Reason Roundup

Justice Department Tells States the Equal Rights Amendment Is Dead

Plus: Rand Paul says White House's war-powers arguments are "absurd," the Cato Institute wants Congress to investigate the FBI, and more...

|

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) may have made sense for a certain time and place, but Democrats' continued attachment to this 20th century relic has never made much sense. So it's not with much chagrin that I report that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has declared the ERA dead.

Initially, Congress said the ERApassed in 1972would be obsolete if not ratified by the required three-quarters of state legislatures by a 1979 deadline. Later, Congress extended this deadline to 1982. It still wasn't met.

"We conclude that Congress had the constitutional authority to impose a deadline on the ratification of the ERA and, because that deadline has expired, the ERA Resolution is no longer pending before the States," DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel said in a January 6 opinion, released yesterday.

In recent years, two new states voted to ratify the long-dead legislationNevada in 2017 and Illinois in 2018—and Virginia is expected to do so this year, becoming the long-needed 38th state. But some states that do not support the ERA have been asking, What about that deadline? So the National Archives and Records Administration (which is tasked with verifying state ratification) asked the DOJ for guidance.

It would be fine, the Office of Legal Counsel said, for "Congress to restart the ratification process by proposing it anew." But it takes issue with the idea that "the congressional deadline was invalid or could be retroactively nullified by Congress."

"The Supreme Court has upheld Congress's authority to impose a deadline for ratifying a proposed constitutional amendment," states the DOJ's opinion. "Both Houses of Congress, by the requisite two-thirds majorities, adopted the terms of the ERA Resolution, including the ratification deadline, and the state legislatures were well aware of that deadline when they considered the resolution."

This ruling "doesn't directly affect the litigation," University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck told CNN. But "unless it is overruled by the attorney general or the president, it likely will bind the archivistmeaning that the only way a new ratification by a state like Virginia would likely be effective is if the courts say so."


FOLLOW-UP

"The United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it," said President Donald Trump in a televised address to Iran yesterday.

"This is unequivocally good news," as Eric Boehm wrote at Reason yesterday. "But once the threat of war has mostly passed, observers should start asking: What exactly has the saber-rattling of the past week accomplished for the United States?"

The House will vote today on a War Powers Resolution sponsored by Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D–Mich.). It mirrors the one that Virginia Democrat Tim Kaine introduced in the Senate, and it says the Authorization for Use of Military Force that preceded the second Iraq war doesn't mean Trump can target Iran at his will.

"In the briefing and in public, this administration has argued that the vote to topple Saddam Hussein in 2002 applies to military action in Iraq," Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) told CNN yesterday. "That is absurd. Nobody in their right mind—with a straight face, with an ounce of honesty—can argue when Congress voted to go after Saddam Hussein in 2002 that (they) authorized military force against an Iranian general 18 years later."

Meanwhile…Lindsey Graham, folks:


QUICK HITS

  • Jeffrey Tucker weighs in on Tyler Cowen's assessment that the U.S. libertarian movement has "hollowed out."

Advertisement

NEXT: Young Americans Are Right to Fear a Renewed Draft

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) may have made sense for a certain time and place, but Democrats’ continued attachment to this 20th century relic has never made much sense.

    Someone hasn’t seen the modern day Handmaid’s Tale being played out right in front of us.

    1. Hello.

      Now the Americans are really gonna get it. The Iranians are ANGRY:

      https://twitter.com/Slickzaman1/status/1215024313386049539

    2. “The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) may have made sense for a certain time and place,”

      The 1880’s?

  2. The United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it…

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me… CAN’T GET FOOLED AGAIN.

    1. As yesterday’s positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured.

  3. “This is unequivocally good news,” as Eric Boehm wrote at Reason yesterday.

    I detect a “but” coming.

  4. Meanwhile…Lindsay Graham, folks…

    It’s Lindsey. Lindsay is girl’s name.

    1. In this case… I’ll allow it.

      1. “chemjeff radical individualist
        January.7.2020 at 6:07 pm
        When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark”

        So you’re saying I’m the most correct person on this board for over a decade?

        I don’t think anyone is surprised you’ve spent three days running from the question

        1. You have me confused with someone else.

          1. Nope.

            “chemjeff radical individualist
            January.7.2020 at 6:07 pm
            When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark”

            So you’re saying I’m the most correct person on this board for over a decade?

            You’ve spent three days running from the question

    2. “Well, Lindsay ain’t a girl! If she starts in on that girl’s name thing, I’ll show her good and all I got man parts.”

  5. “You know, they’re libertarians.”

    They’re just throwing their war powers vote away.

  6. The Cato Institute “is calling on Congress to investigate whether the FBI is spying on it and other domestic political groups…”

    Just wait until the feds write Cato a letter trying to get it to commit suicide.

  7. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) may have made sense for a certain time and place, but Democrats’ continued attachment to this 20th century relic has never made much sense. So it’s not with much chagrin that I report that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has declared the ERA dead.

    Some women want Women’s Rights, not equal rights.

    Since unreason is bringing up the draft like the clickbait whores that they are, why aren’t women forced to sign up for Selective Service like men?

    Why can’t men get free condoms, like women get free birth control?

    Why can’t men get equal custody of children as a default?

    1. Since unreason is bringing up the draft like the clickbait whores that they are, why aren’t women forced to sign up for Selective Service like men?

      Why can’t men get free condoms, like women get free birth control?

      Why can’t men get equal custody of children as a default?

      Not necessarily saying that the ERA is a good idea, but if these are things that you want, you’re more likely to get them with an ERA than without.

      1. “chemjeff radical individualist
        January.7.2020 at 6:07 pm
        When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark”

        So you’re saying I’m the most correct person on this board for over a decade?

        I don’t think anyone is surprised you’ve spent three days running from the question

      2. No it’s not. Those things are unlikely to get no matter what laws on the books. Men aren’t seen as victim groups. In fact the MRAs get routinely laughed at by most politicians and other groups.

        Add this to the list of things Jeff doesn’t know.

    2. Also, five states – Nebraska, Idaho, Tennessee, Kentucky, and South Dakota – have rescinded their earlier votes to ratify. Seems to be a dead duck on several fronts.

      1. Somewhat odd that that was not mentioned given the statement that Virginia’s approval would be the final one for ratification if the deadline did not make it a dead letter.

        1. Basically, if you’ve got a Congress and Court willing to pretend the amendment didn’t expire decades ago, they’re not going to let a little thing like states having rescinded their ratifications matter.

          The ERA flacks aren’t expecting to win clean, they’re just trying to create a pretext for the federal government giving them the win dirty.

          1. Or to get some ideologue judge to do it for them.

        2. It was mentioned several times in the OLC memo: “assuming you ignore states that rescinded ratification”.

    3. I’m pretty sure men can go to Planned Parenthood and get “free” condoms.
      Otherwise, those are good questions if we’re supposedly talking about equal rights.

  8. “In the briefing and in public, this administration has argued that the vote to topple Saddam Hussein in 2002 applies to military action in Iraq,” Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) told CNN yesterday. “That is absurd. Nobody in their right mind—with a straight face, with an ounce of honesty—can argue when Congress voted to go after Saddam Hussein in 2002 that (they) authorized military force against an Iranian general 18 years later.”

    Either Rand doesn’t read the comments here, or he’s got you guys totally figured out.

    1. As always, you’re not intelligent enough to understand the difference between how things are and how people think they should be.

