Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2017, 06:12:37 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10

 51 
 on: Today at 02:45:07 am 
Started by Senator Scott - Last post by TD
Sanctuary cities shouldn't be allowed to get away with legally refusing to help enforce federal law ... at the least, the government should disincentivize them. You are correct, Trump doesn't get to pick and choose which laws to enforce, and I agree, he needs a directive from Congress to do this. I don't think, upon review, he has the statutory authority to do this (impound funds to local governments) without Congress doing something authorizing him.

I dissent that it would be a bad law. After all, if sanctuary cities exist ... it makes our immigration law a mockery and suggests they can be suborned. This is obviously a dangerous precedent to set, especially given the Constitution's clear directive about the government setting and enforcing immigration law.


Even if Congress were to pass a bill echoing the language of Trump's executive order, there would still be a couple Constitutional hurdles in play. Congress could pass a law expressly conditioning law enforcement grants on compliance with 18 U.S.C. ž 1373, sure, no problem. But the language of Trump's EO sweeps broader than that. Trumps EO states: "The Attorney General shall take appropriate enforcement action against any entity that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law." What is a policy that "hinders" the enforcement of federal law? Well, the EO doesn't define it, and so the judge concludes that this is likely to be an unconstitutionally vague provision. But ultimately the debate over sanctuary cities comes down to whether cities should be complying with ICE detainer requests, and that's presumably the condition Congress would be seeking if it passed such a law. So what's the Constitutional problem with that? Well, the problem is that several courts have already concluded that ICE detainer requests are unconstitutional. And if ICE detainer requests are unconstitutional, then conditioning funding on compliance with them would likewise be unconstitutional.

It isn't a huge problem. What Congress can do is cut off funding to sanctuary cities if they refuse to turn over the citizenship status of people within its borders to the federal government or refuse to maintain records (which they could share) and Trump would be able to send ICE agents to deport the illegal migrants.

I would assume that satisfies a number of legal issues.

 52 
 on: Today at 02:44:57 am 
Started by Devout Centrist - Last post by Ronnie

2. Will this pass? Yes. Expect virtually every House and Senate Republican to back this. I'd expect 240 votes in the House for this, 55 in the Senate (with 3 blue dog Democrats joining).


Are you just assuming Democrats won't filibuster?  Keep in mind that reconciliation bills have to be revenue neutral over 10 years.

Isn't there a rule that only 51 votes are needed for reconciliation bill abd that's it? I thought the Bush tax cuts passed this way even though they weren't revenue neutral.

Oh sorry, I got confused.  Apparently, non-deficit neutral reconciliation bills just have a 10-year sunset provision.  My mistake.

 53 
 on: Today at 02:41:21 am 
Started by People's Speaker North Carolina Yankee - Last post by Representative Leinad
Nay

Sorry, can't get behind national rent controls. Hopefully the other members show up so we don't have this current crazy-lopsided vote.

 54 
 on: Today at 02:39:56 am 
Started by Senator PiT, PPT - Last post by Prime Minister Truman
I can see that I'm in the minority here, and I don't expect to convince anyone, but I'd just like to point out that in the absence of a draft, the Union would in all likelihood have lost the Civil War (something I hardly believe would have been good for the country, its citizens, or the world). War and popular opinion are not nearly as simple as whether the country is worthy of defense. Historically, most major conflicts in our history have followed a similar trajectory. At the outset, there is normally a great, patriotic outpouring, and volunteers are easily found; but as the fighting drags on, and the casualties begin to add up, that spirit is replaced by an understanding of what war actually means. It becomes harder and harder to find willing recruits, not because citizens believe the country is not worth defending, but because they would rather someone else were responsible for it. To insist that it would be better for the nation to submit to the conquest of a foreign enemy than to conscript citizens into military service strikes me as a very odd position ľ and I say this as someone who would have opposed every war waged in the last fifty years.

To clarify: I don't think a draft is at all necessary at the present time, nor likely to be necessary for the foreseeable future. I would happily support legislation to abolish the Selective Service, and would just as happily support this amendment were it restricted to conscientious objectors (or, for that matter, if a clause were added allowing Congress to temporarily reinstate the draft by a 2/3 vote). Yet to engrave in the Constitution a prophesy that we will never again have need for the last resort of conscription strikes me as foolish and short-sighted, and I would ask the Congress ľ with little hope of success ľ to reconsider the extent of this proposal.

