Teabagger Whacktard Christine O’Donnell Warns Against Mice With Human Brains!

[BenBurch]

Too late!!!

And I won't call it back. I might still disagree but that's another matter.

 

[Biscuit]

Basically you could summarize her position as anti-stem cell research. There's no need for the hyperbole. Some voters agree with this position, some are opposed to it, some couldn't care less. It seems to me that the only job a Senator would have relative to such an issue might be to vote on bills providing federal funds for such research. I'd much rather the developments were done in the private sector resulting in patents and licensing of them.

Good points. Haven't you answered your own question? What does the Constitution say about powers reserved to the states?

Basically you could summerize her position as anti-science. Based either on a pandering or an ignorance factor. I would be against cross-breeding of mice and men (see what I did there) if thats what I thought or was told was going on. I think if voters knew more about what stem cell research really was and didn't get fear mongering and nonsense from fundamentalists pandering to the lowest common denominator a lot more people would be OK with it. Further more I have yet to hear a constitutional argument against stem cell research - this is a perceived moral issue for the right not a constitutional one. So it begs the question, How would O'Donnell use the constitution to justify or reject federal funding of stem cells?

What in the name of all thats science does states rights have to do with anything in this thread? O'Donnell says she will vote based on the constitution and I would like to know what the constitution says about creating new national parks for example. Will she skip non constitutional votes? Will she reject an entire bill if one part is deemed unconstitutional by her.

 

[mhaze]

But that is an easily falsifiable statement, isn't it? Constitutional is floor above which all legislation must operate, it is not a ceiling. I don't think she would vote for any of the following although they are clearly constitutional....

I see your point but I'm not trying to interpret fine points of maybe/could/should/would based on what O'Donnell has said.

It just seemed reasonable to mention that quote as it was defined by her as a key guiding principle. In practice, the devil is certainly in the details.

 

[vwgub]

I see your point but I'm not trying to interpret fine points of maybe/could/should/would based on what O'Donnell has said.

It just seemed reasonable to mention that quote as it was defined by her as a key guiding principle. In practice, the devil is certainly in the details.

But the quote
“when I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional.”

is ambiguous.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I see your point but I'm not trying to interpret fine points of maybe/could/should/would based on what O'Donnell has said.

It just seemed reasonable to mention that quote as it was defined by her as a key guiding principle. In practice, the devil is certainly in the details.

If that is the best she can do to articulate her position, then I stand by my point that the GOP has let its standards slide on this one.

 

[vwgub]

If that is the best she can do to articulate her position, then I stand by my point that the GOP has let its standards slide on this one.

I agree. The Republican Party has Abraham Lincoln as part of it's membership. The man who wrote the Gettysburg Address. And now they have what? Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and Christine O'Donnell? Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Newt Gingrich?

 

[Dr. Keith]

I agree. The Republican Party has Abraham Lincoln as part of it's membership. The man who wrote the Gettysburg Address. And now they have what? Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and Christine O'Donnell? Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Newt Gingrich?

And those aren't just members, some of those are driving the ideology of the party.

 

[mhaze]

But the quote
“when I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional.”

is ambiguous.

I'd disagree with that. In saying this I think she's applying a strict constitutionality standard, because that's most typically what this crop of Tea Party candidates do.

That is a standard which I'm sure is covered say in wikipedia.

It's not that difficult to apply such a standard. For example, one would read the commerce clause as written, possibly some of the comments by the Founders as to what they intended that clause to mean, and then compare this to the legislation to see if it was something the Federal Government should be doing.

That'd be my guess on the matter.

If that is the best she can do to articulate her position, then I stand by my point that the GOP has let its standards slide on this one.

The GOP was opposed to O'Donnell.

 

[vwgub]

I'd disagree with that. In saying this I think she's applying a strict constitutionality standard, because that's most typically what this crop of Tea Party candidates do.

That is a standard which I'm sure is covered say in wikipedia.

It's not that difficult to apply such a standard. For example, one would read the commerce clause as written, possibly some of the comments by the Founders as to what they intended that clause to mean, and then compare this to the legislation to see if it was something the Federal Government should be doing.

That'd be my guess on the matter.

The Tea Party applies strict constitutionality standard? Where? I mean really show me an example of this.

 

[vwgub]

The GOP was opposed to O'Donnell.

And yet she's a GOP candidate. QED the GOP has let their standards slide.