    2. My position is that Trump didn’t need the AUMF. The Iranian general was conducting attacks on US forces. Trump had a right and indeed a duty to respond to those attacks. The AUMF has nothing to do with it.

      1. exactly John. people seem to use the incorrect argument I think in an attempt to prove a wrong doing. that said i think the AUMF can still apply, so their logic is wrong on all counts

        1. To be fair, it was the Whitehouse who said they were operating under the authorization of the AUMF and War Act.

        2. Sincere question: how does it apply?

    3. First, he doesn’t read the comments here.

      Second, he has been wrong before and he is wrong here.

      Third, the AUMF is terribly written and allows for a lot of leeway like most Congressional laws passed.

      I would respond to Paul with “Nobody in their right mind – with a straight face, with an ounce of honesty – can argue that Congress writes tempered bills that are meant for minimal action by the Executive and hasn’t spent a decade deferring broad powers to the executive.

      Paul is simply substituting what he wished had happened with what did happen.

    4. “… applies to military action in Iraq”

      Did Iran annex Baghdad?

    5. I would have liked to hear Rand speak to the notion that this Iranian was tagged as a terrorist. The AUMF permits the use of force against terrorists.

  9. Lawyers for the state have backed down from a recent claim that New England Patriots football team owner Robert Kraft committed a felony prostitution offense a year ago…

    Investigators have worn out the part of the video evidence where he gets the handy.

  10. “The Cato Institute “is calling on Congress to investigate whether the FBI is spying on it and other domestic political groups after public records requests raised the possibility that the Bureau has files on Cato and others,” reports Reason’s C.J. Ciaramella.”

    There goes trump again with his hyperbolic tweets about wire tapping his towe- oh…Cato? OH. This is serious. It is totes likely that the FBI was spying on Cato, as opposed to a rival political campaign.

    Seriously, this is why I do not get the eye rolling from libertarians over what the FBI was doing. Here we are 4 years after 2020 and we are reliving our own version of the old “and then when they came for me, no one was left to speak up…” parable.

    1. er 4 years after 2016

      1. I miss whichever color of Tony was from the future too.

        1. “chemjeff radical individualist
          January.7.2020 at 6:07 pm
          When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark”

          So you’re saying I’m the most correct person on this board for over a decade?

          I don’t think anyone is surprised you’ve spent three days running from the question

        2. Parallel universe Tony was my favorite Tony

          1. I’ve thought for a while that Mr. Gus (who was one or both of the Tonys) is OBL.

            1. Sure Jeff

              “chemjeff radical individualist
              January.7.2020 at 6:07 pm
              When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark”

              So you’re saying I’m the most correct person on this board for over a decade?

              You’ve spent three days running from the question

    2. Trump said the FBI had spied on his campaign and CATO laughed about it and put out FBI talking points supporting the Russia hoax. Sorry, but I frankly could not give a fuck less that the FBI spied on them.

      1. So, it’s only bad when it’s people you like? Or at least people you don’t think are hypocrites?

        1. It’s bad all the time. A fact that Cato abandoned when they decided that it was okay when they did it to Trump.

          John did NOT abandon that. He simply finds it hard to care that Cato’s being hoisted on it’s own petard

          1. He said he didn’t give a fuck about the FBI inappropriately spying on someone. Who the someone is shouldn’t be relevant if you think that’s a bad thing.

            1. I dont give a fuck about the fbi spying on somebody who previously expressed their belief that there is nothing wrong with the FBI spying on people without cause.
              I assume John is somewhere close to that.

              1. That is exactly where I am. And yes, in the abstract I should care about that. But, no one is perfect.

      2. I mean, fill your campaign with a bunch of people who were currently or previously under surveillance for being suspected spies and/or money launderers, then don’t be surprised when some of them are still being wire tapped. Also don’t be surprised when one of your staff brags to a foreign diplomat about how you were totally coordinating with wikileaks on the release of emails stolen by Russian spies.

        1. We weren’t terribly surprised that they were wiretapped. Just a little miffed that your side spent months assuring us that Trump’s campaign was not wiretapped and that Trump was the craziest dude on Earth for even thinking it was possible.

          1. And then saying that it was a good thing he was wiretapped, because “look at all the Russian agents we found!” even though that wasn’t the case.

    3. I mean, I’m not a libertarian/Libertarian, but I give out an eye-roll whenever anyone gets hysterical that they might be spied on ’cause, come’on, this is the 21st century, of course you’re being spied on.

      Excepting nuclear warfare that knocks us all back to the industrial age, a world where you aren’t spied on isn’t an option anymore.

      The serious question then isn’t “are we being spied on”, but “how do we make sure that information isn’t being misused”. But Everyone is so afraid of conceding that the question has moved that we can’t have the real debate, and thus unwittingly concede the answer to “we’re too scared to try”.

      1. A dragnet is one thing, which in and of itself should be resisted at every point. However, if Cato is correct and they were specifically targeted by agents who then had access to private information, then it should absolutely have the light of 1000 suns shone on it.

        Conceding that “Everyone does it” is stupid. It is the excuse people use to minimize the impact when someone they like gets in trouble.

        1. You know, I started writing a long response, but it really comes down to this:

          Conceding that “Everyone does it” is stupid.

          Conceding that reality is real is never stupid. It is a necessary first step to any meaningful action. If you can’t admit what the real problem is, then you can’t fix it.

          If you are unwilling to face reality, then you are part of the problem, because by pretending it is still an individual problem, you are ignoring the reality of the problem.

      2. So then why spend all that time insisting that Trump was crazy for thinking he was being spied on?

        “Look, Trump, it’s the 21st century and everyone gets spied on, get over yourself” is very different from the actual response we heard after Trump made the claim.

  11. California Governor Pushes $1.4 Billion Plan To Tackle Homelessness

    That is a lot of beans and rice so those street shits really stick around.

    1. The homeless should be fed lots of florescent dye so giant Roombas could roam the streets at night, beaming massive black lights to locate the shit. To keep the Roombas on track, the streets should be lined with black light posters of Jimi Hendrix.

      1. That’s just stupid
        Hendrix is from Seattle. You mean the Grateful Dead

    2. Jesus. How have they not figured out that you get as much homelessness as you pay for. California’s a pretty easy place to be homeless. Throwing more money at it just makes it easier, so you only get more.

  12. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch has already lost $600,000,000 this year.

    Here’s some quick math. Since there are over 50 weeks in a year, Mr. Koch is on pace to lose more than $30,000,000,000 in 2020. Do you know what this means? It means he’d only have about $30,000,000,000 left!

    #HowLongMustCharlesKochSuffer?

    1. Hey, if he loses money, that means there is more for the rest of us, right?

      1. But Koch / Reason libertarianism isn’t concerned with that. Our philosophy is primarily interested in making the top 100 richest people on Earth even richer.

        #BillionairesKnowBest

  13. For one thing, it doesn’t seem that old-style libertarianism can solve or even very well address a number of major problems, most significantly climate change.

    So libertarianism can’t solve Mother Nature?? We’re 10,000 years removed from an ice age. There was a glacier a mile thick where I am currently standing in the northern Midwest, and they think libertarianism is “hallowed out” because they have no ideas on how to reverse the climate?

    1. Libertarianism has also been hollowed out because it is unable to answer for inequality as well. And because it has been unable to answer for finding intelligent life in the cosmos. And it has been unable to answer for Cold Fusion.

