carlfense

Well. This is a thing that happened.

So now it's 2015, and the Senate is debating a bunch of amendments on a bill that would fast-track approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. On Wednesday, they were faced with one from Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) that said:

 

"To express the sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not a hoax."

 

That one was pretty easy. The Senate voted 98 to 1 in favor of this amendment. So far, so good.

 

But then came a tougher question. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) put forward an amendment that said:

 

"To express the sense of the Senate that climate change is real; and human activity significantly contributes to climate change."

 

So the senators thought about it.

 

And thought about it.

 

This was a tricky one.

 

They thought some more.

 

In the end, just 50 senators voted "yes" on the question.* But 49 senators voted "no." The amendment failed to pick up the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster.

 

 

I'm sure you smart people will correct me but isn't Obama screwing over college savings plans in order to help the community college plan?http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/20/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-obamas-new-plan-to-help-families-afford-college/

Strip away 529 college savings plan benefitsIn order to expand education tax credits, President Obama would roll back tax breaks on one of the most popular college savings plans. If the president has his way, families would no longer be able to withdraw earnings from 529 plans without paying taxes on them.The advantage to 529 plans, named for a section of the tax code, is that families can invest through these accounts without the earnings being taxed as long as the funds are used to pay for college expenses. President Obama would treat the earnings on new contributions to 529 plans as ordinary income subject to taxes, stripping away a key benefit of the savings plans.Families could still defer paying taxes on the plans as the earnings grow, but that ends once they start drawing down the account, according to the White House. Earnings will be treated as student income, which would be taxed at a lower rate, but that could hurt a student's chances of receiving financial aid.

 

Obama is foolishly proposing to pay for it. These things are a lot easier if you just pretend they are free.

The 529 savings plans are sometimes considered to be tax shelters for the wealthy; the less than 3 percent of families that have them have a median income of $142,400 a year. But eliminating the central tax benefit of the plan could lead more families to take on more debt to pay for college.

 

Obama has called it "free" a great many times. Just taking the man at his word, as some here are with people backing the keystone project as "job creation"

 

I'm sure you smart people will correct me but isn't Obama screwing over college savings plans in order to help the community college plan?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/20/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-obamas-new-plan-to-help-families-afford-college/

 

 

 

Strip away 529 college savings plan benefits

 

In order to expand education tax credits, President Obama would roll back tax breaks on one of the most popular college savings plans. If the president has his way, families would no longer be able to withdraw earnings from 529 plans without paying taxes on them.

 

The advantage to 529 plans, named for a section of the tax code, is that families can invest through these accounts without the earnings being taxed as long as the funds are used to pay for college expenses. President Obama would treat the earnings on new contributions to 529 plans as ordinary income subject to taxes, stripping away a key benefit of the savings plans.

 

Families could still defer paying taxes on the plans as the earnings grow, but that ends once they start drawing down the account, according to the White House. Earnings will be treated as student income, which would be taxed at a lower rate, but that could hurt a student's chances of receiving financial aid.

 

The 529 savings plans are sometimes considered to be tax shelters for the wealthy; the less than 3 percent of families that have them have a median income of $142,400 a year. But eliminating the central tax benefit of the plan could lead more families to take on more debt to pay for college.

 

 

 

 

I would say at this point neither party has a firm grasp of reality. But hey.

What's the Democratic equivalent of pretending like Keystone XL is a monumentally important "jobs bill"?

I was speaking more to the premise of their main platforms not being founded in reality. Which they are not. Gratis post high school education, for example.

I don't know . . . the whole two years paid tuition after high school seems a hell of a lot more reality based than acting like 35 permanent jobs would energize the American economy.

Your opinion. Because I'm damn sure someone's going to be paying for that education. Fundamental economic lessons dictate nothing is free.

I tried to carefully avoid calling it "free."

Wonder how many kids we could put through school if we ended the F35 boondoggle?

 

 

But does Holder's proclamation supersede the Supreme Court's ruling that police don't need to know the law? If you assume something is a law then police are fine to enforce it.

Even if they were ignorant of the law during the seizure the money would have to be returned . . . but this only changes the federal rule.

 

 

http://www.fairfieldsuntimes.com/opinion/article_a01634e8-a0d7-11e4-9397-878e8419d604.html

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a blow to the constitutional rights of citizens, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Heien v. State of North Carolina that police officers are permitted to violate American citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights if the violation results from a “reasonable” mistake about the law on the part of police. Acting contrary to the venerable principle that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” the Court ruled that evidence obtained by police during a traffic stop that was not legally justified can be used to prosecute the person if police were reasonably mistaken that the person had violated the law. The Rutherford Institute had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hold law enforcement officials accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s lone dissenter, warned that the court’s ruling “means further eroding the Fourth Amendment’s protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down.”

Idk Carl, seems pretty open now.

 

The difference is one between using something illegally (but erroneously) seized as evidence and refusing to return money illegally (but erroneously) seized.

 

 

I would say at this point neither party has a firm grasp of reality. But hey.

What's the Democratic equivalent of pretending like Keystone XL is a monumentally important "jobs bill"?

 

I was speaking more to the premise of their main platforms not being founded in reality. Which they are not. Gratis post high school education, for example.

 

But does Holder's proclamation supersede the Supreme Court's ruling that police don't need to know the law? If you assume something is a law then police are fine to enforce it.

A 55-year-old Chinese American restaurateur from Georgia was pulled over for minor speeding on Interstate 10 in Alabama and detained for nearly two hours. He was carrying $75,000 raised from relatives to buy a Chinese restaurant in Lake Charles, La. He got back his money 10 months later but only after spending thousands of dollars on a lawyer and losing out on the restaurant deal.

 

A 40-year-old Hispanic carpenter from New Jersey was stopped on Interstate 95 in Virginia for having tinted windows. Police said he appeared nervous and consented to a search. They took $18,000 that he said was meant to buy a used car. He had to hire a lawyer to get back his money.

 

Mandrel Stuart, a 35-year-old African American owner of a small barbecue restaurant in Staunton, Va., was stunned when police took $17,550 from him during a stop in 2012 for a minor traffic infraction on Interstate 66 in Fairfax. He rejected a settlement with the government for half of his money and demanded a jury trial. He eventually got his money back but lost his business because he didn’t have the cash to pay his overhead.

 

“I paid taxes on that money. I worked for that money,” Stuart said. “Why should I give them my money?”

There have been 61,998 cash seizures made on highways and elsewhere since 9/11 without search warrants or indictments through the Equitable Sharing Program, totaling more than $2.5 billion. State and local authorities kept more than $1.7 billion of that while Justice, Homeland Security and other federal agencies received $800 million. Half of the seizures were below $8,800.

 

Only a sixth of the seizures were legally challenged, in part because of the costs of legal action against the government. But in 41 percent of cases — 4,455 — where there was a challenge, the government agreed to return money. The appeals process took more than a year in 40 percent of those cases and often required owners of the cash to sign agreements not to sue police over the seizures.

 

I don't get why we're suddenly talking about a fictional novel in this thread.

 

I'm not hung up on the word 'precedent' because wrong is wrong whether this is the first or the 81st time this has happened, but I'd be genuinely interested to know if this has happened before, that a foreign national corporation has been able to successfully use Eminent Domain against U.S. citizens and their property.

 

 

 

EDIT - I typed this while the above response was being sent. Ignore my first statement. Still would be interested in knowing the answer to the last part, though.

According to that Forbes article Transcanada has used eminent domain in 2% of land acquisition.

 

In an email after the publication of this article, TransCanada said it has reached voluntary agreements to secure 100% of the private easements required for the pipeline in Montana and South Dakota. It has 76% of the easements required for the route in Nebraska, it said. In general, the company said it has had to use eminent domain with only 2% of landowners.

 

Does "voluntary agreements" include the letters that they sent to landowners saying that they can accept Transcanada's "offer" or they will take the land through the courts?

If so, I suppose that we could say that people voluntarily agree to give money to muggers every day.