 55 
 on: Today at 02:39:56 am 
Started by Devout Centrist - Last post by TD

2. Will this pass? Yes. Expect virtually every House and Senate Republican to back this. I'd expect 240 votes in the House for this, 55 in the Senate (with 3 blue dog Democrats joining).


Are you just assuming Democrats won't filibuster?  Keep in mind that reconciliation bills have to be revenue neutral over 10 years.

Isn't there a rule that only 51 votes are needed for reconciliation bill abd that's it? I thought the Bush tax cuts passed this way even though they weren't revenue neutral.

 56 
 on: Today at 02:39:08 am 
Started by bronz4141 - Last post by Fmr. Pres. Griffin
Just like all other "groups", outrages and non-issues dredged up by angsty right-wingers watching too much YouTube in the pursuit of generating faux-outrage to justify their poorly-masked anti-otherism, nobody knows or cares about this - and they're certainly not going to be basing any future votes off of it.

 57 
 on: Today at 02:36:52 am 
Started by Tender Branson - Last post by Tender Branson
The latest "Profil" magazine poll by Unique Research:

32% FPÍ
28% SPÍ
23% ÍVP
  9% Greens
  6% NEOS
  2% Others

Chancellor vote:

33% Kern (SPÍ)
16% Strache (FPÍ)
  7% Mitterlehner (ÍVP)
  3% Glawischnig (Greens)
  2% Strolz (NEOS)

Chancellor vote only between Kern and Kurz:

50% Kurz (ÍVP)
37% Kern (SPÍ)

"Does ___ have the right solutions for Austria's political problems ?"

Kurz: 56% Yes
Kern: 32% Yes

"Is ___ trustworthy ?"

Kurz: 63% Yes
Kern: 52% Yes

"Does ___ have the right arguments on major political issues ?"

Kurz: 65% Yes
Kern: 46% Yes

https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20170427_OTS0007/profil-umfrage-fpoe-voran-gruene-mit-verlusten

 58 
 on: Today at 02:34:01 am 
Started by Devout Centrist - Last post by Ronnie

2. Will this pass? Yes. Expect virtually every House and Senate Republican to back this. I'd expect 240 votes in the House for this, 55 in the Senate (with 3 blue dog Democrats joining).


Are you just assuming Democrats won't filibuster?  Keep in mind that reconciliation bills have to be revenue neutral over 10 years.

 59 
 on: Today at 02:32:36 am 
Started by Speaker CXSmith (Labor-MA) - Last post by TD
He will be remembered as a hapless president who failed to head off the debt crisis of 2021-2024 and was captured by the aging Reaganite Republican Party apparatus who increasingly dominated his domestic and foreign policy. An ineffective president who was buffeted by increasing social and economic divisions (even as they put him in the White House) and problems without a real understanding of how to fix them, he will also be remembered for allowing Russia to tarnish his legacy by trying to elect him. The most accurate comparisons would be a mix of Warren Harding and Andrew Johnson. Racially, Trump will be among the last white presidents with a mid-1950s view of race and elected by a predominately white coalition (defined as a coalition with 85%+ white voters). Ultimately he is one of the last presidents in the Reagan era [1980 to 2024].

I expect him to be a one term president if he isn't impeached or somehow removed from the White House via the 25th amendment.

This is probably the middle of the road view I could come up with as it absolves him of some blame.

 60 
 on: Today at 02:30:09 am 
Started by Hash - Last post by En Marche ForcÚe

Interesting that MÚlenchon goes to the runoff there despite only winning a handful of departments.

That's thanks to Paris being a black hole for Le Pen.

Speaking of which, if one were to conjure a US-type electoral-college/single-round-of-voting scenario for France, how might the race have turned out?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/04/daily-chart-19

Tie between Le Pen and Macron in electoral college, effectively coming down to how Melenchon's electors vote.

Doing it with the fake new regions is incredibly lame. I'll try to do the calculations by Department when I have some time.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines