In a post last week about Burt Rutan’s self-inflicted regulatory problems, I wrote that:

I should add that moving off shore wouldn’t help him either, unless he renounces his citizenship as well. The US position is that it is regulatorily responsible for launch activities of US entities, regardless of their location on the planet, because of liability provisions of the Outer Space Treaty (yet another reason to get out of it).

As Anglospherian Jim Bennett reminds me, this is a little oversimplified description of the situation. He could, in fact, go off shore if he can get some other nation to accept responsibility for the launch, which would let the US off the hook for it.

Just one catch. He’d have to apply for a technology export license, and I suspect that getting one granted would be much easier said than done, particularly in the post-911 climate. The only way around this would be to simply go overseas by himself, with no hardware–just what was in his head, and then purchase the components and build it there. And I’m not sure that he’d even be able to get around it that way.

Anyway, the point is moot, since he’s already declared he’s going to fly out of Mojave.

Christopher Hitchens romnifies John Kerry.

So, the junior senator from Massachusetts has finally come up with a winning line. “Vote for me,” says John Kerry. “I’m easily fooled.” This appears to be the implication of his claim to have been “misled” by the Bush administration in the matter of WMD. And, considering the way in which Democratic Party activists generally portray the president as a fool and an ignoramus, one might as well go the whole distance and suggest a catchy line for the campaign: “Kerry. Duped by a Dope.”

And yes, I know that “romnifies” isn’t a word, but it should be, and maybe now it will be.

Christopher Hitchens romnifies John Kerry.

So, the junior senator from Massachusetts has finally come up with a winning line. “Vote for me,” says John Kerry. “I’m easily fooled.” This appears to be the implication of his claim to have been “misled” by the Bush administration in the matter of WMD. And, considering the way in which Democratic Party activists generally portray the president as a fool and an ignoramus, one might as well go the whole distance and suggest a catchy line for the campaign: “Kerry. Duped by a Dope.”

And yes, I know that “romnifies” isn’t a word, but it should be, and maybe now it will be.

Christopher Hitchens romnifies John Kerry.

So, the junior senator from Massachusetts has finally come up with a winning line. “Vote for me,” says John Kerry. “I’m easily fooled.” This appears to be the implication of his claim to have been “misled” by the Bush administration in the matter of WMD. And, considering the way in which Democratic Party activists generally portray the president as a fool and an ignoramus, one might as well go the whole distance and suggest a catchy line for the campaign: “Kerry. Duped by a Dope.”

And yes, I know that “romnifies” isn’t a word, but it should be, and maybe now it will be.

Orson Scott Card discourses on the moral imbecility of the left.

…we live in a world where we choose up sides first, and make moral decisions afterward, based almost entirely on what will serve the interest of our team.

It makes me ashamed of the Democratic Party that this seems to be the only moral process available to the party’s leadership. I used to call myself a “Moynihan Democrat.”

But now that he’s dead, I’m reduced to calling myself a “Tony Blair Democrat.”

That’s because I cannot find a single leader in the Democratic Party who is capable of acting on the basis of what is right, rather than what will make our side win.

Orson Scott Card discourses on the moral imbecility of the left.

…we live in a world where we choose up sides first, and make moral decisions afterward, based almost entirely on what will serve the interest of our team.

It makes me ashamed of the Democratic Party that this seems to be the only moral process available to the party’s leadership. I used to call myself a “Moynihan Democrat.”

But now that he’s dead, I’m reduced to calling myself a “Tony Blair Democrat.”

That’s because I cannot find a single leader in the Democratic Party who is capable of acting on the basis of what is right, rather than what will make our side win.

Orson Scott Card discourses on the moral imbecility of the left.

…we live in a world where we choose up sides first, and make moral decisions afterward, based almost entirely on what will serve the interest of our team.

It makes me ashamed of the Democratic Party that this seems to be the only moral process available to the party’s leadership. I used to call myself a “Moynihan Democrat.”

But now that he’s dead, I’m reduced to calling myself a “Tony Blair Democrat.”

That’s because I cannot find a single leader in the Democratic Party who is capable of acting on the basis of what is right, rather than what will make our side win.

A man was stabbed to death for singing a Sinatra song off key at a birthday party.

Was the murderer a music hater, or music lover? I report, you decide.

Dick Gephardt apparently did an oral-podiatral maneuver today, when he said (and according to C-SPAN, it’s not out of context), “When I’m president, we’ll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day.”

Instapundit says:

That’s absolutely pathetic. Either (1) Gephardt, despite all his years in Congress, has still failed to learn that you can’t overturn a Constitutional decision by the Supreme Court with an executive order; or (2) Gephardt was in Full Pander Mode and hoped his audience wouldn’t know better. Neither speaks very well for him.

There’s actually a third possibility, perhaps unthinkable for law professors. Perhaps he simply doesn’t accept Marbury vs. Madison (i.e., Glenn’s option 1 is incorrect, because in fact a president can do so. The issue is whether or not he or she may…)

What does he mean!? ask the blog readers.

Simply put, the precedent set by MvM has been accepted, but only by common consent. It’s never really been seriously challenged. There is no doubt that such a challenge would constitute a constitutional crisis of the highest order, and would have the potential to result in the fall of the republic as we know it. But that doesn’t mean that a president couldn’t issue it.

I ask: what would happen if it were? I suspect that it would strongly depend on the popularity of the president in question, and the particular issue on which such a challenge was made. If he had the support of the military, and popular support as well, such a challenge might well be successful, which would then raise the question, if not the Supreme Court, who is the guardian of the Constitution?

Looks like Lyle Lanley has paid a visit to Orange County.