiff Show today and brought up the whole "Ron will fold and endorse Romney for Rand's sake" theory. Rand basically said that he didn't expect his father to do him any favors at all and that he would do whatever he thought was best for the country.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
An absolutely brilliant speech by Tom Woods. Quality isn't great and audio synch is terrible, but man he's at the top of his game here. Witty, funny, engaging. Brilliant.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Ron Paul endorsing Romney wouldn't do anything to help Rand anyway. I don't see why anyone would want RP to endorse Romney anyway- whose mind is this supposed to change?
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Most people don't understand the concept of believing in ideas rather than people. They are too used to politics being just a battle between different rhetoric and presentation of the same ideas. They don't understand that "RP supporter" doesn't mean "RP slave".
-- _foolmo_ 'Most people at least try to say something funny. See foolmo's post as an example.' - The Real Truth
Yeah, Ron Paul wouldn't achieve anything but damaging his own reputation if he endorsed Romney now. They clearly have major differences of opinion, and there's no need to handwaive those away in the name of party unity.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Well, the theory is that Rand Paul is a future GOP superstar, but if Ron Paul doesn't fall in line and endorse Romney, the GOP will black-ball Rand to get back at Ron.
This line mostly comes from idiot neocons who know NOTHING about Ron Paul and his supporters. They think the RP supporters are just like Santorum supporters who will simply abandon their guy as soon as he endorses Romney and then go on to support Mitt Romney as much as possible.
This of course is completely stupid and wrong.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/