SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: sandintoes who wrote (63506)3/24/2013 9:14:55 PM
From: greatplains_guy2 Recommendations  Respond to of 71588
 
people in DC both parties and most of the people there forget it is from our blood sweat and tears that they are able to give money to the enemy

You are correct. They forget that they need the consent of the governed. But then when only 1/6 of the population can reelect an imbecile maybe politicians are right to think of the governed as a mat they can tread upon.

they expect us to give them free rein on anything

Sometimes declining to do anything about abuse is consent to it. It is sad, but true.

I'm sick of them

They have made political campaigning so disgusting that no person with a shred of decency would consider running.



To: sandintoes who wrote (63506)3/28/2013 9:35:05 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
'Til the Supreme Court Do Us Part
The Justices are rightly wary of redefining marriage for 50 states..
March 27, 2013, 7:40 p.m. ET

The Supreme Court wrapped up its second day of oral argument on a pair of gay marriage cases Wednesday, and Justices on the left and right seemed genuinely discomfited by the radicalism of redefining the institution for all 50 states. The more than three hours of questioning proved the wisdom of such caution.

America's cultural and media elites are attempting to browbeat the High Court into coercing the country into recognizing same-sex marriage by casting opponents as bigots for holding a position that President Obama held less than a year ago. This bigotry label apparently applies even to those who favor gay marriage but would rather settle the matter democratically, state to state. So it's reassuring that the Justices seemed to be searching for constitutional answers equal to the difficult questions.


Toward this end, the defenders of traditional marriage did not always make their best case. Defending California's Proposition 8 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, Counsel Chuck Cooper explained that the main state interest in this definition is "procreation." But then why are older men and women still allowed to marry, asked Justice Elena Kagan, and why are gay and lesbian couples allowed to adopt? Good questions.

Mr. Cooper would have done better to explain that if the High Court says states must honor gay marriages, then what is an enforceable limiting principle? As Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it, "If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" She asked about limits on "the number of people" in a marriage, for example, and with the exception of incest or child marriages, wondered "what's left" for the states to regulate?

Counsel Ted Olson replied that "multiple marriages raise questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy"—but what about polyandry, one wife with several husbands? Or term-limited marriages? Instead of a lasting contract, people who don't want to commit could sign a marriage lease, receiving marriage benefits for a period of years before the union would automatically dissolve without even a no-fault divorce.

Our point is not to raise a parade of unlikely horribles. It is that for the Court to transform the definition of marriage for one group fundamentally restructures it for all groups and makes it harder for society through its representatives to rule out anything that adults want to call "marriage."

Wednesday's arguments about federalism and the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (Doma) were more instructive, thanks largely to Paul Clement. The dean of the right-leaning Supreme Court bar spoke for the House of Representatives in favor of a law signed by Bill Clinton that President Obama calls unconstitutional but his Administration is still enforcing.


Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested that Doma was an attempt by Congress to "regulate" marriage, which under the Constitution is a core state police power. This reflects Justice Kennedy's well-earned reputation for supporting state authority against federal intrusion. (The sudden concern for federalism shown by the four liberal Justices is harder to credit given their disdain only a year ago in the ObamaCare cases.)

Mr. Clement responded to Justice Kennedy that Doma merely defined marriage for the purposes of federal law, such as Social Security benefits. After the Hawaii supreme court had legalized gay marriage and upset the traditional definition, Congress in 1996 naturally adopted a uniform rule for federal benefits but allowed the states to debate and adapt to changing social mores.

Justice Kennedy said this might be fine if it held for a statute or two, but Doma applies across 1,100 or so federal laws "intertwined with the citizens' day-to-day life." Mr. Clement's key point was that Doma's traditional definition of marriage was rational in a specific context at a specific time and even today remains the law in 41 states. Congress can always change Doma later as more states adopt gay marriage, so this way-station makes sense as the social consensus evolves.

Chief Justice John Roberts put the question crisply the other way when he asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli if Congress would have violated state powers if in 1996 it had instead adopted same-sex marriage at the federal level? Mr. Verrilli conceded it would not have violated federalist principles, thus supporting Mr. Clement's case.

It's hard to predict the outcome of cases based on oral arguments, especially when they are as fraught with as many unknown social and legal implications as these. But the complications are another argument for the Court to rule as narrowly as possible, deferring as much as possible to democratic debate. The Justices can help the Constitutional system, the country's political temper and the Court's reputation by letting the people decide how to define the core family unit of society.

online.wsj.com



To: sandintoes who wrote (63506)3/29/2013 8:33:46 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Respond to of 71588
 
Bread and Circuses: The Last Days of the American Empire
By Jack Curtis
March 29, 2013

Pan et Circenses (Bread and Circuses) famously described the relationship between the Roman Emperor and his people in the decadent years of the Empire, and they seem fairly applied to America today. We have, in line with our technological advancement, upgraded (if that is the term) to food stamps (47.5 million and counting) and sports, but the broad scenario hasn't changed.

