November 13th, 2008 at 11:23 am
_______

That would be unconstitutional. Signing statements must be germane to the bill they gut/modify, otherwise they’re a blatantly unconstitutional attempt to legislate from the Oval Office.

It is my understanding that the Yes Men were responsible for this. If you haven’t seen their documentary, please do. They once posed as WTO representatives touring around giving presentations on things such as what to do about 3rd world starvation: devising a way to change American feces into food and they were taken seriously for quite a stretch.

ex – First Bill to the WH is a Bill recognizing the contribution of Elderly People to our health and Welfare.

Obama signs it and adds signing statement negating previous signing statments and sending Bush and Cheney to the Hague ?

November 13th, 2008 at 9:51 am
________

I disagree. I believe the founding fathers knew all too well the power of corporations, having recently taken control of the colonies from corporations like the Massachussetts Bay Company and the Virginia Company and the Hudson’s Bay Company. The Boston Tea Party, you may recall, was a rebellion against the British East India Company imposing duties on its monopoly product, tea.

These were massive corporations strongly wedded to the crown, and the founding fathers knew well thier corrupting influence. That’s why they put corporate registration in the hands of the states – to keep them on a tight leash. That’s also why they gave Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce and international trade. They wanted power in the hands of the people, not corporations.

Yes, we’ve gone awry from those early days – corporations have embedded their influence in Congress and used this power to weaken regulation at every opportunity.

That doesn’t mean we’re without power, however. We don’t have to sit back and wait for the new President and Congress to give us our country back – that will never happen.

We the people still control our wallets, and we as consumers and stockholders can rein in these corporations if we try. Organizations such as WalMart Watch can be effective if they have enough people participating.

November 13th, 2008 at 10:21 am

Her public speaking needs a make-over………….

Or a donor’s credit card to accessorize herself……….
November 13th, 2008 at 10:04 am

Yeah, I can see why she needed the make over. Yeesh…

My heart soars for all the couples who will now be allowed to marry in the great state of Connecticut.

‘It ain’t over ’till the fat lady sings, & she has laryngitis’

November 13th, 2008 at 10:01 am

Or a donor’s credit card to accessorize herself……….

Begich may just pull Alaska out of the hat!
_____________________________________________________________

This is good news. We must also hold good thoughts for the recount in Minnesota and the runoff in Georgia.

If the Dems can pull of that hat trick, and if Lieberman remains in the Dem caucus, we would have the “magic” number of 60.

But we shouldn’t put too much stock in that number meaning the Senate is filibuster-proof. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats don’t vote as a monolithic bloc.

WHAT ON GOD’S GREEN EARTH GIVES YOU THE HOPE THAT AMERICA WILL SUDDENLY BEGIN TO LEARN FROM IT’S PAST MISTAKES?

Remember, it’s all about “progress”, that’s what we’re selling right? Well, I have yet to realize any “progress” within our horribly gone-wrong experiment in Democracy.

The Founding Fathers, in all their wisdom, never, ever imagined that Corporations would wield more power internationally than a COUNTRY.

In that respect, they failed. And our lack of urgency to correct the situation only begets the continuance and spread of corruption.

Maybe he can title his memoirs “Retroactive Immunity Is Not Enough”.