I have one quibble with the blogging community. Following the link goes to a blog post that is discussing another blog post that is discussing an article. At some point the degree of separation between the source material is too great. If I was teaching a course on blogging, I would encourage students to be aware of this problem and use some techniques to minimize it.
From the original article, “A central ambition of Obama’s presidency — to change the way Washington works — has effectively been discarded as a distraction in a time of hardening partisanship.”
Is this statement true? Obama did campaign on changing the way Washington works and advocated a vision for change but just because the changes he has implemented are diametrically opposed to his stated vision doesn’t mean that he didn’t change the way things in Washington work or that he didn’t intend to make these changes.
The evidence of his actions show that Obama did change the way Washington works and that his actions were intentional. It doesn’t reflect well on Obama or our media class that refuses to see past the rhetoric.
It is also crazy that a duplicitous Obama doesn’t understand the motivations, actions, and rhetoric of actors on the global stage.
Heck, he didn’t understand the motivations, actions, and rhetoric of his own grandmother, fiery preacher, cousin, coworker (and perhaps coauthor), and State Department spokesmen. He didn’t even know what the NSA was up to until he read it in the newspapers. He thinks getting an important “heads up” notice from his staff is when the White House kitchen posts the evening’s menu.
If you think it’s unconstitutional or illegal, you are welcome to sue.
Do you know what the word “standing” means?
Stop pretending that you understand law or the Constitution, you moron. Because you suck at it.
If you don’t have standing then it doesn’t affect you.
Do you understand logic?
So you don’t understand the legal and precedential issues at all. What a shock from the moron Douchenozzle.
OK, Douchenozzle. Go try to sue the president because he’s violating the Constitution, and see how far it gets you.
I see you want to maintain your status here as the village idiot.
Almost everything the federal government does affects me. And yet, by judicial precedent, it DOES NOT GIVE ME STANDING.
Only Douchenozzle is ignorant and stupid enough to imagine that it does.
I disagree that only Dn-guy is ignorant or “stupid” about this. I would be willing to bet quite a bit that the requirements for standing are quite counter-intuitive to many Americans, particularly those who are not familiar with the pertinent court cases but who _are_ interested in topics related to civil liberties. This is an opportunity for you to use your platform for education, Rand.
You make the assumption that dn-guy doesn’t know and isn’t trolling. A construct like the one he used is one of his favorite tactics.
Next he will say something like, “Since you like laws so much, you should move to China. They have lots of laws there.”
I’m interested in civil liberties, and I find the question of standing to be confusing. Reading about the matter leaves me somewhat perplexed. I’m quite certain reading more will help, but ultimately, I might simply find myself in disagreement with the courts. ( I doubt I’ll be moved to become an activist on the matter, but understanding more might shape my view of government and citizenship.)
I suspect dn-guy isn’t terribly different from me, but his motives and knowledge are beside the point. My point is that on this particular issue, I bet I’m just like the majority of people who are interested in politics and legal matters, but who aren’t lawyers. I bet most such people would be surprised (and perhaps even outraged) by various court decisions.
And the topic of standing might be a good thing to teach about, since, like, say, the topic of risktaking in space, it is of equal interest to Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and run-of-the-mill moderate Independents, and, like the topic of risktaking in space, even an extremist like Rand might have something helpful to say.
I might be a little more accommodating to dn-guy’s questions if he had a tone that indicated that he wasn’t just trolling, because that’s what he mostly does.
I have one quibble with the blogging community. Following the link goes to a blog post that is discussing another blog post that is discussing an article. At some point the degree of separation between the source material is too great. If I was teaching a course on blogging, I would encourage students to be aware of this problem and use some techniques to minimize it.
From the original article, “A central ambition of Obama’s presidency — to change the way Washington works — has effectively been discarded as a distraction in a time of hardening partisanship.”
Is this statement true? Obama did campaign on changing the way Washington works and advocated a vision for change but just because the changes he has implemented are diametrically opposed to his stated vision doesn’t mean that he didn’t change the way things in Washington work or that he didn’t intend to make these changes.
The evidence of his actions show that Obama did change the way Washington works and that his actions were intentional. It doesn’t reflect well on Obama or our media class that refuses to see past the rhetoric.
It is also crazy that a duplicitous Obama doesn’t understand the motivations, actions, and rhetoric of actors on the global stage.
Heck, he didn’t understand the motivations, actions, and rhetoric of his own grandmother, fiery preacher, cousin, coworker (and perhaps coauthor), and State Department spokesmen. He didn’t even know what the NSA was up to until he read it in the newspapers. He thinks getting an important “heads up” notice from his staff is when the White House kitchen posts the evening’s menu.
If you think it’s unconstitutional or illegal, you are welcome to sue.
Do you know what the word “standing” means?
Stop pretending that you understand law or the Constitution, you moron. Because you suck at it.
If you don’t have standing then it doesn’t affect you.
Do you understand logic?
So you don’t understand the legal and precedential issues at all. What a shock from the moron Douchenozzle.
OK, Douchenozzle. Go try to sue the president because he’s violating the Constitution, and see how far it gets you.
I see you want to maintain your status here as the village idiot.
Almost everything the federal government does affects me. And yet, by judicial precedent, it DOES NOT GIVE ME STANDING.
Only Douchenozzle is ignorant and stupid enough to imagine that it does.
I disagree that only Dn-guy is ignorant or “stupid” about this. I would be willing to bet quite a bit that the requirements for standing are quite counter-intuitive to many Americans, particularly those who are not familiar with the pertinent court cases but who _are_ interested in topics related to civil liberties. This is an opportunity for you to use your platform for education, Rand.
You make the assumption that dn-guy doesn’t know and isn’t trolling. A construct like the one he used is one of his favorite tactics.
Next he will say something like, “Since you like laws so much, you should move to China. They have lots of laws there.”
I’m interested in civil liberties, and I find the question of standing to be confusing. Reading about the matter leaves me somewhat perplexed. I’m quite certain reading more will help, but ultimately, I might simply find myself in disagreement with the courts. ( I doubt I’ll be moved to become an activist on the matter, but understanding more might shape my view of government and citizenship.)
I suspect dn-guy isn’t terribly different from me, but his motives and knowledge are beside the point. My point is that on this particular issue, I bet I’m just like the majority of people who are interested in politics and legal matters, but who aren’t lawyers. I bet most such people would be surprised (and perhaps even outraged) by various court decisions.
And the topic of standing might be a good thing to teach about, since, like, say, the topic of risktaking in space, it is of equal interest to Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and run-of-the-mill moderate Independents, and, like the topic of risktaking in space, even an extremist like Rand might have something helpful to say.
I might be a little more accommodating to dn-guy’s questions if he had a tone that indicated that he wasn’t just trolling, because that’s what he mostly does.
It sounds more like a question for Volokh.