Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Wednesday, October 19. 2016

Wednesday morning links

Harambe Costumes Are ‘Cultural Appropriation’


Now I'm really confused


A Baby With 3 Parents Has Been Born. These Are the Dangers You Should Know About.


This was done for a reason - mitochondrial disorder


Unraveling your parents' possessions


Yes, it is emotional for most people


Something I would not eat


Warmists Rather Upset That Farmers Aren’t Buying Their World Ending Prognostications


Administration Wants to Designate More LGBTQ Landmarks


Meet the Creepy American Boy Dolls that Will Haunt Your Dreams


What happened to GI Joe?


The Ridiculous Crusade for Gender-Neutral Toys


Climate Alarmists Try To Redefine What A Hurricane Is So We’ll Have More Of Them


Can investors really continue to get more for less? Three reasons the passive-investing revolution is set to last.


Does it work if everybody does it?


Is Administrative Law unlawful?


If you can't ask black guys whether they've been in jail, people might be reluctant to hire black guys


It Sounded So Good When Government Promised To Solve All Of Our Problems


Self-proclaimed media of record try their best to ignore wrongdoing by powerful liberals


Gee. Really?


The Casting Call For Another Anita Hill


Obamacare: Citing Costs, Frustrated Doctors Say US Healthcare Headed in Wrong Direction


Michelle Obama has rhythm


Martin Luther King, Pussy Grabber


He was famous for it


CLINTON CONFUSION: Bill says ‘I’ve tried to run for her on her behalf’


Freudian slip


Scandals surround Clinton´s gatekeeper at State


Hillary’s Henchmen Pressured FBI on Classification of Documents


Impossible to keep up with the revelations of Clintonian slime. Well, Howard Dean can’t keep up either


And now there is this Big Story


Hillary Clinton accused of stealing furniture from the State Department


Former White House Chef: Hillary Clinton Called Black Servant the ‘N-Word’


Hillary’s State Dept security detail really hated her


She's a nasty, entitled, arrogant lesbian bitch. So what? That's not news.


Podesta Emails: Podesta Called Bernie Sanders A “Doofus”


Got that one right


Seven Clinton Policy Priorities That Would Devastate America - Staring at years 9 to 12 of the Obama administration.


If that's what people want...however, I think people just wonder which is the more unpleasant individual. Only wonks worry about policy. Politics is high school.


EU nations are now paying countries to take back their migrants


Muslims Call for ‘Islamification’ of Sweden


Geert Wilders' trial to proceed on hate charges over "fewer Moroccans" comments in 2014 campaign

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 06:54 | Comments (33) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

QUOTE:
Is Administrative Law unlawful?

Administrative regulation dates to beginnings of the Republic, so apparently the founders didn't see a contradiction between such regulation and the constitution they wrote.

Among the first administrative laws was the Pension Act of 1803 (2 Statute 242), whereby Congress delegated to the Secretary of War the power to approve invalid veteran pension claims, as vested in the Office of the Commissioner of Pensions.
#1 Zachriel on 2016-10-19 09:13 (Reply)
Z, I believe Hamburger's book is talking about administrative rules and regulations such as those proposed in the Federal Register and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, not duly enacted laws of Congress codified in the United States Code.
#1.1 BillH on 2016-10-19 10:09 (Reply)
BillH: I believe Hamburger's book is talking about administrative rules and regulations such as those proposed in the Federal Register and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, not duly enacted laws of Congress codified in the United States Code.

