[jhowelb]

........states have two senators - that is the only part of the constitution that cannot be changed ............

As a footnote, the founders set it up so that Senators were appointed by the State legislatures. That was so that each state as a sovereign had representation as compared to the House where the members represented the people directly. That would have eliminated lobiest influence and insured states rights.

THAT got changed by a certain "progressive"!

Now, with my ignore button firmly in place, I can only assume that your post is an exchange with "willie". Bet you it goes over his head!!

[jhowelb]

p.s. ANY part of the Constitution may be changed by either amendment or Constitutional Convention.

[dufas]

A major part of the US's political problems stem from the power that bureaucracies wield with very little to none of congressional oversight [ state or federal]. Most times, these independent bureaus operate in a dictatorial manner based more on the personal agendas of those that have risen into power within each individual agency. It doesn't matter if the agency is the EPA, Fish and Game, or the local DMV, the results are usually the same.


Save the Fish, Starve the Humans - HUMAN EVENTS

Saving a two-inch "endangered" fish has cost hundreds of thousands of jobs in California 's Central Valley and turned parts of it, some of the most productive agricultural land in the U.S., into a dust bowl.



This rogue agency is gearing up to impose "cap and tax" to fight "global warming" without congressional authority to do so. The immediate effect would be to "skyrocket" (Obama's word) electricity rates for everyone. Can't wait to hear Nancy Pelosi call that a "job generator."

[dynosor]

Every time I read about the "corruption" that the top members of the establisment are openly practicing, I get the impression that everyone who goes to the voting booth is either blind, blind drunk, or under the influence of some mind altering drug, so powerfull that it blinds one to the track record of the soon to be leaders and their supporters.

Ian, thanks for your insightful post.

You could very well ask, are the lemmings blind, stupid or all three?:stickpoke

[dynosor]

Now, with my ignore button firmly in place, I can only assume that your post is an exchange with "willie". Bet you it goes over his head!!

I don't see the need to place anyone on ignore - you are not obliged to read every word in every post - simply don't read posts if you are disinterested or skim over them if they are too long.


HW is no fool, he is simply having fun rattling your cage.

[infantry11b]

i am glad that you looked at the constitution on line. unfortunately only having part of the information can be dangerous.
yes, each state can only have two but now they are elected - that was not a change in the number of senators.
but you have to do more than read "the constitution explaned" in the senators section you have to read where it says:
". . .and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
so you can't amend that one without the state approving it - can't just amend the senate out of existence.
but it was a nice try on your part.
constitutional law and conflict of laws, not to mention federal appellate procedure take up an entire year of study in law school.
computers are great, just like a library, but you have to read the entire case, or law, or document, to actually argue it.
very nice try.
can we go back to climate change now?

[jhowelb]

i am glad that you looked at the constitution on line. unfortunately only having part of the information can be dangerous.
yes, each state can only have two but now they are elected - that was not a change in the number of senators.
but you have to do more than read "the constitution explaned" in the senators section you have to read where it says:
". . .and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
so you can't amend that one without the state approving it - can't just amend the senate out of existence.
but it was a nice try on your part.
constitutional law and conflict of laws, not to mention federal appellate procedure take up an entire year of study in law school.
computers are great, just like a library, but you have to read the entire case, or law, or document, to actually argue it.
very nice try.
can we go back to climate change now?

Bury your indignation, Regardless of where you got your knowledge, I actually took American Government in High School back in the '50's when the school actually taught something....like amendments must be ratified by the states before they take effect!

[jhowelb]

I don't see the need to place anyone on ignore - you are not obliged to read every word in every post - simply don't read posts if you are disinterested or skim over them if they are too long.


HW is no fool, he is simply having fun rattling your cage.

The ignore button has it's usefulness, elsewise it would not exist.
For me it's a relief to have only a headline to pass by.

I am smart enough to know what he is doing, can you figure out that I'm using the button to the same purpose?