      Basically, Libertarianism has been hollowed out because a 300 million people have decided that sticking their nose in other peoples’ business is far better than individual freedom.

      1. Libertarianism has an answer for inequality. That answer is, “Suck it up, buttercup, you’re not entitled to equality of anything except fundamental rights.”

        But, yeah, Libertarianism’s real problem is that it just doesn’t appeal to enough people.

        1. The answer to inequality is that life isn’t fair and the more you try to make it fair the more unfair it becomes. The world is unequal because life is often random and unfair.

          1. “The world is unequal because life is often random and unfair.”

            Yes, and that is a viewpoint that most people in the world reject whole-heartedly.

            The real sad part about the Internet is that there are now infinite monkeys banging on keyboards telling you exactly what you want, whatever that is. You don’t need to argue. If you reject notions of resource scarcity, comparative advantage, etc etc, there are a hundred “deep thinkers” at HuffPo, WashPo, and NYT who will tell you how right you are.

            Libertarians never owned the narrative, and so the “questions” being asked by the public are stupid unanswerable questions, like “Why aren’t we equal yet?” which is a bit like, “When did capitalism stop beating your wife?” Libertarianism cannot answer those questions, because they are stupid nonsensical questions that wouldn’t be discussed except for the fact that everyone lives in their personalized Echo Chamber where reality is whatever some journalist decided it is.

            1. They are stupid questions. I will say, however, Libertarians often make the mistake of overselling the virtues of the free market. The free market isn’t perfect because freedom isn’t perfect. With freedom comes risk and responsibility. The more free you are, the more risk you assume.

              Freedom and security really are in the macro sense zero sum commodities. The more free you are the more responsibility and risk you have to assume. Libertarians often fail to understand that and take freedom being the ultimate good with no downsides as a given. That is just not true. Freedom does have downsides. And if you want people to value freedom, you have to get them to value the opportunity it provides more than the fear the risk and responsibility it entails.

              1. That’s true of a lot of libertarians. But I think many or most acknowledge those problems.
                Freedom comes with all kinds of problems. But most are problems that lack of freedom has failed to solve. Unless you are quite sure that government can create a better outcome than just leaving people alone would, you should just leave people alone. I think that’s the sensible way to look at it. It’s not that freedom is perfect and solves everything. It’s that in most cases, a better option has not been demonstrated to exist and there is little reason to think it does.

                1. It depends on who you are Zeb. Most libertarians are solidly middle class, smart, healthy and responsible people. For them the opportunity provided by freedom is a given. The problem is they often fail to realize not everyone is like them and not every situation is theirs.

                  For example, if I came to you and gave you the choice of living in two different circumstances. The first would be the Victorian West, which is about as free of a society and as opportunity filled society as I can imagine. The second would be as the single inmate in a prison where you would be guaranteed to be taken care of and safe but would have little or no freedom. The choice would be obvious right? The Victorian West.

                  Okay, what if you are a quadriplegic? What is your choice then? Not so simple. All of that opportunity offered by the Victorian West rings hollow because the risks and lack of security would amount to a likely death sentence.

                  The point is that if you are sick or have no family to take care of you if things go wrong, you are not going to value freedom the same way you will if you do. This is why the left has gone to such great efforts to destroy the nuclear family. They know if people are deprived of a stable home life, they will be more risk adverse and more receptive to the security government provides.

                  To end a long point, if Libertarians want people to value and desire freedom, they need to do more than just assume that everyone wants it and call anyone who doesn’t a statist. They need to foster a stable and law abiding society with strong families and civic institutions that give people a sense of security such that they will value the opportunities provided by freedom more and fear the risks and responsibilities that come with freedom less.

                  1. I think you are right. Social institutions are needed for a stable society. Government is no substitute.
                    Sadly, it’s a point of faith for most people these days that government needs to solve people’s problems for them. Certainly worse on the left, but Republicans are hardly immune.
                    I don’t have much hope that politics and democracy will ever give us significantly greater freedom, for pretty much the reasons you state right here.

                  2. “The point is that if you are sick or have no family to take care of you if things go wrong, you are not going to value freedom the same way you will if you do. This is why the left has gone to such great efforts to destroy the nuclear family. They know if people are deprived of a stable home life, they will be more risk adverse and more receptive to the security government provides.”

                    This point is so good that I was thinking of adding it to your comment half way through, before I got to it.

                    I would add though, that the right deserves some criticism as well for the unintended consequences of the war on drugs on the nuclear family.

              2. I will say, however, Libertarians often make the mistake of overselling the virtues of the free market. The free market isn’t perfect because freedom isn’t perfect. With freedom comes risk and responsibility. The more free you are, the more risk you assume.

                Yep.

                And here’s the real kicker: Libertarians obsess about the “free market” a lot. Almost any social, economic, or criminal problem people are dealing with? “Free market!” is the trumpeting reply.

                Which doesn’t persuade many folks ’cause even as you’re saying “The more free you are, the more risk you assume”, what we see in practice is that the more “free” companies are, the more they find ways to off-load “risk” onto everyone else. See corporate bankruptcies, where the executive suite and shareholders come out ahead, while all the rank-and-file employees get shafted.

                So long as that pattern continues, most folk won’t warm up to a “free market” that just appears to be more “free” to screw them.

                1. Yes. There is more to life than just freedom. Fairness and justice matter too. People are willing to accept a certain amount of unfairness and injustice. But there is a limit. If the “free market” ends up meaning that powerful people get to manipulate the system to make other people pay for their misdeeds, people will reject the free market at some point.

                  1. Hint: for most Americans, that “point” was decades ago.

    2. I am currently standing in the northern Midwest..
      Poor bastard.

      1. At least the mosquitos aren’t bad today.

    3. Libertarianism is supposed to be hollowed out. That’s the whole idea isn’t it? The government can’t solve every problem and shouldn’t try.

      1. Even if you go by that theory, that’s a late stage objective. Take over the federal and state government and then hollow it out.

        If you hollow yourself out before taking power, you’re just a lightweight that can’t take power.

        1. I don’t really think libertarians can succeed through politics, so I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about that.

  14. Victoria Secret’s parent stock falls on weak holiday sales and trimmed forecast

    Incels dont buy sexy underwear because they dont have any Trim waiting in the wings.

  15. Kentucky judge accused of courthouse threesome is suspended

    Now that is some Equal Rights, I would love to ratify.

    1. Here cum da judge!

  16. Jeffrey Tucker weighs in on Tyler Cowen’s assessment that the U.S. libertarian movement has “hollowed out.”

    Hollowed out seemed to mean lacking the central planning (even on a performative level) that the major ideologies employ regularly to maintain power.

    1. Cowen knows what the Libertarian movement needs is the guidance of top men to help them embrace the glories of a powerful and large government. This really seems to be his position.

      Cowen is a great example of how none of these self proclaimed “public intellectuals” are ever held accountable for their predictions being proven by events to be ridiculous. A few years ago Cowen made the rounds on the interview and book review circuit for a book called “Average is Over”. The point of the book was that robots are going to displace everyone but the smartest’ top men’s jobs in the future.

      The book was self evidently stupid on many levels. First, it way oversold the capabilities of robots and AI. Second and most importantly, Cowen unintentionally was predicting the end of scarcity. Even if his predictions about automation were true, such technological revolutions have happened many times in the past and the result has been for the people displaced by the technology to invent new things to do making society even more wealthy. For his gloom and doom predictions to be true, this new revolution would have to be different such that it was so complete that there was nothing new for the displaced workers to invent for themselves to do. And that is nothing but a glass half empty way of describing the end of scarcity. Cowen is just too stupid to understand that. Regardless, seven years and a booming labor market on, his book and all of its predictions look absurd. Yet, Cowen is still held up as some kind of “expert” and someone worth listening to, because once you are in the club you are never kicked out no matter how many stupid things you say.

      1. Given that Cowen is a big believer in open borders, I’ve always wondered what he intended to do with all those unemployed laborers after they’ve been automated out of their jobs.

        And as long as we’re discussing Jeffrey Tucker, I just gotta….
        https://youtu.be/ZVR5P1MRkh0

        1. Everyone is going to lose their job and unemployment will become a way of life. So, hey lets let more people in the country.

          I just cannot stand Cowen. If it were up to Cowen, everyone would be reduced to complete employment insecurity and be able to hold their jobs only so long as they were more desperate to have it than any other qualified person in the known world.

          1. Goons like Cowen unironically believe that the socio-economic system shown in the Jetsons is an achievable goal.

  17. Glacier National Park Quietly Removes Its ‘Gone by 2020’ Signs

    The ‘gone by 2020’ claims were repeated in the New York Times, National Geographic, and other international news sources. But no mainstream news outlet has done any meaningful reporting regarding the apparent stabilization and recovery of the glaciers in GNP over the past decade. Even local Montana news sources such as The Missoulian, Billings Gazette and Bozeman Daily Chronicle have remained utterly silent regarding this story.

    (Note that since September 2015 the author has offered to bet anyone $5,000 that GNP’s glaciers will still exist in 2030, in contradiction to the reported scientific consensus. To this day no one has taken me up on my offer. –R.R.)

  18. “…as Eric Boehm wrote at Reason yesterday. “But once the threat of war has mostly passed, observers should start asking: What exactly has the saber-rattling of the past week accomplished for the United States?””

    What “threat of war”? Were the walls closing in, Boehm? Was it the tipping point? The beginning of the end?
    Seek help.

    1. “What exactly has the saber-rattling of the past week accomplished for the United States?”

      One dead terrorist leader, for starts.

  19. Judge orders Google to turn over Jussie Smollett’s emails

    Damn! Just when Smollett was going to be written back into the show.

  20. Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she is cancer-free

    The declaration comes after the 86-year-old justice, who has risen to an iconic status among liberals in recent years, dealt with a series of health issues over the past 12 or so months.

    Lefties dont care about her, they just dont want Trump to have a chance to replace her. Befitting since RBG doesnt care about America to be at work and do her job well.

    Notice how the Propagandists go on-and-on about he being Cancer free but never discuss all the other ailments she has.

    1. If true that’s incredible. Sort of like Stephen Hawking living for decades with ALS. Pancreatic cancer is a bitch. She should retire so the medical community can study her.

      1. It might be true. Hasn’t Jimmy Carter been going to die in six months for like ten years now?

        I hope it is true and good for her. I really don’t want her to keel over this spring and have to suffer through the lunacy of another election year Supreme Court appointment. I hope she is healthy and happy and is on the court at least long enough to get through the election.

        1. RBG is running on sheer will power right now.

          Her retiring now would allow Trump and the US Senate plenty of time to replace her before real election time. She is super selfish to want to die in her office where some new justice has to endure that stink of death.

          Trump being able to replace RBG during his second term will definitely still come up this election.

          1. Try this. What if she retires in October? Think that might drive turnout a little?

            I’m surprised if she really is cancer-free. I doubt it. Amazing the level of medical care you can get in this country if you have enough power.

            1. Oh Election 2020 will likely have the largest turnout ever.

              Black Americans that are Democrats might not turn out 100% but Black Americans that are not Democrats will turn out 100%.

              As with the Election 2016, 2018, and the special elections in 2017 and 2019, most Lefties will vote in 2020.

              The non-Lefty turnout will be high in 2020 and that is why Trump will be reelected, the GOP will take more Senate seats, and the Democrats will lose House seats they currently hold. Census 2020 will take away House seats from Blue states and give them to red states which will alter some of the House seats for Democrats that survived Election 2020.

      2. It’s not that incredible. Cancer doesn’t do so well in corpses.

        #WeekendAtBernies #DeadParrotSkit.

    2. they talk of how brave RBG is but Trump goes to the hospital to visit wounded warriors they think he is dying and should be replaced. Note they do not report that he visited sick and injured people because that would make him human and nice.

      1. Lefties got Narratives to push!

    3. Once you’ve been declared “cancer-free” four different times within a decade are we allowed to be a bit skeptical?

  21. “Gov. Gavin Newsom announces state-run prescription drug label to lower prices”
    […]
    “California Gov. Gavin Newsom is slated to announce Thursday a plan to create a state-run generic drug label, and also negotiate with prescription drugmakers to set uniform prices for Californians, including those on private insurance.
    Under the generic-drug proposal, the state would not make its own medicines, but instead contract with manufacturers to produce certain drugs in an effort to spur competition and hence lower prices.
    […]
    The plan lacks details on which generic drugs would be available, the estimated cost savings to consumers, which state or health insurers would participate, and whether drug companies that do not agree to the state’s terms would be prohibited from selling their products in California. More details are expected to be released in the coming weeks…”
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Gov-Gavin-Newsom-announces-state-run-14960976.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result

    Nothing says increased competition like a state-run monopoly!

    1. Hey, nice pharmaceutical plant ya got here, be a shame if sumthin happened to it.

    2. Here come the shortages, heck there have already been shortages of some drugs because government regulations have moved their manufacturing out of this country

  22. a href=”https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/09/impeachment-trial-could-be-big-blow-to-my-campaign-cory-booker-says.html”>Impeachment trial could be ‘big blow’ to my campaign, Cory Booker says

    One thing the Romans never gave Spartacus was a fair Senate trial.

  23. Warren, Sanders join conference call with lobby group linked to Tehran — sparking backlash

    Democratic presidential hopefuls Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders faced criticism online Wednesday for participating in a conference call with an Iranian-American advocacy group just a day after Iran launched a ballistic missile attack in Iraq aimed at U.S. military personnel.

    The group was the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which critics claim lobbies in Washington on behalf of the Iranian government.

    If only Lefties had good leakers like this in the White House.

    1. Can’t we make imaginary leaker/whisttle blowers whose names will never be revealed. thats seems to be what they do all the time

  24. Re: Jeffrey Tucker’s article.
    Hard to disagree with any of it.
    I especially liked this bit:

    My libertarianism I believed to be the embrace of peace and prosperity through universal human emancipation via the disempowerment of statism at all levels of society, with the purpose of enabling human flourishing.

    That is a great way to put it.

    If you’re just angry at the state, that’s not enough. You have to be affirmatively pro-liberty, not merely anti-statism.

    1. “chemjeff radical individualist
      January.7.2020 at 6:07 pm
      When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark”

      So you’re saying I’m the most correct person on this board for over a decade?

      I don’t think anyone is surprised you’ve spent three days running from the question

    2. The problem Jeffrey is that you don’t agree with the sentiment. Because to be disempowered from statism at all levels you have to give up entitlements which you have stated you don’t want to do.

