Ron Paul Owns CPAC 2010, FOX is not pleased

[Not not Mattaru]

A quick blurb related to OP.

NPR had a good thirty minute interview on CPAC on today's Fresh Air program, you can get the podcast free on Itunes. The (weekly?) NPR politics podcast also spent a good 20 minutes discussing it. Really good and fair analysis worth listening to if you have an hour to spare, if you don't - you probably shouldn't post if you can not educate yourself.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Here's how I think it would have to play out in order for it to be overturned by the courts, if anyone is interested.

First you need standing. The issue with standing would be the political question doctrine. This is when the court basically says "figure it out yourself, this is not an issue for the courts."

Because the right to create their own rules is in the constitution, the court would likely say there's no standing b/c it has to respect the powers of the other branches (separation of powers), it's just something court can't settle b/c there's a lack of "judicially discoverable and manageable standards," and again, it's in the constitution.

You would somehow have to convince the court 1) no SOP issue 2) there are "...." and 3) it doesn't matter that it's in the constitution.

If the court found standing I have no clue what would happen next.

[Kuya]

1) no SOP issue

Sons of the Patriots?

I really don't know a thing about constitutional law. Could you explain in more detail? e Especially the terms you used. I am interested in knowing more about the issue.

edit: separation of powers?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Sons of the Patriots?

I really don't know a thing about constitutional law. Could you explain in more detail? e Especially the terms you used. I am interested in knowing more about the issue.

edit: separation of powers?

Yes, separation of powers.

With respect to the filibuster, the issue is the political question doctrine, or so I think.

Simply put, the court's job is to figure out what the law is. In order to bring a cause of a action you first need standing, the ability to bring the case. One instance where someone wouldn't have standing is when the political question doctrine is involved.

There are 3 factors considered when the political doctrine question is involved.

1) Whether there is a "textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of an issue to a political dept." Basically, can the issue be solved b/c of something in the constitution? Clearly, the filibuster can b/c the constitution says both houses can proscribe their own rules.

2) Whether there is a "lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards." Basically, there are just some things the courts just can't settle. "It's b/w you guys." There is nothing the court can do under the law to help (I think.)

3) A danger of lack of respect for coordinate branches. So would it be disrespecting the legislative branch if it told the Senate it could not have a filibuster? Clearly the answer is yes b/c it states in the constitution it can proscribe its own rules. No where does it give the courts the power to proscribe the rules for the legislature.

Some other examples where the court can't step in are:
Impeachment
Congressional self-govt
The Guaranty Clause
When Carter canceled a treaty
Issues of foreign policy

Edit: An issue where the PQD didn't apply was when a house member was elected to the house even though he was being investigated for corruption.

Neither party wanted to seat him, so they didn't. The court got involved b/c constitution, so a law was involved, says they must sat if elected. (Bare bones explanation)

[Beckwin]

Founder's intent is one way you determine what the law is when the constitution isn't clear. You can't just toss it out.

we should toss it out. it's basically code for conservative activism. there should be more honesty involved than cherry picking quotes of 200 year old dead guys.

[Kuya]

The Federalist usually makes it easy to infer what they meant.

[Beckwin]

and I'm saying that cherry-picking what two guys wrote out of the many people involved over 200 years ago is pretty weak.

[Leif]

Dear Qalbert,

Your constant warnings are nonsensical, illogical, and without any foundation. In fact, it seems the posts that are most on-topic, relevant, and powerful are the ones that you tag as "trolling", "other", or my absolute favorite, "postcount spammer".

If you would like to openly threaten to stop me from speaking in order to preserve this forum's one-sided political discussions, just say so. I'll leave.

Politics is a nasty sport. Arguments fly quickly and they are often filled with harsh tones and judgment. This occurs on both sides of the aisle, and there have been few instances where eliminating this has resulted in productive debate and discussion. If you choose to selectively punish one side of the debate, you do a disservice to the forum.

Not surprisingly, nobody besides you has managed to find a reason to send me cheap forum punishments for any of the last 1,000 posts that I've made. When it comes to political threads in particular, some people insist the world is black and others insist it is white. If you can't stand this, I recommend you tune into Countdown to hear an hour of discussions between people who completely agree with each other instead of bothering me.

As said someone who most certainly was not a liberal, you must allow all speech or prohibit all speech. If you endanger some, you endanger all. If you're going to continue to try and prohibit my speech, I will have nothing left to say.

While I'm sure you feel you are more than qualified to determine which speech is good and bad, I don't believe too many would agree, especially when I'm being punished as a "postcount spammer". If you promise to stop using that excuse, you're more than welcome to start deducting from my post count. I really don't care about the little number by my name.

I know if I was in your position, I would welcome these varying opinions, arguments, and sparks, especially in political threads. The last time I checked, I wasn't posting about why I think liberals are so terrible in the "obnoxious African-American gets beat up on Bus Transit by old white dude."

I think Morgan Freeman would say the same thing.

You're free to respond by allowing me to speak, threatening to ban me if I do speak, or just banning me. I would love to continue posting, but you're going to have to explain what I can and can not do, because when my warnings are for utterly preposterous reasons such as "other", "postcount spammer", or the generic "trolling", it's hard for me to gauge what it is about the content of my posts that so repulses you. I hope you can come up with a better reason to warn me for this post than me trying to rack up my post count.