[infantry11b]

and i have a doctorate in law and also went to school in the 50's and i even remember when the pledge changed to add "under god" in the pledge. yes, i was born in the first half of the last century. not many people can say they lived when hitler and stalin was alive.
and your high school must have missed telling you that part about changing the number of senators being the only part of the constitution that cant be changed by amendment.
it was put in there so that slave states could block legislation to end slavery, as the slave states knew that with the 3/5 clause in effect they would not be able to buy enough people to sway the house of representatives in their favor.
as a matter of fact the US started with the swearing in of Washington in 1789 and by 1808 the importation of slaves was illegal.
and high school in the 50's in no substitute for a juris doctor in law.
don't let it bother you though, you cant always bluster your way through a debate.

[jhowelb]

Re-read this post very carefully, that is if your doctorate taught you to do that, and tell me, exactly where I have disagreed with the number of two senators.
***************************************
"As a footnote, the founders set it up so that Senators were appointed by the State legislatures. That was so that each state as a sovereign had representation as compared to the House where the members represented the people directly. That would have eliminated lobiest influence and insured states rights.

THAT got changed by a certain "progressive"!"
***************************************
There is no debate, other than in your mind.

Your Alma mater certainly taught you to leap to conclusions, I mean...all those baseless statements.

In the words of one of my time honored adversaries, "go boil yer head"!

[infantry11b]

and you got your juris doctor from who and when? you have written over 150 appellate briefs, you have tried over 1000 jury trials? you have filed thousands of motions, and replied to that many more?
well i have - and i have been practicing law since 1975, when did you start.
now go home and tell your grandchildren how smart you are - they will not know the difference until they get to - the third, no second grade.

[jhowelb]

In reading your rants I am reminded of a quote form Mark Twain who is reported to have said, "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

I'm adding your name to my ignore list as conversation with you only yields aggravation.

[fizzissist]

and you got your juris doctor from who and when? you have written over 150 appellate briefs, you have tried over 1000 jury trials? you have filed thousands of motions, and replied to that many more?
well i have - and i have been practicing law since 1975, when did you start.
now go home and tell your grandchildren how smart you are - they will not know the difference until they get to - the third, no second grade.

I'm in the process of getting a lawyer disbarred right now with that very same track record, and he started in 1963.

Very much off topic.....
How do ya like the ongoing battle over publication in California?
...It could have a huge impact on a case I'm involved in that is highly likely to be appealed.

www.NonPublication.com

[handlewanker]

Wow Infantry, a regular lawman....John Wayne wouda' been proud of you.

"and you got your juris doctor from whom"....not who.

I've just come to realise that if O'bama is a baddy, it's because the Republicans and Liberals got the wrong end of the stick, so he must be a baddy, whereas if'n George of the Bush family is a baddy then the Democrats and Liberals don't think much of him either.....that leaves the Liberals....I suppose they hate anyone that gets in without their blessing too, be they Democrat, Republican or Communist.

Does this mean that as America was founded as a Republic, the Libs, Dems and Commies are actually splinter groups that just gnaw away at the edges and cause havoc by being controversial?

It could be said that if'n you get to be President in the USA, you gotta be able to dodge bullets from all directions.

Now that the American system of Presidential candidature qualities has been clarified, perhaps Tricky Dicky wasn't so bad after all and got maligned by the other Politicos or got set-up so that they could geld him and let someone who was more warlike do the job.....I hear LBJ wanted to go all the way or have I missed out the lineup of presidential hopefulls vying for the oval orifice?

Now that the US system and it's idiosyncrocies has been revealed, I might just change my mind when the guys come round waving their referendium lists to see who wants a Republic in OZ, unless of course it embodies the Westminster system of voting....how can you possibly have a nice day with all them politicos to keep an eye on?
Ian.

[dufas]

Medieval Warm Period


The Curious Case of the Hockey Stick that Didn’t Disappear. Part 1: The Police Lineup « Climate Progress


The Curious Case of the Hockey Stick that Didn’t Disappear. Part 1: The Police Lineup
But who killed the Medieval Warm Period?


Before we begin the investigation into the usual suspects, some background for people who those who don’t follow climate science closely, which certainly includes most of the disinformers and apparently at least two statisticians.

1. There is a high probability that the recent warming is unprecedented for 1000 years and probably much longer (see “Sorry disinformers, hockey stick gets longer, stronger: Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years“ and here and here).

2. This conclusion is based on an analysis of multiple proxies for temperature, which individually engender much uncertainty and collectively still engender a fair amount. It is a canard of Curry-esque proportions to assert that scientists have not clearly explained the nature and extent of these uncertainties. They have bent over backwards to do so.