      1. I’m way more libertarian than you, pal.

        1. Hahahaha.

  25. Also.
    Just to disabuse you of the notion any more that the Republican base wants “government out of health care”:

    https://www.npr.org/2020/01/09/789127994/npr-poll-finds-sizable-income-gap-on-republicans-views-of-health-coverage

    Most pointedly, Republican voters vary substantially by income on the question of whether the government should make it a priority to make sure everyone has health coverage. Fifteen percent of Republicans in the top 1% say that this should be a very important priority. Three times as many — 48% — of the lowest-income Republicans agree with that statement.

    1. “chemjeff radical individualist
      January.7.2020 at 6:07 pm
      When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark”

      So you’re saying I’m the most correct person on this board for over a decade?

      I don’t think anyone is surprised you keep running from your own words.

    2. So poor people think stuff should be free.
      Surprise!

    3. only because they are now forced into government health care and because of government health care private health insurance is now triple what it would be otherwise.

    4. That people want the government to provide them with guarantees does not make the government providing guarantees a proper power of government or good policy.

    1. “chemjeff radical individualist
      January.7.2020 at 6:07 pm
      When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark”

      So you’re saying I’m the most correct person on this board for over a decade?

      Please keep running from the question

    2. And yet you backed Schiff’s refusal to release the FISA requests. You’ve backed him to not released unclassified testimony for impeachment… weird how selective you ware.

      1. There we go.
        Can’t defend Pence’s actions, so it’s time to roll out the whataboutism.

        Why not try to justify (or not) what Pence is doing?

        1. No. He is calling out your hypocrisy. If you want to attack Pence here, fine. But when you do so admit you were wrong to defend Schiff.

          Pointing out your hypocrisy is not defending Pence. It is pointing out your hypocrisy and giving a reason not to take you seriously. If you want to be taken seriously, admit you were wrong about Schiff. Otherwise shut up and stop being a hack.

          1. Yup right on cue. Can’t defend Pence, so John tries to change the subject.

            Anything but actually trying to stand up for your tribal leader.

            When are you actually going to address the substance of the issue?

            1. So you’re saying you’re not going to admit you were wrong to defend Schiff and it’s John’s fault. Got it.

            2. Right on cue you either don’t understand or ignore the point. You are a hypocrite. You defended Schiff for keeping things secret but think Pence not releasing intel is bad. You don’t even bother to try and explain why the two situations are different.

              Nothing in my post defended Pence. I have no idea if Pence is right here and make no statement supporting him or defending him. I haven’t really thought about it. I am pointing out that Jesse was calling you a hypocrite not defending Pence.

              The question is are you too stupid to understand that or just too dishonest to admit it? I can’t really tell. Sometimes I think you really are that stupid and that unable to think rationally and other times I think no one could be as stupid as you appear to be and you are just lying. So, please, do tell.

              1. Just look at how Jeffrey forms arguments. he has never actually argued with someone here, it is why he reverts to sophist arguments. He will at best argue a strawman argument tangentially related to a comment, but never an actual comment. Generally he reverts to thought exercises that are so laughably constructed that you just laugh at him (see the Soleimani as a home invader yesterday).

                1. “here goes blah blah blah falsehood blah blah blah complete misrepresentation blah blah”

                  The thing where someone says something, and then he simply lies about it is one of my favorites.

                2. Once again – changing the subject because you can’t or won’t defend Pence’s actions again. Trying to make it all about me instead of the subject at hand.

                  1. No, I don’t want to defend Pence. You are right. I want to call you a hypocrite. Since when am I under some duty to defend Pence? Moreover, even if I was, why would that make it okay for you to be a hypocrite?

                    1. Boom.

                    2. Since when am I under some duty to defend Pence?

                      Well, the article *is* about Pence after all. You might have forgotten that, given that you all immediately tried to change the subject and attack me instead.

                    3. I am not talking about Pence. I am talking about your hypocrisy. Why do you keep changing the subject?

                    4. You and your buddy Jesse changed the subject because you can’t defend Pence.

              2. Stupid and dishonest, that about sums him up

            3. John didn’t change the subject, he comprehended what I wrote.

          2. See Jeff, John actually has this thing we call reading comprehension. You’d do well to actually study up on it and learn it.

            1. “Reading comprehension”, my ass!!! You didn’t even read SHIT beyond 2-3 words into my post the other day, before TOTALLY condemning my thoughts (anti-suicide) as being anti-Trump! Hypocritical jerk!

              Readers, beware! Do not be deceived by JesseAZ! JesseAZ does NOT believe that LIES are bad in ANY way! Only ACTIONS matter, ethically or morally! See https://reason.com/2020/01/01/trumps-inartful-dodges/#comment-8068480
              “Words are words dumbfuck. Actions are where morals and ethics lie.”, says JesseAZ. When confronted with offers of hush money, illegal commands (from a commanding military officer), offers of murder for hire, libel, slander, lies in court, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, inciting riots, fighting words, forged signatures, threatening to kill elected officials, false representations concerning products or services for sale… these are all “merely” cases of “using words”. Just like the Evil One (AKA “Father of Lies”), Jesse says lies are all A-OK and utterly harmless! So do NOT believe ANYTHING that you hear from JesseAZ!

              Also according to the same source, JesseAZ is TOTALLY on board with dictatorship (presumably so long as it is an “R” dictator that we are talking of).
              With reference to Trump, JesseAZ says…
              “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”

              I say again, this is important…
              “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”
              We need a BRILLIANTLY persuasive new movie from JesseAZ to “Wake Up, America!”, to flesh out the concept that “The Triumph of The Will of The Trump, Trumps All”! Including the USA Constitution. In fact, USA military personnel should start swearing allegiance to Trump, NOT to some stupid, moldering old piece of paper!
              Previous Powerful People have blazed a path for us to follow here, slackers!!!

        2. “chemjeff radical individualist
          January.7.2020 at 6:07 pm
          When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark”

          So you’re saying I’m the most correct person on this board for over a decade?

          Please keep running from the question

        3. I didn’t defend Pence’s actions, i called out your hypocrisy. I’ve made no comment on whether the intel should be released.

          That is your problem, you can’t actually comprehend arguments.

          1. In other words, trying to change the subject because you can’t defend what Pence did.

            1. Tilted Towers defended what Pence did and you just sperged all over him and fled.

        4. Can’t defend Pence’s actions, so it’s time to roll out the whataboutism.

          Congratulations!

          As soon as they say ‘whataboutism’, you win the argument.

          Leftists say ‘whataboutism’ when you successfully cite precedent that shows that whatever you’re talking about is okay when thay do it.

    3. considering the left has been actively talking to Iranian and its supporters here and the number of leaks form them I’d say we know not to trust them or anyone

      1. But we can trust Dear Leader though.

        1. “chemjeff radical individualist
          January.7.2020 at 6:07 pm
          When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark”

          So you’re saying I’m the most correct person on this board for over a decade?

  26. “chemjeff radical individualist
    January.7.2020 at 6:07 pm
    When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark”

    So you’re saying I’m the most correct person on this board for over a decade?

  27. The estimated damage from the Iranian Retaliation:

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/skimpy-outcome-iraq-missile-attacks-took-out-one-helicopter-and-nine-tents

    Iran’s missile attacks took out one helicopter, nine tents, and some tools

    Best quote:

    “Too bad it wasn’t airborne when the hit came in,” said the European officer. “We’d still have the helicopter. I am worried about the tents, to be honest. A tent is very useful when you have to stay outside. Will people now have to double up in the cold?”

    1. The helicopter was a Sikorsky HH-60 combat search and rescue craft, the military source said. The aircraft, nicknamed Pave Hawk, was built by American contractor Lockheed Martin. […] The Pave Hawk cost approximately $40 million.

