User Profile: The Third Archon

The Third Archon

Member Since: November 02, 2010

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123 To page: Go
  • April 18, 2014 at 2:45pm

    The significance of all that is that not all “rules” of legislative procedure have the same effect for noncompliance–SOME are much more clearly relevant to the validity of laws passed by the legislature under its procedures (like quorum, etc.), than others (like time for floor debate, etc.). The noncompliance with ONE is MUCH MORE LIKELY to be found to invalidate a law than noncompliance with ANOTHER.

    It’s true, the point I was making goes beyond this case (which indeed as you point out the conservatives lose regardless, because even IF the rules they argued were violated were essential enough to have the legal force to invalidate a law that otherwise complied with rules of legislative process, they WEREN’T in FACT violated because the waiver of them by Cuomo was found to be effective by the judge) to hypothetical scenarios were rules of like kind were violated IN ABSENCE of any waiver. I was mainly trying to explain the distinction between the kinds of legislative procedure rules which the legislature adopts for their own administrative convenience, and the kind which are, in fact, fatal to the validity of a law if not complied with–and trying to clarify to those who might not know, that not EVERY technical violation of legislative rules is a legal grounds for total invalidation of law(s) passed under those rules (at least, this is how US courts currently handle such challenges).

  • April 18, 2014 at 2:36pm

    Parliamentary procedure (which a three day waiting period for passage of a law is) may or may not be “constitutionally mandated” depending upon whether or not it is a formal procedure adopted according to legislative procedures which make it constitutionally binding. A good example of this (which would be constitutionally binding) is the Senate filibuster rules and cloture procedure, modification of which is subject to full force of law behind legislative enactments simply because THOSE parliamentary rules (to my knowledge) were adopted by a legislative procedure that gives them the full force of law. But they are still mere parliamentary procedure (that is, self-adopted rules governing the internal affairs of the legislative body). And if, for example, those rules were NOT adopted by formal legislative procedure, but rather custom and common practice/understanding, than while they might still be just as effectively binding on the day-to-day operations of the legislature, they would not, de facto, have the same “constitutional” (legal–constitutional only refers to their source, as distinguished from common law or statutory in this case) force behind compliance, and technical noncompliance or modification would have no legal effect on the outcome of the proceedings.

  • April 18, 2014 at 2:30pm

    Your reasoning with respect to the Fourth Amendment would apply equally to drugs, or for that matter any contraband the law would like to declare unlawful. If the Fourth Amendment prohibited the government from criminalizing all possession of firearms (setting aside for the moment that this might independently violate the 2nd Amendment, which deals only with firearms, not searches and/or seizures writ large) and enacting laws in furtherance of that goal, then it would equally apply to the government’s ability to criminalize, and authorize searches for and seizures of (within the strictures imposed by the Fourth, its actual function) drugs, or for that matter bomb-making material or ANY physical objects/substance(s) the government might like to criminalize and prevent private possession of.

    Perhaps because of the absurdity resulting from such an interpretation, the Fourth Amendment as interpreted throughout its history does NOT categorically prevent the government from criminalizing or lawfully seizing goods it stipulates. What it DOES require (or at least has been interpreted as requiring) is a procedure subject to judicial review which must be complied with (i.e. a “reasonableness” test, as reviewed principally by a judge in our system) in order for any searches or seizures to not violate the constitutionally mandated procedure (the consequences of which the US Supreme Court has not been consistent in elucidating).

  • April 18, 2014 at 2:18pm

    And for that matter, what a waste of conservatives’ TIME! This battle isn’t huge at all, and that’s illustrated by the useful thought of experiment of imaging the situation reversed–what if the conservatives had prevailed on their legal claim, what would be the legal effect?

    About jack in terms of new enhanced protection for gun rights. True, the NY SAFE act would be (presumably) enjoined from enforcement as passed–but because of the way they chose to litigate, the only REASON this would be the case would be the lack of a three day wait. In other words, NOTHING (in theory at least) would prevent the NY legislature and the governor from passing the EXACT SAME LAW, albeit with an additional three days in the process, for it to then be TOTALLY constitutional, compliant with the caselaw from the conservatives’, then obviously useless, litigation “victory.”

    If conservatives really wanted to stop this litigation in a meaningful way, they would have to argue in such a way that a ruling in their favor would establish precedent not only against THAT law as specifically enacted, but ALSO as against all FUTURE laws of sufficiently similar character–if conservatives DON’T establish laws they challenge constitute an infringement upon a constitutionally protected right (be it state or federal), then any procedural victories like this they might win are all but useless, whether they win them or NOT.

  • April 18, 2014 at 2:11pm

    Did conservatives REALLY think they were going to win though, and have law otherwise totally compliant with legislative procedures overturned JUST BECAUSE it (maybe–depending upon your view of the validity of Cuomo’s waiver) didn’t comply with a parliamentary technicality, voluntarily adopted by the same legislature (including the provisions for waiver of the same time limit, which Cuomo allegedly complied with) and not constitutionally required?

    It seems like this really isn’t as big a defeat as the Blaze’s headline might suggest–not least of which because it seems like it should have been pretty foreseeable–but also BECAUSE it was argued on such minor technical grounds. In other words, the court DIDN’T rule on the merits of any state or federal constitutional claim regarding infringement of SUBSTANTIVE constitutionally guaranteed rights (i.e. the 2nd amendment, and/or its state equivalent if extant) by this law–that avenue remains totally open and uncommented upon by this opinion, and frankly (as much of a long shot as I think it is) was and is probably the far more fruitful ground to argue upon to begin with, even with the dearth of Supreme Court precedent on the 2nd amendment (at least it would be more fruitful and to the point than attempting to achieve the same result through procedural minutiae that is so OBVIOUSLY not about non-compliance with procedure and REALLY about a belief in substantive rights infringement).

  • April 18, 2014 at 2:00pm

    You’re an idiot if you thought a law otherwise validly passed was going to be struck down on a technicality of not complying with a three-day waiting period, that is only self-adopted custom of the legislature (and not some constitutionally imposed requirement or restraint) in the FIRST place. If this were a law about banning abortions, conservatives would be able to see how OBVIOUSLY absurd it is to overturn a law OTHERWISE complying with the requirements for legitimate lawful enactment MERELY because a nicety of parliamentary procedure voluntarily adopted by the legislature (and suspended according to their OWN provisions for waiver of the same to boot!)–but because its a law conservatives agree with SUDDENLY it’s a great liberal travesty not to overturn the law on the most pitiful grounds imaginable.

    I mean my god, you would have had a more credible case just attacking the law’s constitutionality directly by claiming it infringed upon the private ownership/access rights of firearm owners protected under the 2nd Amendment to the federal constitution (then cite “District of Columbia v. Heller”)!

  • April 18, 2014 at 1:47pm

    Well that just about PROVES the whole thing was nothing more than brain-induced hallucinations of images already familiar to it–because that is one PALE Jesus, at a time when (contrary to the delusional revisionist whitewashing of contemporary Christianity) no Jew born in that region of the world wouldn’t have had a healthy tan, to say the LEAST.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 18, 2014 at 12:09pm

    And to respond, conservatives have: a dead guy! XD

    Responses (4) +
  • April 18, 2014 at 11:57am

    Well no, Communists will actually almost certainly vote CPUSA (Communist Party of USA) or Green in the next election–people who ACTUALLY come anywhere close to representing the views of communists. Not Hill-dawg and the spineless plutocrat power-hungry Democrats–who are only marginally less insane than Republicans. Don’t mistake Leftists grudgingly voting for Democrats because they know they are one of only two viable options (the SAME way you conservatives vote Republican–you’re not often HAPPY about it), for Leftists AGREEING with Democrats, or the latter being representative of the former.

    You probably wouldn’t appreciate it if everyone just ASSUMED you MUST love the Bushs and McCain, and Chris Christie, and Ted Cruz because you’re a conservative–clearly, those are all very different people who, while they all claim “conservatism” and are all “Republicans,” actually have difference both in professed belief and policy. Likewise, Democrats are not a homogeneous group universally representative of Leftists.

  • April 18, 2014 at 11:51am

    I love how in contemporary American politics, for established “favorites” (given the way campaign financing now works–thank you Supreme Court) there’s ALREADY campaigns and materials being produced TWO YEARS before any actual election for the position and PRIOR to the actual candidate being advertised even announcing any intent to run!

    “I’m with Hillary…(even though she might not be with me…)” XD

    Everyone’s just assuming Hill-dawg is going to run, but she’s pretty old–probably pretty tired of the ****-show that’s American politics. Honestly, I could see her deciding either way, and in any case she’s hardly my first-choice or the first-choice of any Leftist who isn’t a bootlicker for the worthless Democrats.

  • April 18, 2014 at 11:41am

    “‘Some Yahoo Decided to Pee’ in Reservoir, Prompting City to Dump 38 Million Gallons of Treated Water”
    WHAT?! That seems a little excessive…

  • April 18, 2014 at 11:37am

    Since the article was only addressed to those servicemembers (former and present–mostly former, actually) who are white supremacists, the only people the author and the Times could possibly have any reason to apologize to are white supremacists. So the fact that YOU feel an apology is owed to the WHOLE military and veteran population is rather telling–why so defensive, when she CLEARLY wasn’t talking about YOU…or WAS she (don’t know what to make of the sensitivity to what she’s saying unless you’ve concluded it applies to you)?

  • April 18, 2014 at 11:32am

    Since your CLEARLY unbiased summary of the article you’re so offended by was so woefully truncated, I had to go read the original for myself, and guess what–SURPRISE, SURPRISE, she doesn’t make any claims NEARLY so categorical and indiscriminate as “all US servicemembers are suspect as being white supremacists” as you would characterize her as claiming.

    What she ACTUALLY claimed, and what your masturbatory self-laudatory military worship response completely leaves unmentioned, let alone addressed, is that the military is a unique kind of place that PARTICULARLY appeals to fascists and can equip them with the tools to do great mischief. And can you DENY that? DOESN’T military training give on an edge in potentially committing acts of violence–isn’t that the whole POINT?! It’s a legitimate concern to note a real connection between fascism and our military practices, and the kinds of (ostensibly unintended) uses military training can be put to by those who are already brainwashed fascists or vulnerable to becoming the same. These people are real, the connection undeniable–that doesn’t mean, or have to depend upon, some absurd categorical claim (that no one has made or is making) that ALL US soldiers are fascist white supremacists sympathizers and just bad people writ large. That’s not what she said, that’s not what’s at issue–and that doesn’t have to be the case for there to still be a very real concern with SOME of that same population.

    Responses (3) +
  • April 18, 2014 at 11:21am

    Bloomberg may be liberally inclined, but he’s still an *******.

  • April 17, 2014 at 5:27pm

    “The book’s author, Matthew Vines, is a homosexual activist and Bible revisionist known for manipulating Christian terminology to advance the counter-Christian homosexualist agenda.”
    See, it’s creative but earnest wordplay like that that keeps me coming back! XD

  • April 17, 2014 at 5:22pm

    I always enjoy Barber’s hyperbolic alarmist piety-tinged articles. XD

  • April 17, 2014 at 5:11pm

    “Comments for the video have been disabled, but some are already pointing out flaws in it, such as the idea that a responsible gun-owners wouldn’t story their firearm in such a careless manner and that the child wouldn’t have been educated enough to know what not to do.”
    Doesn’t seem like all that unrealistic a depiction since in at least some cases that’s EXACTLY what happens…or is some moron going to argue that no child in America has ever accidentally been shot by a gun (lawfully owned or not) they found within the home belonging to someone residing in the same (presumably, though not necessarily, a parent)?

  • April 17, 2014 at 4:47pm

    “That is REAL suppression.

    And that’s not the case here.”
    Oppression Olympics is a useless and ugly game. It just makes you look mean-spirited and ignorant. Just because maybe the WORST things in the world that happen to women (or people writ large) may (or may not) happen less often HERE, doesn’t mean “here” is perfect–nor does it mean that JUST because the most heinous obvious consequences of oppression aren’t (or again, maybe they are, and you’re just ignorant of what many people go through) playing out HERE, that people “here” aren’t involved or effected by what’s going on “over there” where it’s “SO much worse” (that apparently we should all sit down, shut up, and be good little compliant citizens).

    Pathetic.

    In reply to the contribution Ladies, We're Not Suppressed

    Responses (1) +
  • April 17, 2014 at 4:37pm

    “.. which makes it even more unbelievable that even the most conservative members of Congress are endorsing this bill.”
    That’s because as a practical matter, your ‘natural argument’ only holds water with people that already share the view you do, and already accept the premises underlying your argument and the terms of the debate you define as you do–to anyone who either disagrees, or that rare individual who might exist who doesn’t yet have a definite opinion on the matter, your invocation of arcane ideologies you subscribe to does nothing persuasive.

  • April 17, 2014 at 1:38pm

    They could pay 80% and they’d still have billions…

    Responses (1) +
123 To page: Go