The Romans devalued their denarius by reducing its silver content; we devalue our dollar by issuing more of them against an unchanged amount of real wealth. To wit: Gas was 20 cents a gallon in the early 1930's; a new 1937 Chevrolet could be had for $725 and a 1940 haircut was $0.50. Imperial Rome failed to manage its finances; imperial America's debt, deficits and inflation are just an updated rerun.

None argue Rome's status as an empire; the universal presence of Roman legions and Roman-appointed governors left no debate. While many deny American imperial status, those have some questions to answer. U.S. forces are based all over the world with somewhere between 700 and 1,000 overseas locations. Ron Paul, during the 2012 Presidential debates, put it at 900 bases in 130 countries. Too, the U.S. presence is not identified solely by armed forces; it sends dollars widely as well. The 2012 Census report of Foreign Economic and Military Aid totaled some $45 B, handed to 70 such major (and numerous minor) recipients as Pakistan, Egypt, Russia, (Russia?) Zimbabwe and the Gaza Strip. If the U.S. is not an empire, it certainly seems to act like one. And as Rome's empire finally exceeded its finances, so now with America. One cannot finance an empire with deficits.

America's 'defense' budget has been about 20% of its spending, thereby providing a chunk of that annual deficit. The total exceeds the totals of the next eleven of the largest military spenders, added together. China, the second largest, spends about one sixth of U.S. spending. If this is 'defense' rather than imperial reach, whomever the U.S. fears must be located on some other planet; they aren't visible on earth.

Rome's initially conservative society gave up its gods and fell into decadence, a model for the devolution of America's Christian, Constitutional founding to its present anti-Christian, functionally post-Constitutional government. From its 2008 intervention on Wall Street through its 2009 disposition of the U.S. automakers through today's Administration assassinations by drone and its Obamacare abortion and birth control mandates on religious health care institutions, American government has moved into increasingly post-Christian and post-Constitutional waters. Currently, various pending court cases questioning the health care mandates and drone assassinations are raising constitutional issues; so has passage of the National Defense Authorization Act 2012 provision empowering military arrest and indefinite imprisonment of citizens without due process. Whether or not one perceives today's America as decadent, it is clearly not what it was at its Founding.

Though the social changes seem comparable to the ancient model, it is the financial mismanagement and economically destructive government policies that seem to assure the end of the American empire. The Federal deficit hovers over $1 T of a total $3.5 T of spending. The deficit is funded by debt, currently exceeding $147,000 per taxpayer, in order to continue the social and military spending at their respective 61% and 19% of outlays. These financial burdens, with the interest to be added, will impede growth and investment for decades as the money to repay them is diverted from the private sector. And that sector, claims of resurgence notwithstanding, remains flabby.

But these debts alone do not define the risk. The government has guaranteed much of the lending by the home mortgage industry (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and others) and via FDIC, nearly everybody's bank balances. Those obligations, as we saw in 2008-10, are real and they add $15.3 T to the government's risk. Both the U.S. and Europe are running on empty without a known gas station anywhere; what's bought with debt, is always followed by a bill.

Social spending is out of control, with the baby boomers now challenging Social Security and Medicare. Obamacare, per the latest revised government report, is increasing the deficit. Public salaries and welfare are overwhelming some cities, counties and states; many public pensions owe more than they can pay, thanks to the long held Fed lid on interest rates that has held safe investment earnings low. American government at all levels has reached the limit or outrun the resources available. Many places are increasing taxes, thereby further defunding their private sectors. There is no imaginable source that will continue to fund America's current social welfare and foreign military extravagance.

So when a stock market collapse or big banks' failure pushes the button, widespread financial failures will again challenge government spending. Pumping funny money into the economy as monetary CPR has already been pushed to an extreme; our governors will either follow Europe into 'austerity' or devalue the dollar with inflation. Spending will have to decline.

International adventures don't directly involve the mass of voters, at least up front. The military-industrial lobbyists and their neo-con politicians will howl, but their screams will seem minor when social spending adjustments begin just as unemployment worsens. Like Europeans, Americans will learn again that politicians must fulfill their promises with real money. And as Margaret Thatcher famously informed the British: "Eventually, you run out of other peoples' money."

America is running out of money borrowed from its pressured citizens' kids and grandkids via Federal Reserve 'Quantitative Easing' games. Nobody can live on promises forever. Stock markets and banks will shortly exhale the funny-money hot air sustaining them, interest rates will start their climb back to normal and the government will defund first, its war machine and foreign bribe programs, then its welfare beneficiaries. As with the Old Romans, American military will decline, along with cradle-to-grave social welfare. And American citizens are likely to see change...more change than they expected that their President had in mind. Food stamps will be cut and huge salaries will disappear from pro sports. As that financial wave crests and begins to recede, America won't be an empire any more. It will have everything it can handle just tending to its own business.

americanthinker.com