Scientific American weighs in. I wish they wouldn’t call it the “Obama plan.”
Thoughts on the collectivists’ attempts to split the Tea Party. Count me as an agnostic libertarian who has no problem with evangelical Christians, or church charity.
More thoughts. I, too, am mystified by the commenter who wants to grant tenure to all existing federal laws. To me, one of the benefits of the amendment would be in its potential to clean up the existing code.
Corey Maye has been granted the right to a new trial. In a just world, Radley Balko would get a Pulitzer for this.
Cantor, Bishop and the other supporters of the amendment believe they are rebalancing the Constitution in a way the Framers would like. But it’s strange that the lawmakers would show their reverence for the Founding Fathers by redrafting their work.
Hey, Dana. The Founders put an amendment process into the Constitution for a reason. Though I suspect that one reason that hadn’t occurred to them would be that people like you would decide that it was a “living document,” subject to perverse interpretation that would eviscerate it of their original intent.
More thoughts on Milbank’s ignorance, from La Althouse.
…and religion. Some interesting research.
Why the Tea Party resonates with the American people.
This sounds good to me:
The plans include slicing and dicing appropriations bills into dozens of smaller, bite-size pieces — making it easier to kill or slash unpopular agencies. Other proposals include statutory spending caps, weekly votes on spending cuts and other reforms to ensure spending bills aren’t sneakily passed under special rules.
On some level, their plans may create a sense of organized chaos on the House floor — picture dozens of votes on dozens of federal program cuts and likely gridlock on spending bills. And don’t forget that a lot of these efforts will die with a Democratic-led Senate and a Democrat in the White House.
But the intent is to force debate as much as to actually legislate — and make Old Guard Republicans and Democrats uncomfortable with a new way of thinking about the size and scope of government.
The fact that the appropriators hate it is a point in its favor, as far as I’m concerned.