3. The temperature trend in the past millennium prior to about 1850 is well explained in the scientific literature as primarily due to changes in the solar forcing along with the effect of volcanoes, whereas the recent rise in temperature has been driven primarily — if not almost entirely — by human activity (see Scientist: “Our conclusions were misinterpreted” by Inhofe, CO2 — but not the sun — “is significantly correlated” with temperature since 1850 and Part 3 [to come]).

4. Absent human emissions, we’d probably be in a slow long-term cooling trend due primarily by changes in the Earth’s orbit — see Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds.

5. Thus, the rate of human-driven warming in the last century has exceeded the rate of the underlying natural trend by more than a factor of 10, possibly much more. And warming this century on our current path of unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions is projected to cause a rate of warming that is another factor of 5 or more greater than that of the last century. We are punching the climate beast — and she ain’t happy about it!

[dufas]

and you got your juris doctor from who and when? you have written over 150 appellate briefs, you have tried over 1000 jury trials? you have filed thousands of motions, and replied to that many more?
well i have - and i have been practicing law since 1975, when did you start.
now go home and tell your grandchildren how smart you are - they will not know the difference until they get to - the third, no second grade.

Are you a Tort lawyer, political advocate, or do you dabble in criminal law ???

[fizzissist]

Wow.
With irrefutable sources like Andy Revkin and Joe Romm, who could argue?

Pretty robust newspaper articles.

[fizzissist]

Are you a Tort lawyer, political advocate, or do you dabble in criminal law ???

Probably a "door lawyer"...much like I'm a "door machinist". I've been practicing machining since around 1961 or so. I'm still practicing. One day I might get good enough to know what I'm doing!

(infantry11b....I'm just funnin' with ya. I respect where you're coming from)

...What's interesting here is the tangent discussion of law and infantry11b's suggestion we get back to climate change. The fact is that one side of the climate change camp is advocating some very serious legal sanctions that impact all of us in very serious ways.

Like California's recent failure to properly follow lawful procedures in implementing a new regulation.

[infantry11b]

no a criminal attorney. back in the day we used to get 30 cases every 6 weeks, on one day. we plea 10 out and set 20 for trial. 40 days later we plead 10 out and go to trial on the remaining 10 - that was an average. they would give us a trial court and we tried them back to back. on one occasion i actually had one jury deliberating, one just going out to diliberate - they had to use another court room jury room and we were picking a 3rd. but that only happened once. they were short misdemeanor trials. it wore out after 10 or 12 years.
from that time i did complex business litigation between small corporations and some criminal matters, to keep my court rooms skills sharp.

before that i was in the army, until i got a disability retirement - got a little injured - but did not lose any visible parts - just can't breath without medication.

you take the good with the bad.

and my advice is never go into a battle of wits - half armed, which some here seem to do over and over.

and i love to play the dozens.

[jhowelb]

Subject: Lawyers

1. The Post Office just recalled their latest stamps. They weren't working ... They had pictures of lawyers on them, and people couldn't figure out which side to spit on.

2. How can a pregnant woman tell that she's carrying a future lawyer? She has an uncontrollable craving for baloney.

3. How does an attorney sleep? First he lies on one side, and then he lies on the other.

4. How many lawyer jokes are there? Only three. The rest are true stories.

5. How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb? How many can you afford?

6. How many lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb? Three. One to climb the ladder, one to shake it, and one to sue the ladder company.

7. If a lawyer and an IRS agent were both drowning, and you could save only one of them, would you (A)-go to lunch or (B)-read the newspaper?

8. What did the lawyer name his daughter? Sue.

9. What do you call 25 skydiving lawyers? Skeet.

10. What do you call a lawyer gone bad? Senator.

11. What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50? Your honor.

12. What do you throw to a drowning lawyer? His partners.

13. What does a lawyer use for birth control? His personality.

14. What happens when you cross a pig with a lawyer? Don't know. (There are some things a pig just won't do.)

15. What's the difference between a lawyer and a vulture? The lawyer gets frequent flyer miles.

16. What's another difference between a lawyer and a vulture? Removable wing tips.

17. Why does NY have the most lawyers in the country, while New Jersey has the most toxic waste sites? New Jersey got first choice.