Re: ¡Pinche ley, cabrón!

1

while his policy views are rather out-of-sync with mine,

What you don't believe your gun is what protects your right to free speech etc?

I support 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms as originally intended by our Founding Fathers. I realize that without these Constitutionally guaranteed rights, all other rights are vulnerable to usurpation by an overreaching Federal Government.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05-15-10 12:52 PM
horizontal rule
2

To be fair, being named "Dick" hasn't hurt many politicians with English speaking voters.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 05-15-10 1:11 PM
horizontal rule
3

Google translates the post's title as "Click law, asshole!" which I am rather fond of and will now try to work into everyday conversation.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 05-15-10 1:14 PM
horizontal rule
4

2: I was thinking, the one silver lining to his getting elected, if he does, is the unlikely possibility that he'll co-sponsor legislation with Anthony Weiner.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 05-15-10 1:27 PM
horizontal rule
5

oh. my. goodness.


Posted by: JP Villanueva | Link to this comment | 05-15-10 3:09 PM
horizontal rule
6

Don't forget his bipartisan work with Boehner.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 05-15-10 4:30 PM
horizontal rule
7

Just when I think that Fox News can't possibly get any more batshit insane, I see Crazy Pam Geller on there (just minutes ago!) railing about the "Islamicization" of America. A woman who actually hangs out with Euro-fascists is now being taken seriously by Fox News.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 05-15-10 6:17 PM
horizontal rule
8

Huh. I know a guy by that name. My Spanish wasn't good enough to laugh at him for it until now. Thanks, Stanley!


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 05-15-10 9:25 PM
horizontal rule
9

8: Happy to help your noble cause, good sir.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 05-15-10 10:16 PM
horizontal rule
10

Since this appears to be the politics thread, I'll vent here:

If picking the Lt. Gov. of Pennsylvania requires having tape recorders call me a half-dozen times during the primary, our system is broken and I'll have no choice but to put "my balls itch" as a write-in for every contest on the ballot.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-16-10 3:27 PM
horizontal rule
11

A half dozen times during "the primary" (what is that, a four-month period)? That doesn't sound like much.

I only got one call. The reason given for voting for him was that he's "the only candidate from West Central Pennsylvania". I forget which candidate it was for.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 05-16-10 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
12

11: In the last four days, I've gotten nearly as many phone calls as I did during the same Thursday to Sunday period before the 2008 presidential election (except those calls were often actual humans). The actual contested primaries for Senator and Governor are one thing, but I'm getting more calls about Lt. Gov. than the races that actually matter.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-16-10 3:36 PM
horizontal rule
13

In other political news, the Tea People want to repeal the 17th Amendment? I hadn't heard that one yet.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 05-16-10 4:41 PM
horizontal rule
14

13: Huh? This just gets weirder and weirder.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 05-16-10 4:46 PM
horizontal rule
15

12: I was going to say that we have gotten more calls than I can recall for any November election. But there are five registered voters who use our house as their primary address. Have not noticed them being heavy on the Lt. Governor's race, however.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05-16-10 4:55 PM
horizontal rule
16

13, 14: It's cast as a states' rights issue. Ron Paul has pushed it for some time.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05-16-10 5:04 PM
horizontal rule
17

We could go all German style and do away with senators altogether, turning the states into parliamentary democracies elected by PR (sort of) with each state's government having a set number of votes in an upper house semi-weighted by population.


Posted by: teraz kurwa my | Link to this comment | 05-16-10 5:14 PM
horizontal rule
18

Yeah, that's a long-standing shibboleth of libertarians and other "world is going to hell" types - a Heinlein story had someone's grandfather thinking that plus the 16th Amendment had been the downfall of the Republic.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 05-16-10 5:20 PM
horizontal rule
19

Repealing the direct election of senators seems like it would increase the power of the states and, in particular, the power of low population states, but since I am Becks-style* I can't quite parse it out.

Repealing the 17th doesn't give more power to a state like Utah, per se,** but it does give more power to the Utah state government. So the local elections, where the tea party feels more powerful, become a bigger deal. If we can control the local government, we can control the nation.