We haven't read the book, so perhaps you could outline the argument. In any case, the Office of the Commissioner of Pensions implemented rules for how to determine whether a person was eligible for a pension, and who was not. Interestingly, carbon paper, as in "file it in triplicate", was invented in 1806.
#1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-19 10:28 (Reply)
"We haven't read the book, so perhaps you could outline the argument. "
The Gang of Z admits it's NOT a single person. Naughty, naughty, naughty!
#1.1.1.1 Sam L. on 2016-10-19 11:08 (Reply)
is there a difference?
#1.1.2 fjord on 2016-10-19 10:57 (Reply)
sometimes specific administrative law is lawful, sometimes it isn't. as a general rule, congress does have the constitutional power to set up administrative agencies, which do have the constitutional power to promulgate rules and set up administrative law courts, both of which are subject to congress (via the statute that establishes them) and to the judiciary, through review of administrative law decision).

this year the DC court of appeals heard a challenge to the Securities and Exchange Commission and held agency and its processes were constitutional. Lucia v SEC No. No. 15-1345 (August 2016). there is a detailed analysis of the constitutional challenge.

while many commenters on forums like this seem to disagree with the authority of federal courts to interpret the federal constitution, that issue was laid to rest over 200 years ago in Marbury v Madison.

since the court's opinion is the only one that counts, suck it, Hamburger.
#1.2 Will Bithers on 2016-10-19 13:10 (Reply)
Therefore, inductively, the founders meant for the Constitution to be have no concrete meaning at all?

Childish nonsense.
#1.3 Wilbur Hassenfus on 2016-10-19 15:03 (Reply)
Wilbur Hassenfus: Therefore, inductively, the founders meant for the Constitution to be have no concrete meaning at all?

The Constitution gives Congress the power to set up agencies of the government that then operate within the confines of the legislation. They can revoke or modify this power at any time. To think that Congress would have to approve each and every application for a military pension just doesn't make sense.
#1.3.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-19 15:14 (Reply)
you've taken the position of the amateur constitutional skolar.

the constitution is the text and how its interpreted by the judiciary. you don't have to like it, but you do have to live with it.
#1.3.2 Will Bithers on 2016-10-19 15:22 (Reply)
QUOTE:
Scandals surround Clinton´s gatekeeper at State ... FBI notes released Monday indicated that Kennedy offered a trade with the FBI

False, which anyone who had read the FBI reports would have been able to determine, including the right-wing press, if they were so inclined — but they weren't, of course.

FBI Notes: "Not yet knowing the e-mail's content, {Brian McCauley} told KENNEDY he would look into the e-mail matter if KENNEDY would provide authority concerning the FBI's request to increase its personnel in Iraq."

"A former F.B.I. official at the center of the latest controversy over Hillary Clinton’s private emails acknowledged on Tuesday that an offer to swap favors with a State Department counterpart on an email classification issue had originated with him — until he realized the deal involved Mrs. Clinton and the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya."

This is the problem with relying on the right-wing echochamber, people who have no desire to find the truth, but only to reach a predetermined conclusion. The original mistruth will continue to echo for months or even years.
#2 Zachriel on 2016-10-19 09:32 (Reply)
You have evidence that the "right wing echochamber" has no interest in finding the truth?

Or is this just another one of your unfounded assertions?

Seems they are the only ones pushing investigations into these matters, which have already uncovered wrong-doing. So it's not the right that is avoiding the truth.
#2.1 DrTorch on 2016-10-19 10:14 (Reply)
DrTorch: You have evidence that the "right wing echochamber" has no interest in finding the truth?

We just provided evidence. A reading of the FBI file would have revealed that it was the FBI agent who had proposed the quid pro quo. We can lead you to knowledge, but we can't make you click the links.
#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-19 10:21 (Reply)
The words 'quid pro quo' were right there in the report. Don't be blind, Zachriel. Even TALKING about this is illegal.
#2.2 MissT on 2016-10-19 14:00 (Reply)
QUOTE:
FBI notes released Monday indicated that Kennedy offered a trade with the FBI

The headline is false.

The exchange was offered by an agent at the FBI (now retired), not by Kennedy at State, and it was revoked as soon as it was clear that it was beyond an ordinary favor.
#2.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-19 14:07 (Reply)
Re: Martin Luther King, Pussy Grabber
Re: The Casting Call For Another Anita Hill
Re: And now there is this Big Story

The only thing interesting about the "Big Story" is that Hillary had to be setup with dates - but that's not a surprise since her personality is so toxic.

