Well Well Megyn Kelly turns out to be a liberal after all.

[clarkatticus]

The liberals are all about "compromise" when they are the minority party, but when they are the majority party, compromise is non-existent.

The same hypocrisy applies when the Republicans control the Presidency and the Senate and House. One party rule is "dangerous", and "not what the founding fathers envisioned", and "there are no checks and balances", according to the liberal politicians and talking heads.

But, if the Democrats have one-party rule, which they had for Obama's first two years in office, it is a great thing. On the other hand, as the moron Chris Matthews stated last week, a "split" government is a really bad thing.

The liberals believe in one party rule, their party, and their party alone.

The liberals believe hypocrisy is a virtue. Mental illness reigns supreme on the left side.

show me in the constitution where it says "checks and balances"? I'll wait

 

[pocketfullofshells]

show me in the constitution where it says "checks and balances"? I'll wait

it may not use the words, but the system is designed that way pretty clearly.

 

[TruthSeeker]

show me in the constitution where it says "checks and balances"? I'll wait

My whole point exactly. There is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution that addresses "checks and balances".

 

[clarkatticus]

it may not use the words, but the system is designed that way pretty clearly.

you are right if you believe in a living Constitution (I do), but the GOP, in a reversal from the early 1900's, do not. In fact, "check and balances" are mentioned once in the Federalists Papers, and then only in tight referance. To be certain,most the framers felt the Congress should have most the power, but Hamilton had other ideas. As a result of his agressive Presidental policies (he was Washington's sec of treasury and right hand man) and later Jackson's Fedralists policies, the POTUS assumed powers far exceeding those outlined by Madison and others. Good or bad? sometimes both.

 

[Dr.Who]

My whole point exactly. There is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution that addresses "checks and balances".

As we all agree - the words are not there. But clearly the EXISTENCE of numerous checks and balances does address the issue.

 

[steveox]

Were off Topic!!! I though this thread is supposed to be about Megyn Kelly turns out to be a liberal after all.

 

[TruthSeeker]

As we all agree - the words are not there. But clearly the EXISTENCE of numerous checks and balances does address the issue.

The existence of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches are the ultimate tools to ensure "checks and balances".

It always concerns me when somebody uses the Federalist papers or their own broad interpretations of the U.S. Constitution as their basis for "precedence". This sort of tactic is used most often with the fictitious "separation of church and state" clause that supposedly exists in the U.S. Constitution.

To get back on topic, Megyn Kelly is a hottie. How's that, steveox?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The existence of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches are the ultimate tools to ensure "checks and balances".

It always concerns me when somebody uses the Federalist papers or their own broad interpretations of the U.S. Constitution as their basis for "precedence". This sort of tactic is used most often with the fictitious "separation of church and state" clause that supposedly exists in the U.S. Constitution.

To get back on topic, Megyn Kelly is a hottie. How's that, steveox?

The Freedom of Religion sorta is a big key on that one...and if the state picks on over others...it is hard to believe that other Religions truly get a free and equal value. If they wanted a National religion, they could have picked one..but the founding Fathers could not agree on one, and there is no way as a nation we would do as well as we did if we tried..As soon as you pick one, you relegate others to 2nd class.

Unless you pick mine, then I am all for it of course....

 

[clarkatticus]

The existence of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches are the ultimate tools to ensure "checks and balances".

It always concerns me when somebody uses the Federalist papers or their own broad interpretations of the U.S. Constitution as their basis for "precedence". This sort of tactic is used most often with the fictitious "separation of church and state" clause that supposedly exists in the U.S. Constitution.

To get back on topic, Megyn Kelly is a hottie. How's that, steveox?

Why should it concern you? The Supreme Court uses the Federalist Papers often to glean intention of the Forefathers when deciding a case. As far as checks and balances, our Forefathers nevereven insinuated that any branch be stronger than the Congress, your insistance otherwise just shows your high school education in this matter. To say otherwise would be arguement for a "living" Constitution, which would make my day, as I believe in a living Constitution.

 

[clarkatticus]

Oh, yes, Megyn Kelly is a hottie

 

[TruthSeeker]

Why should it concern you? The Supreme Court uses the Federalist Papers often to glean intention of the Forefathers when deciding a case. As far as checks and balances, our Forefathers nevereven insinuated that any branch be stronger than the Congress, your insistance otherwise just shows your high school education in this matter. To say otherwise would be arguement for a "living" Constitution, which would make my day, as I believe in a living Constitution.

I never claimed that any branch of government is, or should be, stronger than the other two. "High school education in this matter"? Stay in your own lane, son. Read and learn.

There are "liberal" members of the Supreme Court that believe that the laws of other countries should be used as examples and/or precedence in their rulings, which is absolute nonsense. The federalist papers have no basis in law. They may be an excellent source of information, but so is an encyclopedia or dictionary.

The Constitution is a "living" document in that it can be amended, but it requires a "super-majority" of state sanction to do so.

 

[clarkatticus]

I never claimed that any branch of government is, or should be, stronger than the other two. "High school education in this matter"? Stay in your own lane, son. Read and learn.

There are "liberal" members of the Supreme Court that believe that the laws of other countries should be used as examples and/or precedence in their rulings, which is absolute nonsense. The federalist papers have no basis in law. They may be an excellent source of information, but so is an encyclopedia or dictionary.

The Constitution is a "living" document in that it can be amended, but it requires a "super-majority" of state sanction to do so.

I never said you thouyght a branch of gov should be stronger than another.Most of the founding fathers did, though. Surprised you didn't know this. The Federalist Papers are the most important documents after the Constitution, used extensively by even the most conservative Justices as a guide toward understanding the founders. But you never read them, which means your education toward the subject ended in HS. Had we waited for a "super majority" (3/4 of the states), the Civil Rghts Act would never have happened and segregation would have lasted another 50 years. Conservative members of Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Act in the early 1900's, another "living" Constitution law that has no basis with the meaning of the Amendment it quoted. This later came back to bite them when Obama used it to pass his Health Bill (which I fully support). If you would like further education on this, start a new thread as I haven't been on this forum long enough, then read some literature on the subject, at least wikipedia it.

 

[clarkatticus]

Oh yes, Megyn Kelly will be anything to anybody who pays her and puts a microphone in front of her, as she is on FOX. But she is still a hottie.

 

[steveox]

Shes been on a two week Maternity Leave. And still being paid by fox. Maternity Leave is like paid vacation. Liberals support Maternity Leave laws. Let me tell you something about those good old days,, In the Good old days you take a 2 week absence just because you have a baby you get fired! So i think Fox should promote Martha McCallum to America Live and Megyn Kelly gets demoted to the news room. Look at Baseball,,When a player gets hurt and takes a 30 day DL injury list and a minor league player does better than him and when he gets all better you think hes gonna be on that Major league team? No way the Manager would sent him down to the minors. Just go ask HOF player Jim Palmer how it used to be in the old days. I asked him that question about how DL injuries handled in the old days. He said there was no DL when i was pitching for the Orioles. If you get hurt you play hurt Or its down to Rochester and none of the O's stars wanted to ge back down to Rochester. Cause there were other players waiting to become Major League stars. So i think thats the way it should be,,,If you cant do your job after you have a baby you lose your job its that simple!

 

[Dr.Who]

Shes been on a two week Maternity Leave. And still being paid by fox. Maternity Leave is like paid vacation. Liberals support Maternity Leave laws. Let me tell you something about those good old days,, In the Good old days you take a 2 week absence just because you have a baby you get fired!

Before maternity leave laws...

Most women did not work for employers becuase that is the way they wanted it. But many did.

When they became pregnant most wanted to quit. If they wanted their jobs back after they left then that was between the employer and the woman. If she were a good worker I am sure the employer woujd be willing to hire her. I am sure the system was abused by individuals many times too.

After maternity leave laws...

Many woman intend to quit after collecting all they can on leave. The employer passes these costs onto to the other workers and adjusts salaries for everyone knowing that he will have to pay out for time not worked at times. A few employers probably discriminate against women because they know some of them will abuse the laws. Some women get fired or laid off a week before their leave is supposed to start.

I suspect the abuse runs and ran rampant in both situations. The difference is that now the abuse is institutionalized and laws encourage people to abuse.

Previously women who got pregnant were probably the most likely to loose out. Now everyone looses out.