Archive for April 25, 2012

Nay of Newt

10
1 year ago
by Michael Weiss in

For­mer House Speaker Newt Gin­grich is throw­ing in the towel, accord­ing to inside sources. The only sur­prise for most of us is that it took so long for him to see the writ­ing on the wall.

Per­son­ally, I sus­pect he thought he had a chance to return as the only remain­ing NotRom­ney in the race. [Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Ron Paul (R-​​Lake Jack­son, TX) doesn’t really count, since he’s more of a Wal­rus than an Ele­phant.] But after throw­ing all of his chips in on Delaware, and still com­ing up with fewer than half the votes for­mer Mass­a­chu­setts Gov­er­nor Mitt Rom­ney received, even one as mega­lo­ma­ni­a­cal as Newt could see that he has no hope.

The RINO stands alone.

And so we are offi­cially down to two can­di­dates: a RINO (wear­ing an Ele­phant suit) and a Wal­rus. But we already knew that we were down to one real candidate.

Sooooo…how ’bout them Veepstakes?

Related arti­cles

Supreme Court Watch: Arizona v. United States

29
1 year ago
by Monotreme in

Fam­ily Feud

On April 29, 2010, Ari­zona Gov­er­nor Jan Brewer signed into law SB 1070, which gave local author­i­ties sweep­ing pow­ers to detain sus­pected ille­gal immigrants.

The legal issue at ques­tion is taken directly from Arti­cle VI,  Para­graph 2 of the Con­sti­tu­tion, com­monly called the Supremacy Clause:

This Con­sti­tu­tion, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pur­suance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Author­ity of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Con­sti­tu­tion or Laws of any state to the Con­trary notwithstanding.

The prin­ci­ple which arises out of this para­graph is called preëmp­tion. Preëmp­tion can be express (i.e. explicit, stated clearly) or implied. The basic ques­tion for the Court, in oral argu­ments today, will be: does SB 1070 run afoul of the Supremacy Clause? (more…)

Go to Top