 

[mhaze]

And yet she's a GOP candidate. QED the GOP has let their standards slide.

You sound like you are assuming kind of top down control. GOP favored the other candidate. The voters rejected those standards in favor of O'Donnell.

It's a good question as to what that means exactly. But given that it's happening in various primaries across the country, "letting the standards slide" doesn't seem to be the right interpretation.

 

[vwgub]

It's not that difficult to apply such a standard. For example, one would read the commerce clause as written, possibly some of the comments by the Founders as to what they intended that clause to mean, and then compare this to the legislation to see if it was something the Federal Government should be doing.

Wrong. This is not how you supply constitutional standard. You look at the Constitution as written. You look at the Supreme Court's decision based on Constitutional Law. And should has nothing to do with it. Constitutionality has everything to do with CAN be doing it.

What do you mean by Founders? The Founding Fathers of U.S.? I.E. Washington, Jefferson, Adam, Hamilton, and Hancock? The signesr of the Deceleration of Independence?

 

[vwgub]

You sound like you are assuming kind of top down control. GOP favored the other candidate. The voters rejected those standards in favor of O'Donnell.

It's a good question as to what that means exactly. But given that it's happening in various primaries across the country, "letting the standards slide" doesn't seem to be the right interpretation.

Sure it's the right interpretation when the candidate is an idiot. Let me explain this clearly. The GOP has Abraham Lincoln as a member.


And I intend the term idiot in its true definition. Well below average intelligence.

 

[Cleon]

The GOP has Abraham Lincoln as a member.

And here I thought it was the Democrats that were associated with letting corpses vote...

 

[Dr. Keith]

You sound like you are assuming kind of top down control. GOP favored the other candidate. The voters rejected those standards in favor of O'Donnell.

It's a good question as to what that means exactly. But given that it's happening in various primaries across the country, "letting the standards slide" doesn't seem to be the right interpretation.

The voters are the GOP: "of the people, by the people" and such.

 

[mhaze]

Wrong. This is not how you supply constitutional standard. You look at the Constitution as written. You look at the Supreme Court's decision based on Constitutional Law. And should has nothing to do with it. Constitutionality has everything to do with CAN be doing it.

What do you mean by Founders? The Founding Fathers of U.S.? I.E. Washington, Jefferson, Adam, Hamilton, and Hancock? The signesr of the Deceleration of Independence?

No need for you to lecture me, because when I provide the link, you learn what you did not know by reading it, and the issue was was "strict interpretation", and my guess that that was what O'Donnell was saying she would apply. Here's the link to the various schools of thought regarding the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_interpretation

 

[vwgub]

The GOP has Abraham Lincoln as a member.
Okay pendant the GOP had Abraham Lincoln as a member.

Still think my previous sentence was correct. It would only not be correct if the GOP disavowed the membership of Lincoln.

 

[vwgub]

No need for you to lecture me, because when I provide the link, you learn what you did not know by reading it, and the issue was was "strict interpretation", and my guess that that was what O'Donnell was saying she would apply. Here's the link to the various schools of thought regarding the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_interpretation

Your link is fine. You understand it is about judicial interpretation right? Not legislative interpretation, which of course doesn't exist(in the constitution).

 

[vwgub]

I have now read all of your link mhaze. I would say I am a structuralist. But this is neither here nor there since it isn't up to the Congress to be anything of these things (any of these kind of interpretations of the Constitution) since interpretation of the Constitution is a Judicial power not a Legislative power. Do you understand this? Do you understand why it would be a BAD THING if the Legislative branch had interpretation of the Constitution?

 

[mhaze]

I have now read all of your link mhaze. I would say I am a structuralist. But this is neither here nor there since it isn't up to the Congress to be anything of these things (any of these kind of interpretations of the Constitution) since interpretation of the Constitution is a Judicial power not a Legislative power. Do you understand this? Do you understand why it would be a BAD THING if the Legislative branch had interpretation of the Constitution?

They are doing this right now, in the sense that they feel that they've stretched various clauses to the point that the FederalGov can do anything which they want it to do. Unfortunately, in so doing they've spent us into a serious hole. Strict construction as these fiscal conservatives view it is "if it's not spelled out as a duty of the FederalGov, we don't vote for it or pay for it".

For example, I would argue that under those premises we could easily do away with the Dept. of Education - we did fine without it until Nixon started the thing. Not sure that's O'Donnell's view, just giving you an example.