[Ksandra]

You know there's a pm button and would have probably helped you wayyy more than posting it publicly right?

[Leif]

You know there's a pm button and would have probably helped you wayyy more than posting it publicly right?

If I wasn't clear, I'm not interested in help. I want what I can and can not do out in the open. We already tried the PM option. I'm a "postcount spammer" guilty of "other" and "trolling".

If I can't even get an honest answer that way, there isn't much hope. I just want one, final, honest answer about what I can and can not do.

This would be like going to ask Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-il to "Please stop feverishly building nuclear weapons." Based on their previous actions, they have no interest in complying with such frivolous requests.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

and I'm saying that cherry-picking what two guys wrote out of the many people involved over 200 years ago is pretty weak.

There's plenty of other things to look at Beckwin. There are transcripts of the constitutional conventions. They all sent plenty of letters.

[ZarakiKujata]

Dear Qalbert,

Your constant warnings are nonsensical, illogical, and without any foundation. In fact, it seems the posts that are most on-topic, relevant, and powerful are the ones that you tag as "trolling", "other", or my absolute favorite, "postcount spammer".

If you would like to openly threaten to stop me from speaking in order to preserve this forum's one-sided political discussions, just say so. I'll leave.

Politics is a nasty sport. Arguments fly quickly and they are often filled with harsh tones and judgment. This occurs on both sides of the aisle, and there have been few instances where eliminating this has resulted in productive debate and discussion. If you choose to selectively punish one side of the debate, you do a disservice to the forum.

Not surprisingly, nobody besides you has managed to find a reason to send me cheap forum punishments for any of the last 1,000 posts that I've made. When it comes to political threads in particular, some people insist the world is black and others insist it is white. If you can't stand this, I recommend you tune into Countdown to hear an hour of discussions between people who completely agree with each other instead of bothering me.

As said someone who most certainly was not a liberal, you must allow all speech or prohibit all speech. If you endanger some, you endanger all. If you're going to continue to try and prohibit my speech, I will have nothing left to say.

While I'm sure you feel you are more than qualified to determine which speech is good and bad, I don't believe too many would agree, especially when I'm being punished as a "postcount spammer". If you promise to stop using that excuse, you're more than welcome to start deducting from my post count. I really don't care about the little number by my name.

I know if I was in your position, I would welcome these varying opinions, arguments, and sparks, especially in political threads. The last time I checked, I wasn't posting about why I think liberals are so terrible in the "obnoxious African-American gets beat up on Bus Transit by old white dude."

I think Morgan Freeman would say the same thing.

You're free to respond by allowing me to speak, threatening to ban me if I do speak, or just banning me. I would love to continue posting, but you're going to have to explain what I can and can not do, because when my warnings are for utterly preposterous reasons such as "other", "postcount spammer", or the generic "trolling", it's hard for me to gauge what it is about the content of my posts that so repulses you. I hope you can come up with a better reason to warn me for this post than me trying to rack up my post count.

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/2..._you_super.jpg

+ I mean Leaf, Qalbert is probably just stuck in this situation cuz of other ppl flagging your posts for shit like other, trolling, postcount spammer don't be mean to Morgan Freeman googleimger man

[Olo401]

I, for one, disagree with the assertion that Leif is post-count spamming. It's more like continuous antagonism of others with his fascist/reactionary beliefs.

[Not not Mattaru]

I, for one, disagree with the assertion that Leif is post-count spamming. It's more like continuous antagonism of others with his fascist/reactionary beliefs.

IE baiting.

[ZarakiKujata]

Leaf is pretty masterful at baiting.

[Qalbert]

Frankly, there isn't an infraction named "shitting up every thread you post in", which is why I typically stick to "thread trolling". You have every right to your opinions, but you do not have the right to try to turn every thread into an irrational and incendiary shouting of those opinions.

[Not not Mattaru]

Frankly, there isn't an infraction named "shitting up every thread you post in", which is why I typically stick to "thread trolling". You have every right to your opinions, but you do not have the right to try to turn every thread into an irrational, and incendiary shouting of those opinions.

I'm confused. So Leif isn't committing any infraction, but at the same time he does not have the right to do what he is doing on the forums whenever he has the chance?

[Qalbert]

Not what I said. I said there was not an infraction that described the full degree of his trolling and baiting. It is still very much against the rules, but "shitting up every thread" is not on the list of infraction explanations that can be given to posters, ergo going with the broader "thread trolling".

[ZarakiKujata]

I'm confused. So Leif isn't committing any infraction, but at the same time he does not have the right to do what he is doing on the forums whenever he has the chance?

it's like when seno got in trouble for loli a few months back. He wasn't breaking a specific rule persay but was shitting up random image and other threads with it to the point where it was borderline trolling and became an issue.

[Not not Mattaru]

Yeah, I'm saying what Leif does seems to equate to

shitting up political threads with it [his "irrational, and incendiary shouting of those opinions"] to the point where it was borderline trolling and has become an issue

whenever he is not temp-banned.

Also Kuya, from the last page on filibuster and constitutional things.

Simply - filibuster is not a law persay, it is a procedure (like parliamentary procedure etc.) determined by the Congress. The Supreme Court can not intervene without being really too powerful.