The rest is the usual display of hypocrisy out the the left and the media. Neither are capable of embarrassment because neither have morals. The Ted Kennedy/Kopechne story is maybe the most blatant, but my, more recent, favorite is the story of Gerry Studds and Mark Foley:

In 1983, Democrat Congrescritter Gerry Studds was censured by the house for diddling seventeen year old pages. But the "good" people from Massachusetts were so progressive, even in 1983, that they re-elected him to his house seat for another seven terms - till 1997. He finally died in 2006.

Also, in 2006, it became known that Republican Mark Foley from Florida had sent suggestive emails to an underage page. For this, he was hounded by Democrats and the media for being a moral reprobate and unfit for office. Many of those Democrats went to Studds' funeral and praised him for his service and courage (forgive me, I'm not seeing the equivalence between sending emails and actually diddling). The media lionized him for not buckling under to Republicans calling for his resignation.

The icing on the cake is that in 1983, when Congress was deciding what to do with Studds, there was a Republican, Dan Crane, who was also considered for disciplinary action for the same reason. Newt Gingrich demanded that they both be expelled. At the time, the Republicans were in the minority so it would have hurt them more.

There is no use in calling out a Democrat for any moral infraction or hypocrisy.
#3 mudbug on 2016-10-19 10:05 (Reply)
In a nutshell. Your last sentence tells it all. Whatever the wrong, it's only wrong if you are not a Democrat.
#3.1 mary on 2016-10-19 10:24 (Reply)
mary: Your last sentence tells it all.

In fact, Gerry Studds was censured by a supermajority of the House. However, his constituents didn't consider a consensual relationship to be such an issue. As for Foley, most of the pressure to resign was from Republicans.
#3.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-19 10:32 (Reply)
his constituents didn't consider a consensual relationship

Even back in in 1983 the degree of consent present in a sexual relationship where one of the participants has significant formal power over the other in a workplace setting was considered suspect.

But, as mary, noted, it's only wrong if you're not a Democrat.
#3.1.1.1 Christopher B on 2016-10-19 10:47 (Reply)
Christopher B: Even back in in 1983 the degree of consent present in a sexual relationship where one of the participants has significant formal power over the other in a workplace setting was considered suspect.

Agreed. Though the person involved said that he felt no such pressure, a supermajority of the House found it worthy of censure.
#3.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-19 11:30 (Reply)
Z: In fact, Gerry Studds was censured by a supermajority of the House.

I'm SO impressed! A Congresscritter breaks the law and most of his colleagues vote to censure him. The did not vote to expel him which is what they should have done. BTW, how many Democrats did not vote to censure?

Z: However, his constituents didn't consider a consensual relationship to be such an issue.

Exactly to my point. Democrats don't really care about protecting minors from sexual predators. That is how the left, especially feminists, defined a sexual relationship between a powerful person and one under his power.

Z: As for Foley, most of the pressure to resign was from Republicans.

Republicans did express outrage and that goes to their intellectual and moral integrity, but there were powerful Democrats including John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, and others who attacked Foley and then attended Studds' funeral and eulogized him in the media. Of course the media eulogized him, too.

In any case, you've only proved my point about which side is the more morally and intellectually honest. Thank you.
#3.1.1.2 mudbug on 2016-10-19 11:09 (Reply)
mudbug: A Congresscritter breaks the law and most of his colleagues vote to censure him.

The age of consent in DC is 16, the events occurred in DC, so Studds' relationships were legal.
#3.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-19 11:34 (Reply)
I stand corrected. The age of consent in both Massachusetts and DC are 16 and presumably was in 1983. That would mean it was 16 in 2006, too. Why the outrage about Foley's emails from Kerry, Pelosi, et al?
#3.1.1.2.1.1 mudbug on 2016-10-19 12:05 (Reply)
mudbug: Why the outrage about Foley's emails from Kerry, Pelosi, et al?