      Let’s see how many more times unreason sides with Iran over US taxpayers having to replace that helicopter.

      1. Surprised it’s that cheap. The program to make 112 more of them cost about 8 billion, which is about double the cited cost per bird.

        Again, if Iran really wanted to demonstrate their capability, and be sure they wouldn’t hit anyone, they could have just walked the warheads up and down one of the five or so runways the giant airbase has. As opposed to dead-centering one of the (thankfully unoccupied) housing units.

        This really could have gone sideways for them, even with the small warheads they used. Dumb, but that’s Iran for you.

        1. The program to make 112 more of them cost about 8 billion, which is about double the cited cost per bird.

          The one you’re referring to is for the Whiskey variants, which have a different suite of electronics. The ones that are used right now are the G-models, which are super cheap, relatively speaking. That model came online in the early 80s.

  28. I don’t understand the brouhaha over the ERA. We essentially have everything the amendment proposes already. So it’s not longer necessary. But being unnecessary does not mean it’s useless. Ratifying it guarantees those rights in the future.

    So I don’t understand why Democrats are rending their beards over not ratifying it. It would be good to do, but I’ve talked with some proponents who insist it’s utterly necessary for women *today*.

    And I don’t understand the Republicans who still oppose it. Get with the fucking times! The amendment promises nothing that’s not already Federal law. Ratifying it merely endorses the rights women already have by law.

    1. We do indeed need more laws.

      1. *chef’s kiss*

    2. The 14th Amendment covers women.

      The women of the Roaring 20’s got their Flapper panties all in a bunch and got the ERA and the Prohibition roaring through government. Which expanded government and made things ripe for the Mob to take over some parts of the USA.

    3. “I don’t understand the Republicans who still oppose it.”

      As written it offers protections that could make abortion less difficult to impede legally.

      Whether that is good or bad, I leave to you, but it’s a reason R’s would oppose it.

      And as an aside, you should read things before you pontificate to avoid such errors in the future.

    4. Ratifying it guarantees those rights in the future.

      No, it doesn’t, any more than ratifying the 14th prevented Jim Crow laws.

      1. Fuck man, look at the state of thd 2nd.

    5. “We essentially have everything the amendment proposes already. ”

      That’s why the brouhaha. If they got everything the amendment was supposed to do, and a lot they vehemently denied the amendment would do, without the amendment, what will the amendment permit them to get?

      Given the dirty tricks they’re trying to pull to get the amendment, we have to assume they’ll be able to leverage it to get SOMETHING.

    6. It will probably undo a lot of things that women get extra – scholarships for women only, extra federal funding for breast cancer, any special treatment for maternity that doesn’t also include paternity. I don’t have any data on it – but I’d be willing to guess that there are more special carve outs that benefit women than vice versa.

  29. New photos published by the U.S. Sun show former President Bill Clinton standing on late sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein’s private jet, referred to as the “Lolita Express.”

    According to the Sun report, there are photos of Clinton with Ghislaine Maxwell, a longtime friend of Epstein’s who is being investigated by the FBI for her ties to the billionaire.

    Clinton and Maxwell are pictured standing at the door of Epstein’s private jet.

    There is also a photo of Clinton standing with his arm around Chauntae Davies, referred to as a “sex slave” for Epstein by The Sun.

    1. So what? He had a healthy sex drive. Nothing to see here.

  30. The constitution does not provide anyone in the Executive branch any role in the amendment process. So why does anyone care about the opinion of the Justice department? I agree this is a sticky situation where the constitution is silent, but the appropriate venue is for Congress to clarity, or for the the Supreme Court to rule.

    1. The Justice Department does, however, get to interpret and enforce the Constitution. So, they do have a role. Of course the courts get the final say. So, if the states don’t agree with this pronouncement, they can sue and see if the courts agree. Unless they want to do that, however, DOJ gets the final word on the meaning of federal law in this case.

    2. I agree this is a sticky situation where the constitution is silent, but the appropriate venue is for Congress to clarity, or for the the Supreme Court to rule

      I’m sick of the notion that only the federal level can interpret what a bunch of dead planters originally intended the Constitution to mean 230 years ago.

      We need a full constitutional convention – no limits on what is debated. And this time what needs to be time-limited is the Constitution itself. 25 years. That’s it. That would also help solve the public debt problem since it would provide no guarantee that a future convention wouldn’t just repudiate past debts.

      1. So the worst political class in history is going to rewrite a document produced by the best political class in history. Yeah, that will work out well.

        1. The living have every right to declare their independence from the dead.

          I have no doubt you and all the other DeRps will declare your allegiance to the dead. That is precisely what would open the door to alternative parties focused on the future

          1. Fuck the dead all you want, it’s the Constitution we’re talking about bruh.

            1. No. It is the consent of the governed we are talking about. The Constitution is merely what a bunch of dead guys thought was the best idea for THEMSELVES in 1787. It is long past time for the living to decide what is the best idea for OURSELVES – now.

              1. The people can revoke their consent. The fact that they haven’t done that doesn’t mean that there is no consent.

                1. No we can’t ‘revoke consent’. We never gave consent in the first place.

                  1. They give their consent by not calling for a new Constitution. If they didn’t, then every generation would have to rewrite the Constitution or revote on it. And that is idiotic. If people didn’t like the Constitution, they could vote to change it. The fact that they don’t is proof that they are happy with it and consent to it as it is.

                    You don’t seem to understand how this works.

                    1. JFree seems determined to project his own neuroses onto a system of government that’s held up rather well overall for over 200 years.

                      If he really wants to effect a positive change in government, rolling back every single amendment passed during the Wilson administration would do that more than this childish idea to write up a new Constitution every 25 years. That’s the whole fucking point of doing Constitutional amendments in the first place.

                      He seems a lot more angry that he can’t exercise the tyranny of the majority like he wants.

                    2. Red Rocks,

                      I am dumbfounded how anyone would not be terrified by the prospect of a Constitutional Convention. Our problems arise from our refusal to follow the document as it was written. Allowing the mob who currently refuse to follow the document to rewrite it and make their misunderstandings and desire to ignore the document permanent could only result in tyranny.

                      Just what does JFree want changed about the Constitution? Pesky things like the right to free speech, religion and to bear arms? Due process? The right to vote? If he wants to keep those things, does he not understand many others would not and would use a Constitutional Convention as a means of eliminating them?

                    3. An Article V Constitutional Convention does not have to be scary.

                      Lefties wont be in charge anyway. Its the GOP that is ~2 states away from having 34 states to call the convention.

                      It would then require 38 states to ratify any amendments.

                      Some good amendments would include:
                      1. Term limits for Congress and age limits for SCOTUS and other unelected government positions.
                      2. Part time Congress.
                      3. Balanced budget Amendment- The federal budget must be balanced and debt cannot exceed x amount unless at war and then hold a national popular vote to continue debt.
                      4. Sunset clause Amendment- All laws and government rules have a 1-2 year Sunset clause implied. States would also be required to comply.
                      5. Repealing the 17th Amendment part where Senators are directly elected. Return to states choosing Senators.
                      6. All acts of war (more than 10 days military engagement) should be put to a national popular vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army or Marine Corps.
                      7. Freedom of Association shall not be infringed.
                      8. Any Income taxes will be due 5 days before Election day each year.
                      9. Require 3/5 or 4/5 vote for all tax increases and 1/4 vote for all tax decreases.
                      10. Affix punishment for officials violating constitutional oath by creating powers not enumerated.

