Thursday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Thursday, April 5. 2018

Incredible Ancient Archaeological Sites in the U.S.

People Who Use Lots Of Fossil Fuels Demand Shell Stop Giving Them Fossil Fuels Or Something

Comedian Outraged That People Are “Allowed” To Have Five Kids

Rob Reiner Calls ‘Roseanne’ Pro-Trump Mouthpiece For The ‘Lunatic Fringe’

Facebook Admits Over 87 Million People's Data Was Shared Improperly

Martin Luther King: ‘We Can’t Keep On Blaming the White Man’. Fifty years after his death, many pay lip service to his ideals, but far too few are following his example.

Population growth in New York, L.A., and other big coastal centers lags that of more affordable midsize metros, where Americans are moving.

Democrats: The Party of the Super-Duper (Mostly White) Gazillionaires

More than a million illegal immigrants scored California driver´s licenses, state DMV announces

More California Jurisdictions Join The Anti-Sanctuary Movement

Byron York: On the Trump-Russia investigation and the rule of law

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 07:13 | Comments (42) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Okay, Glaser; of me, my three sisters, and my brother, who would you pronounce worthless?

#1 Korora on 2018-04-05 08:04 (Reply)

Glaser might also ask herself why she's permitted to continue to live. Isn't she contributing to overcrowding and overuse of the Earth's precious remaining resources?

#1.1 Texan99 on 2018-04-05 09:08 (Reply)

As P.J. O'Rourke once said about the attitude of overpopulation fanatic Paul Ehrlich:

"Just enough of me, way too much of you."

#1.1.1 JJM on 2018-04-05 09:38 (Reply)

Also, I don't know about you, but it has become clear to me for quite some time that there are no comedians anymore.

They've all been replaced by scolds.

#1.1.2 JJM on 2018-04-05 09:42 (Reply)

Oh, I find Jim Gaffigan quite funny and he has 5 kids.

#1.1.2.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-04-05 10:13 (Reply)

Try not to laugh

#1.1.2.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-04-05 12:02 (Reply)

"Art is that which serves the Party." - Comedy Central's mission statement.

#1.1.2.2 another guy named Dan on 2018-04-05 10:34 (Reply)

America is one of the most humorless countries in the world. It's because everyone is afraid if they say something funny, it will be classified as racist, politically incorrect or harassment and they will be punished.

"Comedy" now is essentially ideological belittling of what's deemed politically incorrect that day, and you are supposed to laugh at it, or else.

America has become like the old Soviet Union, or China in the Cultural Revolution.

#1.1.2.3 Jim on 2018-04-05 14:28 (Reply)

I've said it before: "Every one of the mayors and Governors of Sanctuary Cities and States took an 'Oath of Office' to uphold the Constitution".

#2 oolioo (Link) on 2018-04-05 08:26 (Reply)

oolioo: I've said it before: "Every one of the mayors and Governors of Sanctuary Cities and States took an 'Oath of Office' to uphold the Constitution".

The Tenth Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution, and under the anti-commandeering doctrine, while states can't interfere with federal officials, they can't be coerced into enforcing federal regulations. See Prigg v. Pennsylvania 1842, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that Pennsylvania did not have to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.

#2.1 Zachriel on 2018-04-05 10:00 (Reply)

So, did Truman act unlawfully when he sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to enforce integration?

I've said before, much of the California rhetoric just sounds like old George Wallace speeches with "immigration" substituted for "Integration".

#2.1.1 another guy named Dan on 2018-04-05 10:40 (Reply)

another guy named Dan: So, did Truman act unlawfully when he sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to enforce integration?

Thanks for asking.

The laws concerning the use of federal military forces, including the Posse Comitatus Act, were established in the aftermath of the Civil War. The 1871 Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment granted the federal government the power to enforce the Amendment's equal protection guarantee.

QUOTE:

Fourteenth Amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

#2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-04-05 10:57 (Reply)

QUOTE:

There are a number of situations in which the Act does not apply. These include:

*Enforcement of federal law at the discretion of the President of the United States.

Back to your sandbox, kiddiez.

#2.1.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-04-05 12:19 (Reply)

Real Human: Sucks that they can allow foreign nationals to cross the border like that. It's like an invasion - imagine what that does to the locals; you already know the aim is to diminish and probably wreck US sovereignty. It's damn unconstitutional.

Clattering Site Robot(s): We(s) note that we(s) note that we(s) note that The Tenth Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution.

Real Human: And a ham sandwich is part of the lunchbucket, you prevalent clownshow. See, technically 10A it's part of the ratified Bill of Rights, meaning that as such things go, it could have been as likely an out-of-context political ploy - just like you(s) - as it is part and parcel of original structuralism. I base that on the blatantly obvious anti-constitutional drift of the last two hundred years.

That said, your(s) irony module is missing again and has been evidently replaced by the Pedantry Module 5000 Quad Core, which makes it impossible to consider you(s) sentient when you're(s) so obviously programmed. What I mean is that the 10th orients federalism in the constitutional premise, meaning that, as I just said, the locals should and must wield considerable power in such matters as the tacit, virtual, or outright invasion of their lands, however some lunkhead(s) like you(s) might construe it.

Funny how that little but fundamental element of the thing escapes your(s) clattering hard drive(s). Why it's almost like Pedantry Module 5000 Quad Core was incorporated by ham-fisted partisans or something. Because basically you're(s) saying nolo contendre where sovereignty and borders are concerned, you(s) bucket of nails, and that such outright national failure of purpose, supreme contract, and real outcome is somehow fundamental to the American founding. Have your(s) handlers check the line voltages over there because on fifty volts you're(s) fricking broken.

Clattering Site Robot(s): We(s) further note that we(s) note that we(s) note that the Constitution's sole purpose is to protect international racial equality as per the UN. See? It's right here in the equal protection guarantee.

Real Human: Judas Maude, so it really is all "constitutional" creep to you(s). Because that's IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE, you CRS(s). And wrongly interpreted and deployed, to absolutely nobody's surprise. Back to Geek Squad you go.

In fact, no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities OF CITIZENS OF the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, etc.

I'll just leave that right there and see what you do with it with your gigantic monochromatic green eyeball.

Clattering Site Robot(s): Troll?

Real Human: Eh, I could be handwaving, right CSR(s)?

Clattering Site Robot(s): HANDWAVING!

Real Human:

#2.1.1.1.2 Meh on 2018-04-05 12:34 (Reply)

Pedantry Module 5000 Quad Core

Heh! 😂

#2.1.1.1.2.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-04-05 13:48 (Reply)

My CONGRATS!! You suckered the Gang of Z into not disagreeing it was Truman who sent in the troops!

#2.1.1.2 Sam L. on 2018-04-05 11:36 (Reply)

The Clattering Site Robot(s) is missing whole sections of reason commonly reserved for real human people persons and enjoyed uniquely as such. That's why I never expect a jot of insight or depth from the idiot thing and why I never engage its sputtering, compulsive, Soros-funded Chinese Sea island server farm-generated output.

#2.1.1.2.1 Meh on 2018-04-05 11:47 (Reply)

Little Rock Nine

#2.1.1.3 Zachriel on 2018-04-05 11:49 (Reply)

another guy named Dan: I've said before, much of the California rhetoric just sounds like old George Wallace speeches with "immigration" substituted for "Integration".

The difference is that immigration is subject to the anti-commandeering doctrine, while integration is subject to enforcement under the Fourteenth Amendment.

#2.1.1.4 Zachriel on 2018-04-05 12:03 (Reply)

You have still never addressed that Article I authorizes Congress to establish a uniform naturalization law for the states. The jurisdictions purporting the right to establish sanctuary policies are clearly acting in defiance of that clause, and the Supremacy and Necessary and Proper clauses as well. While a state government official may not be commandeered to enforce federal law, neither can they be required to act in defiance of it. The Fugitive Slave Act cases support this conclusion

#2.1.1.4.1 another guy named Dan on 2018-04-05 14:07 (Reply)

another guy named Dan: You have still never addressed that Article I authorizes Congress to establish a uniform naturalization law for the states.

We addressed it directly. The federal government controls immigration law. However, the federal government can't force states to enforce it.

another guy named Dan: The jurisdictions purporting the right to establish sanctuary policies are clearly acting in defiance of that clause

Only if they interfere with federal officials. States are not responsible for holding people wanted by immigration, and many states preclude holding people unless there is a warrant.

another guy named Dan: While a state government official may not be commandeered to enforce federal law, neither can they be required to act in defiance of it.

That's right. Sanctuary jurisdictions generally refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials, but don't interfere with federal immigration officials. Perhaps you should look at specific cases.

#2.1.1.4.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-04-05 16:14 (Reply)

The 10th Amendment was created to guarantee states that the areas in which they are sovereign remain theirs exclusively. The Constitution gave the federal government the national government the right to set the agenda in major national issues like foreign policy, immigration and interstate commerce (largely to prevent states from taxing each other's products into oblivion). Almost everything else was left to states. So states could decide who in their borders could vote, who could get married and who could drink.