Mostly political posturing, of course.

In addition, views concerning sexual harassment have evolved. There's also the question of hypocrisy, wherein Republicans made a big issue out of Bill Clinton's affairs while engaging in similar behavior.
#3.1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-19 12:25 (Reply)
Z: Republicans made a big issue out of Bill Clinton's affairs while engaging in similar behavior.

How many of them had their paid minions trash the women with whom they were having affairs? How many of them were guilty of lying to a grand jury or encouraging others to lie for them?
#3.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-10-19 13:09 (Reply)
Wouldn't King's immoral and illegal acts require that honest moral people demand that his name be removed from city streets and his holiday eliminated?
Oh, wait! If they don't name the street MLK blvd how will I know which side of town is unsafe. Never mind.
#3.2 IdahoBob on 2016-10-19 10:30 (Reply)
IdahoBob: Wouldn't King's immoral and illegal acts require that honest moral people demand that his name be removed from city streets and his holiday eliminated?

Which illegal acts? Violating the injunction against marching, leading to King's arrest in Birmingham?
#3.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-19 10:35 (Reply)
On Jan. 31, 1977 Coretta Scott King obtained a federal court order sealing 845 pages of FBI records about her husband for 50 years "because its release would destroy his reputation!"

What are they hiding?
#3.2.1.1 IdahoBob on 2016-10-20 10:16 (Reply)
"Podesta Called Bernie Sanders A 'Doofus'"

Bernie Sanders?

Who's he?

He's done a disappearing act that would do Houdini proud.

It's as if his entire campaign and all his young idealistic supporters never even existed.
#4 JJM on 2016-10-19 11:05 (Reply)
Most voters answer this question when they walk into the booth: How am I doing?

This means, economically. If you are doing well, you likely vote for the incumbent party. If you are not, you likely vote for the other party.

Trump is in the advantage here. Obamacare falling apart, most people in part-time jobs, food stamps through the roof, etc.

Even though the press and the left try to make us feel like everything is going great, individuals will look at their own lives to make that decision.

Now that we have the new 'sex' stuff with the Clintons out there and the damning videos, both sides look 'tainted' personally. So now it comes down to policy.

Trump wins hands down.
#5 MissT on 2016-10-19 11:42 (Reply)
Trump wins hands down.

IF you mean people making that decision based on the facts. But I am daily reminded that the mainstream media is pushing the narrative that Trump is the next Hitler, or the spawn of the devil, or all of the above. So before you can rationally cast the "down the with ruling party" vote you need to ignore the media at least 10 times a day.

I am not blind to Trump's faults. He is no savior in his merits. But he is no Hillary, either. And he won't be half as bad for the country as Hillary.

If I were his campaign advisors, I would say tonight that we can trust Trump not to be corrupted in the White House. Clearly, if he so much as sneezes, the media will accuse him of spreading germ warfare, whereas the same media does everything it can to ignore Hillary's felonies and deadly stumbles. So Trump is clearly going to be the choice for anyone wanting to elect the cleaner candidate for the next four years.
#5.1 Dangerous Dean on 2016-10-19 14:31 (Reply)
WOW ! TAKE A LOOK AT THIS !

This is a stunning event on so many levels:
http://city-journal.org/html/take-my-tax-please-14799.html
#6 faculty wife on 2016-10-19 13:14 (Reply)
"She's a nasty, entitled, arrogant lesbian bitch. So what? That's not news".

You forgot "sickly","drugged-up", "alcoholic", "paranoid" and "totally without any accomplishments"... as part of your description!
#7 B48 on 2016-10-19 17:52 (Reply)
How about this one,"yes madame but tomorrow I will be sober and you will still be ugly". Always liked that one, I believe it was Churchills' reply to a woman accusing him of being drunk.
#7.1 pocono pam on 2016-10-20 05:39 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.