                      I’m sure there are a few more good ones. I think a Sunset Clause requirement would fix so much we might not need any other Amendments.

                    4. He wants, among other things, a rethinking of the right to own property. Google for a discussion s/he and I had a few days ago where the word usufruct was being thrown around.

                      I saw it as a desire for a world where the lesser classes could not freely alienate their rights in property, but rather had to toil on said property for the benefit of future generations’ rights to not have debt or not to have global warming.

                      The whole thing smelled of neo-feudalism and a return to serfdom.

                      If we rewrite our Constitution today, it’ll look more like the Soviet Union’s than anything else. All gimmes, no responsibilities, and our existence at the sufferance of the government.

                    5. Just what does JFree want changed about the Constitution?

                      I already said I have no specific agenda. Everything should be on the table. If it turns out we don’t have the will to agree on the basic structures of our own governance, then the outcome would be some sort of Brexit/breakup of the US into different nation-states. So be it. That would not be some fatal outcome. It would result in better consensus for governance in those nation-states that re-form.

                      You R’s and D’s despise each other. You obsess about each other. You force everyone else into your stupid fucking obsessions and perversions. I have just given you a way out – and as is COMPLETELY predictable, that scares the crap out of you because in fact you WANT to force everyone permanently into your fucking obsessions/perversions. You want to hold the entire nation hostage to that. You no longer have any interest in anyone else’s liberty.

                    6. @loveconstitution1789
                      Don’t fully agree with all your ideas, but most aren’t bad.

                      I would also add…
                      (1) amendment(s) that detail a process for secession†.
                      (2) Limits for how long a territory can remain a territory before either being separated to go it’s own way or be upgraded to a state‡.
                      (3) A formal process for state(s) to break-up into smaller or states or form into larger ones
                      (4) New powers/requiremetns for the Judiciary regarding case law. Simply put, if we are going to treat precedent/case law as law, we should be writing it into the law. The status quo, where someone has to read not just the law, but case law and precedent going back two hundred years, is ridiculous and serves only to mystify and obfuscate the law from the common man. This would apply to constitutional cases as well.
                      ________
                      †Shouldn’t be easy, but if there’s a real desire in a state it should have a detailed and legal process so we don’t kill each other again.
                      ‡Imperialism was a mistake, we should jettison it’s remnants.

                    7. I already said I have no specific agenda. Everything should be on the table. If it turns out we don’t have the will to agree on the basic structures of our own governance, then the outcome would be some sort of Brexit/breakup of the US into different nation-states. So be it. That would not be some fatal outcome. It would result in better consensus for governance in those nation-states that re-form.

                      So everything should be on the table. That means there is no right that you consider sacred or above being revoked by the mob. I think we are done here. You have pretty much proven yourself to be an advocate of tyranny.

                    8. So everything should be on the table. That means there is no right that you consider sacred or above being revoked by the mob. I think we are done here. You have pretty much proven yourself to be an advocate of tyranny.

                      Golly you nailed it. You are not a paranoid loon walking around all day every day thinking the mob is just about to get you. I am a tyrant. Boo. There see? You have no more 2A. Boo again. No 1A. I am a GOD!!

                    9. That means there is no right that you consider sacred or above being revoked by the mob.

                      I can’t speak to “sacred”, but regarding the rest… yes, obviously.

                      Rights flow from the barrel of a gun, not the Constitution.

                      So if you really think that, in open fair debate, you would not be able to persuade most of America to vote for your “rights”, then the problem isn’t you’ve lost a Constitutional Convention, it’s that you’ve lost the American people.

                  2. No we can’t ‘revoke consent’. We never gave consent in the first place.

                    Yes you did.

                    You signed the social contract.

                    What do you think registering to vote is?

                    That’s where you say that you’ll play by the rules. You consented.

                    1. Yeah, no.

                      You’re bound by the social contract regardless of whether you register to vote. For that matter, you’re bound by it while you’re in diapers. Consent to abide by the social contract might be desired, but it is not required.

                    2. “You’re bound by the social contract”

                      Bullshit. You can leave.

                    3. First off, just because you can leave a place doesn’t mean you aren’t already there.

                      Second, where you going to go? In case you forgot, there are no frontiers or unclaimed land left on Earth. You might be able to, with great difficulty, swap out your American social contract for another, but swapping it out to one you negotiated yourself isn’t an option.

              2. “It is the consent of the governed we are talking about.”

                Um, no. Why lie?

                “The living have every right to declare their independence from the dead.

                I have no doubt you and all the other DeRps will declare your allegiance to the dead. That is precisely what would open the door to alternative parties focused on the future”

                You were talking about inappropriate reverence for the dead, but I caught you and you looked stupid, so you changed your argument and are now proving me better than you.

                1. You still trying to hump my leg?

                  1. You still lying about having friends lololol

                    You THOUGHT THAT WAS BETTER AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

          2. Sure they do. No one said they didn’t. But, that doesn’t mean doing so will turn out well. Are you really so dumb that you can’t understand that?

            1. that doesn’t mean doing so will turn out well.

              Never said it would. But there is no liberty in chaining ourselves to the dreams of the dead or fetishizing them.

              At core what scares the fuck out of you about my idea is living people exercising actual liberty.

              1. There’s nothing within the current Constitution or Bill of Rights in particular that “chains us to the dreams of the dead,” you dumbass.

              2. Never said it would. But there is no liberty in chaining ourselves to the dreams of the dead or fetishizing them.

                When that dream is a limited government and one of the longest lasting democratic republics in history, there most certainly is liberty. Moreover, there has never been a single instance in history where the past was overthrown in the manner you advocate that didn’t result in tyranny and murder. The only revolutions and mass political changes that didn’t result in that were the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the American Revolution of 1776. Both of those revolutions were seen as a reaffirming of existing rights and a restoration of past political practices. What you are advocating is more akin to real revolutions like the French or the Russian revolutions. How anyone could be so stupid as to think rewriting the existing political structures from the ground up is going to end in anything but tyranny is beyond me.

                1. When that dream is a limited government and one of the longest lasting democratic republics in history, there most certainly is liberty.

                  You are simply living in a fetish. The US does not have a limited government. Not by any measure at all.

                  We are not even a republic by the measures of 1789 itself. If we had the same representation in 1789 as we do now, the House of Representatives back then would have had 5-6 critters – which is illegal under the Constitution (The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; )

                  Let’s ignore the realities that the constitution itself had structural flaws that everyone admitted to – solely because they weren’t able to deal with the issue of slavery back then.

                  We are fetishing a corpse. It is time to bury it and create a government for the living. If we fuck it up – well that will at least be a problem of our creation and we will have to live with that.

                  1. No one ever said the Constitution didn’t have flaws. All governments have flaws just like every other human institutions. I am making a fetish out of nothing. You are just projecting. You are the one making a fetish here. You are making a fetish out of the new and out of the mob. You seem to think that because the Constitution isn’t perfected it can be perfected if the mob is allowed to get it’s paws on it. Every single example in history says not just that your assumption is wrong but that it would result in something much much worse.

                    1. Jfree knows that the USA has a limited government because he is always bitching about how Lefties cannot get away with doing certain things. That is limited government.

                    2. Well yeah, he’s a known fabulist.

                    3. No one ever said the Constitution didn’t have flaws.

                      And yet here you are, claiming that any attempt to fix those acknowledged flaws should “terrify” people.