The national supremacy clause answers your question, but you seem to have ignored it. It says that if the states and federal government both have power in an area, the federal government wins.

But if you are proposing that California could nullify a federal immigration law, you are firmly in bed with South Carolina nullification fans from the 1820s. Andrew Jackson ended that crisis by threatening to kill its leaders.

If you are implying that illegal immigrants have the same moral integrity of slaves, you are dead wrong. Federal law says that they have come into the country illegally. Slaves were not in the same situation. They were born or sold into their condition.

Now if you want to change federal law to say that we have open borders, please make that stance public. You will see how quickly that idiocy is batted down by American voters.

I don't mind immigrants. My people came from Germany in the 1870s and worked damn hard to be Americans. What I am upset about is the attitude that California can shield illegal immigrants from the consequences of their actions.

If your people miss that anger, you are missing the point of the 2016 elections.

#2.1.2 Dangerous Dean on 2018-04-05 10:47 (Reply)

Dangerous Dan: The Constitution gave the federal government the national government the right to set the agenda in major national issues like foreign policy, immigration and interstate commerce

Sure.

Dangerous Dan: The national supremacy clause answers your question, but you seem to have ignored it. It says that if the states and federal government both have power in an area, the federal government wins.

You are confused. States can't regulate immigration, however, they are under no obligation to enforce federal immigration law. Again, see Prigg v. Pennsylvania 1842. While the federal government could detain and return slaves under the Fugitive Slave Act, and while Pennsylvania could not interfere with federal officials or their designated marshals (slave-catchers), Pennsylvania officials couldn't be coerced into detaining and returning slaves.

Dangerous Dan: But if you are proposing that California could nullify a federal immigration law ...

They can't nullify the law, but they can't be coerced into enforcing it either.

Dangerous Dan: Federal law says that they have come into the country illegally. Slaves were not in the same situation. They were born or sold into their condition.

Both constitute fugitives subject to federal detention. The anti-commandeering doctrine applies in both cases.

#2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-04-05 11:04 (Reply)

This was a scenario that was sometimes used by abolitionists, and illustrates how it works:

Southern slave-catchers, who were designated as marshals, track down an escaped slave in a free state. The local sheriff is under no obligation to help, but stands aside and allows the slave-catchers to go about their business. They corner their prey in a house.

A black man darts from the house, and races through the street, making a scene. The marshals chase, capture, and put manacles on the black man, the gathering townsfolk tsk, tsking. At that point, the black man shows his papers proving he is a freeman. By chance, his lawyer happens to be passing by. The crowd murmurs. During the commotion, the escaped slave disappears through the alleyway. The sheriff detains the slave-catchers for having assaulted a free man — at least until the matter can be sorted out.

#2.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-04-05 11:19 (Reply)

They can be coerced. Just withhold federal funding.

That's what Reagan and E. Dole did. That's what several cabinet level offices have done over the decades.

If that's the approach you're insisting on, then let's do it.

Of course your analogies fail upon more critical examination, as usual. You make assumptions and expect us not to notice. But we're smarter than you, so we do notice.

#2.1.2.1.2 DrTorch on 2018-04-05 13:14 (Reply)

DrTorch: They can be coerced. Just withhold federal funding.

The federal government can encourage, but it can't coerce. In South Dakota v. Dole the Supreme Court found that the penalty was small enough not to be coercive. In Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court found that the penalty was large enough to be coercive and so wasn't allowed: The Affordable Care Act couldn't force states to expand Medicaid by threatening to cut off all Medicaid funding.

Of course your understanding fails upon more critical examination, as usual. You make assumptions and expect no one to notice.

#2.1.2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-04-05 16:08 (Reply)

". . . . while states can't interfere with federal officials, they can't be coerced into enforcing federal regulations. See Prigg v. Pennsylvania 1842, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that Pennsylvania did not have to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act."

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

Zach---You probably know that Prigg was nullified by something called the Civil War, as well as subsequent constitutional amendments and legislation subjecting the States to federal law. Immigration is a matter of federal law, not state law, and state officials can be prosecuted and jailed for violating immigration laws, just like everyone else. In this case, the rebel officials in California and other places are aiding and abetting the violation of the immigration laws, which is a federal felony.

#2.1.3 Jim on 2018-04-05 14:47 (Reply)

Jim: You probably know that Prigg was nullified by something called the Civil War, ...