_________
*Do we have to retire the phrase if she no longer comments here?

** Holy shit, I just wrote "per say" and let it stand for a long while.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 05-16-10 9:04 PM
horizontal rule
20

Ok, I should just go to bed.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 05-16-10 9:15 PM
horizontal rule
21

Becks is still around, rob, even if she's not so much with the commenting. You can be Becks-style.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 05-16-10 9:18 PM
horizontal rule
22

These days being tierce-style seems like more fun.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 05-16-10 9:19 PM
horizontal rule
23

Another option. See, there are options now, is all.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 05-16-10 9:20 PM
horizontal rule
24

I guess I can see a progressive argument for repealing the 17th Amendment, along the lines of "Senate races are increasingly about pitting two extremely wealthy individuals against each other in a media contest, so if you put the decision in the state house, you'd be taking a lot of the monied special interests out of the picture." But seriously, who would believe that? You'd just be increasing the corruption in state legislatures, and massively, massively adding to the power of state senate majority leaders and house speakers. So the big money would just get dispersed a little more widely at the statehouse, and wouldn't enrich the TV stations and direct marketers to quite the same degree. Although of course there'd still be huge "Call your state representative/state senator/governor to appoint Claudius J. Terwilliger US Senator today!" campaigns.

And as if the decisions about who runs for Senate in any given state aren't mostly made in smoke-filled rooms at the state capitol anyway.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 05-16-10 9:27 PM
horizontal rule
25

Off the top of my head, I'm having a hard time coming up with an argument against abolishing the Senate altogether via constitutional amendment. It probably doesn't have legs, but I think I'd be okay with it. And maybe someone can go troll the Paul websites with that idea as a better solution or something.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 05-16-10 9:33 PM
horizontal rule
26

If we ever got to the point that such a thing would be possible, I think it would be both possible and advisable to bundle in national popular vote for the presidency.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 05-16-10 11:09 PM
horizontal rule
27

Also, we should make ponies eligible to be elected president, regardless of where they were born.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:32 AM
horizontal rule
28

27: You always have to take a good thing too far. It's radicals like you that give election reform a bad name.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:52 AM
horizontal rule
29

First past the post!


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:56 AM
horizontal rule
30

Didn't someone graph google hits for "abolish + [x]th amendment" not so long ago? Ah yes, here we are. Beyond the obvious one, the 17th and the 22nd are local maxima. 22nd? Ah, term limit. Hey, it would have saved us Bush but given back Reagan going senile in office.


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 1:06 AM
horizontal rule
31

with each state's government having a set number of votes in an upper house semi-weighted by population.

Actually, that's a compromise I could go for: the Teabaggers get to do away with direct election of Senators (which would have the welcome effect, from my perspective, of focusing more attention on contests for control of state legislatures), and we get population-weighting of Senate representation. The 12 Senators from California del Norte say "Gracias, amigos."


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 6:36 AM
horizontal rule
32

30: Whoa. Who are the repeal-the-Second-Amendment people? I don't tend to care about gun rights one way or the other, but that graph result seems odd.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 7:08 AM
horizontal rule
33

Who are the repeal-the-Second-Amendment people?

Michael Kinsley, for one. Too lazy to find a link, but he is on the record as saying that gun control advocates should have the courage of their convictions and try to get it repealed. He argues that the narrow reading of the Second Amendment is inconsistent with liberal norms of Constitutional interpretation. Paraphrasing somewhat, he wrote that "If liberals construed the 2nd Amendment as expansively as they interpret the First and Fourth Amendments, they would be arguing that the Bill of Rights requires every American citizen to own a handgun."


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 8:21 AM
horizontal rule
34

33: Wow, that's nutters. I've long taken the "well regulated" part to mean simply that ammunition should be available only through heavily taxed state-run commercial locations, similar to ABC liquor stores in Virginia. We're under-interpreting the damn thing.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 8:39 AM
horizontal rule
35

33, 34: It is clear to me that anything approaching an originalist interpretation of the 2nd has to take account of how the whole national defense function is organized. And I realize that I am not exactly sure what "security of a free State" precisely refers to.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 10:20 AM
horizontal rule
36

You'd just be increasing the corruption in state legislatures

Which hardly seems possible, despite being true.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 10:57 AM
horizontal rule
37

31: so, two houses of representatives? what's the point?


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:00 AM
horizontal rule
38

37: That neither of them is the Senate.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 6:35 PM
horizontal rule