                    4. And yet here you are, claiming that any attempt to fix those acknowledged flaws should “terrify” people.

                      Yes I am. Saying it has flaws does not mean opening the entire document up to rewriting wouldn’t result in something much worse.

                      Do you just not understand the concept that a cure can be worse than a disease or that efforts to fix or perfect something can result in making things worse?

                    5. “claiming that any attempt to fix those acknowledged flaws should “terrify” people.”

                      I read all of his posts and didn’t see that.

                      From your failure to quote it, and reliance on quoting a single word instead, I’m forced to assume you’re lying and that he didn’t actually say that?

                    6. @Sarah Palin’s Buttplug
                      Have you noticed that despite you eagerly jumping to John’s defense when I make statements regarding things he’s said in the past, he doesn’t actually refute what I say?

                      But since you refuse to use the word-search function yourself, here it is from up-stream:

                      I am dumbfounded how anyone would not be terrified by the prospect of a Constitutional Convention.

                      @John

                      Do you just not understand the concept that a cure can be worse than a disease or that efforts to fix or perfect something can result in making things worse?

                      And do you not understand that if we never try, we’ll never find out?

                      You’re so afraid of the unknown that you won’t light a match.

                    7. You’re so afraid of the unknown that you won’t light a match.

                      It’s not a “fear of the unknown”–it’s the left-wing fetish of change for the sake of change that’s the problem here.

                  2. “The US does not have a limited government. Not by any measure at all.”

                    Any measure? At all? My friends are laughing at how stupid you look saying this.

                    “compared to a 12th century monarchy” is a measure.

                    Now eat the loss.

      2. “I’m sick of the notion that only the federal level can interpret what a bunch of dead planters originally intended the Constitution to mean 230 years ago.”

        I’m tired of lefties hoping to re-write the Constitution in the hopes of legalizing even more theft and government oppression.

      3. “I’m sick of”

        Sick enough to die?

    3. The constitution gives no lawmaking power to administrative agencies but that hasn’t done anything to reduce the left’s love of Chevron deference.

  31. “But once the threat of war has mostly passed, observers should start asking: What exactly has the saber-rattling of the past week accomplished for the United States?”

    WWIII IS UPON US!11!

    1. I loved the part where the Selective Service website crashed.

  32. BREAKING NEWS!!!!!
    The little pop-up vid at the lower right has some dim-bulb ‘celebrity’ VERY ANGRY with Trump! So angry, she’s gonna file for her Nigerian citizenship!
    That’ll show him!

    1. Hopefully, the start of a major trend.

      1. We can hope, but all the H’wood lefties who promised to go to Canada if Trump were elected still haven’t found their way to the airport.
        I was hoping for a measurable increase in the US IQ level, but no, they’re still here.

        1. The trashy stripper supply will be slightly impacted very briefly.

        2. Of course, if you read the rules for immigration to Canada, a lot of Hollywood types can’t get in.

    2. Oh, there it is again; the twit goes by the name of Cardi B.
      I don’t read the tabloids at the check-out counter, so I have no idea regarding her claim to fame.

    3. “expats are a lucrative target for criminals, as they are likely to be wealthy.”

      https://www.internations.org/go/moving-to-nigeria/living

      1. “due to the rampant corruption prevalent in Nigeria, you cannot assume every uniformed officer intends to protect and serve. Some might be looking for some easy money, harassing expats and compatriots alike. If you are confronted with situations like these, please just calmly comply. This also applies to muggings!”

    4. I thinks it’s that stripper.

      1. The one that Reason cheered when she gave a half-hearted Twitter rant in favor of prison reform and then ignored when she confessed that she, on multiple occasions, agreed to sleep with men for money and then robbed them?

        Sounds to me like she’ll fit right in in Nigeria.

        1. Oooh that’s a deep cut forgot about that.

    5. “I’m gonna get Nigerian citizenship.”
      Me: “Okurrrrrr, and take your fellow hip-hop dumbshit colleagues with you.”

      1. Irony, considering many if not most first-generation Americans of African descent absolutely hate American Black culture. Have fun in Lagos, Cardi!

      2. “Well…………. Bye”

  33. Yes, it’s a good thing we got rid of all those icky Ron Paul rubes. How embarrassing.

  34. “Libertarianism is not a slogan or a meme or a handful of chants screamed by mobs.”

    Fuck You, Cut Spending!

    1. Libertarianism isn’t much of anything these days, IIBH.

        1. Word.

  35. Democrats’ continued attachment to this 20th century relic

    Even this makes it seem more illustrious than it actually is. ’20th century relic’ makes it sound like something that was begun in the 1890s, didn’t gain steam until the 40s-50s, and matured/sunsetted into the 90s/00s. Late ’20th Century Fad’ is a better description.

  36. But “unless it is overruled by the attorney general or the president, it likely will bind the archivist—meaning that the only way a new ratification by a state like Virginia would likely be effective is if the courts say so.”

    It should render any ratification past the 1982 deadline illegal, to be blunt.

    Considering the government has become more authoritarian and intrusive the more women have become involved in politics, strangling the ERA is a small step towards holding back the vestiges of Wilsonian nannyism.

  37. Discuss this article on Quora:

    https://www.quora.com/q/sgrmlrcbxkjitfee/Justice-Department-Tells-States-the-Equal-Rights-Amendment-Is-Dead

    Quora is a vibrant community where everyone must use their real names and a “be nice, be respectful” policy is strictly enforced.

    1. Any forum that lets a lunatic like you post is not nice and respectful. Go away Hihn.

      1. I’ve been flagging those posts ever since he started doing this.

        At least he used to post actual arguments. They were passive-aggressive and obtuse, but at least they weren’t spam.

        1. Hihn is the one legitimately crazy person on here. He is not right.

        2. He’s pretty shamefully just copy/pasting Reason articles on Quora with ‘What do you think?’ preambles. I can’t tell if Reason’s paying him or waiting for him to generate some actual ‘vibrant’ traffic before asserting ownership over their property.

          1. Be a shame if he got DMCA’d.

      2. Mike is not Hihn.

        Mike will not shit the whole friggin thread when you disagree

        (SMIRK)

    2. Ha! “Real” names.

      1. I did that already lololo

  38. Officers on modified duty earn their full salaries. In fact, the New York Daily News reported in 2016 that some officers put on modified duty after brutality allegations were able to double their salaries with overtime pay. NYPD has tried to curb the practice, but the new policy was overruled by an arbitration board last year.

    The problem is institutional racism, not the public sector union…

    1. The police unions are apparently taking the position that a few missteps shouldn’t ruin a police officer’s career. But lying under oath is a crime, just as possessing illegal drugs, or stealing quarters from a laundry room are. If people such as Pedro Barbosa have to face consequences for their crimes, so should the cops whose lies frame people such as Barbosa for crimes they didn’t commit.

      This is really just an employee/employer dispute. Nothing to see here. It will all be handled in arbitration.

  39. “”That is absurd. Nobody in their right mind—with a straight face, with an ounce of honesty—can argue when Congress voted to go after Saddam Hussein in 2002 that (they) authorized military force against an Iranian general 18 years later.”

    If an Iranian general is assisting with attacking US troops INSIDE Iraq, he would have been fair game in 2002 and fair game as long as we are operating in Iraq. I doubt anyone involved in crafting the AUMF would have disagreed.

Please to post comments