I would say at this point neither party has a firm grasp of reality. But hey.

What's the Democratic equivalent of pretending like Keystone XL is a monumentally important "jobs bill"?

 

 

In the wake of the eminent domain filings, Van Housen said he feels like Nebraska lawmakers have thrown him and other landowners “under the rug.”

 

“I don’t even feel like I live in the United States any more,” Van Housen said. "A foreign company coming over and shoving a pipe through my land without my OK? I feel terrible about it."

LJS Article

 

This is, perhaps, the scariest precedent this pipeline is setting. For the government to approve of this is disgusting.

In a surprise twist you can blame the liberal justices for private use eminent domain.

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/03/12/the-devastation-caused-eminent-domain-abuse/yWsy0MNEZ91TM94PYQIh0L/story.html

 

Kelo was a terrible decision.

For the government to approve of this is disgusting.

 

It goes well beyond approving of it!

This is literally the centerpiece of the Republican economic plan. How crazy is this? Does no one in that party give a damn about reality anymore?

But Keystone XL is all about 'Murica!

 

 

 

 

The fact that this issue has to be debated is pathetic. Just because your faith says doesn't like a group of people doesn't mean you get to discriminate against them through laws. Because of deuteronomy 15:12-15 does that give us the right to own slaves? Nope. So just because you think gay people are gross doesn't mean you can with hold rights from them. That is wrong, end of story.

Thanks for the conversation guys and gals. I was done posting in this thread until I saw this. This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I think reading it, may have actually made me dumber. Which I sure some of you didn't think was possible. No where in this conversation did I quote my faith, scripture or say that gay people were gross.

 

With that, may God bless you all. And for those who don't like that, may the great flying spaghetti monster rain meatballs upon you and your family.

rude and presumptuous. no reason to believe he was responding to you. seemed to be just his/hers stream of conscious thought on the subject at large.

this person gets it

 

My apologies. I thought your post was directed at me, but as I go back and read through the thread, I had no reason to believe that. Sorry.

 

^^^Keep posting, man. We may not agree on everything but I like your style.

Too bad a majority of the cash that is seized is coming from drug runners and not Samantha in her minivan taking her kids to soccer practice.

How do you know that? You might be right . . . but I think the burden of proof belongs with the state.

They shouldn't be able to seize my cash or car unless and until I can prove where/how I got it. On the other hand, if they can (and do!) prove that it's drug money or assets associated with drug running/selling it makes perfect sense.

Not:

Fox:

No

And doesn't that prove my point about how the constitution has traditionally been interpreted (originalism). An amendment to the constitution was required to be sure that slavery never happened again, and an amendment was required to ensure that women would always have the right to vote. If those things weren't inherently found in the constitution, I'm not sure how you can argue that gay marriage is.

 

 

And that rule of law has always regulated marriage by minimun age, familial status (no brother/sister etc), number of participants (no polygamy), and gender (man/woman). The only thing that has changed here is some want to change those regulations without going through the regular legislative process.

Do you think that the regular legislative process could prohibit marriage between a consenting man and woman of legal age?

 

lest we forget anti-miscegenation laws.

 

Dbqgolfer: How far does your respect for the legislative process extend? Do you similarly hope that the Supreme Court will side with the administration in Halbig?

And that rule of law has always regulated marriage by minimun age, familial status (no brother/sister etc), number of participants (no polygamy), and gender (man/woman). The only thing that has changed here is some want to change those regulations without going through the regular legislative process.

A 1-year data point shouldn't be worthy of a fraction of the attention it gets, though, right?

 

What if it were cooler than average? It happens. Wouldn't have changed anything.

As to your question, i think that it is self evident. If a group of citizens risk life, limb, property to form a new country and spend months & years hammering out the rules of how to govern the country (constitution), including ways to change those rules (amendment process), then it seems obvious to me that their intent is to have those rules followed as originally intended.

If the founders wanted future generations to follow their intent (as you seem to believe) instead of writing the Constitution as a framework that facilitates a flexible discussion (as I believe on most days) wouldn't they have said so?