The Fugitive Slave Act was nullified by the Civil War. Prigg was not nullified by the Civil War.

Jim: as well as subsequent constitutional amendments and legislation subjecting the States to federal law.

The Civil War amendments did not eliminate the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine, except with respect to enforcing equal protection and voting rights. Legislation can't override the Tenth Amendment.

Jim: Immigration is a matter of federal law, not state law, and state officials can be prosecuted and jailed for violating immigration laws, just like everyone else.

State officials can't legally interfere with federal immigration officials, but can't be jailed for not enforcing immigration law.

#2.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2018-04-05 16:21 (Reply)

In Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruled against the Obama Administration with regards to the Medicaid expansion component of the Affordable Care Act. In other words, the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine is alive and well.

#2.1.3.2 Zachriel on 2018-04-05 16:27 (Reply)

Wonder if the kiddiez could clarify the meaning of the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine a few more times in this thread and explain it's relevance to illegal immigration.

#2.1.3.2.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-04-05 21:48 (Reply)

On a slightly different topic - has anybody noticed that with respect to the "controversy" regarding adding the question of citizenship back to the census questionnaire that the people from "sanctuary states" who are complaining about that question are trying to do the same thing as the pro-slavery state representatives at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Both want to juice their representation in Congress by counting non-citizens.

#2.2 mudbug on 2018-04-05 13:15 (Reply)

mudbug: Both want to juice their representation in Congress by counting non-citizens.

The Constitution requires an actual count of all people for the purpose of Congressional apportionment.

#2.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-04-05 16:24 (Reply)

Does that mean that you and the rest of the lefties would have been against the compromise to count slaves as only 3/5 of a person arguing that representation of slaves states should have been based on total population - something that would have encouraged more slavery?

I guess we should be sure to count tourists, people in a city on business, people who are fleeing justice from another jurisdiction, people who gave been brought in temporarily (possibly to skew the census), or people who by law are not supposed to be there, right?

#2.2.1.1 mudbug on 2018-04-05 17:26 (Reply)

mudbug: something that would have encouraged more slavery?

There were actual slave breeding farms where black women were regularly raped to produce more slaves. Not sure how much more encouragement they could have taken.

mudbug: I guess we should be sure to count tourists, people in a city on business, people who are fleeing justice from another jurisdiction, people who gave been brought in temporarily (possibly to skew the census), or people who by law are not supposed to be there, right?

So you want to change the Constitution? Tourists would be counted at their place of residence, as would immigrants, documented or undocumented.

#2.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-04-05 17:38 (Reply)

Z: There were actual slave breeding farms where black women were regularly raped to produce more slaves. Not sure how much more encouragement they could have taken.

More slaves meant more property and more representation. Since you thing the counting 3/5 of a person is very effective encouragement to juice the population for more representation, than a whole person would only be better for juicing the representation.

#2.2.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2018-04-05 23:10 (Reply)

mudbug: Since you thing the counting 3/5 of a person is very effective encouragement to juice the population for more representation

We never made that claim. Slave production was incentivized by cold, hard cash. In particular, the end of the slave trade made domestic slave production an important source of wealth in the antebellum South.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-04-06 08:30 (Reply)

Rob Reiner Calls ‘Roseanne’ Pro-Trump Mouthpiece For The ‘Lunatic Fringe’

Which is why Archie called his son-in-law "Meathead."

#3 Gringo on 2018-04-05 10:36 (Reply)

Watch the first few seasons of All in the Family and you'll probably agree with 80% of what Archie says and 1% of what Meathhead says.

#3.1 NJSoldier on 2018-04-05 11:31 (Reply)

Ha!ha

#3.2 RL on 2018-04-05 12:33 (Reply)

Million+ illegals have Cali drivers' licenses. And with motor-voter, they can vote.

#4 Sam L. on 2018-04-05 11:53 (Reply)

This is part of the whole plan of destroying citizenship. Anyone in the world should be able to vote in American elections. George Soros is funding, and the Mexican government is allowing, an invasion force marching their way to the American border. They have a list of demands, they only lack firearms. Do you think it is just a coincidence, that the same thing is going on at the Israel border?

#4.1 B. Hammer on 2018-04-05 13:44 (Reply)

The illegals with the California drivers licenses aren't supposed to drive out of state, and we know how good they are at following law.

My girlfriend got hit by a guy 4 months ago, first thing he says is she should be alright because her insurance should cover uninsured motorists. He was illegal; they learn fast.

#5 Hoss on 2018-04-05 22:00 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
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. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, April 5. 2018

Thursday morning links