once again: you are wrong about independent agencies.
we've been through this at least a dozen times.
Congress absolutely has the power the to delegate, the same as the President does.

Just as no one could ever reasonably the President to personally oversee the enforcement of the entire body of law without delegation, no one could ever expect the Congress, 535 people, to personally be experts at every single topic and perform all necessary oversight. It take an entire agency to keep an eye on Wall Street, the SEC. It takes an entire agency to study the environment we live in and forge compromises between the needs of the public and the needs of industry, the EPA. I could run through the entire list, but there should be no need.

The only people who argue the point are unreasonable people who think a return to the agrarian society run by educated scholarly farmers envisioned by Jefferson is still a real possibility, ignoring all else that has happened in the past 200 years. The Constitution doesn't explicitly state that Congress can delegate, but it doesnt explicitily state a lot of things that we take for granted. The Founders were a lot of things, and varied a lot in ideology and opinion on strong or weak the government should be. But one thing they were not was stupid. And the idea that they expected us to adhere to the document like a holy writ verbatim for eternity was not part of the plan, as evidenced by the many clauses and phrases that are vague generalities and obviously exist solely for the purpose of expanding on the parts that are spelled out.

Parts like (and this is not an exhaustive list) the 9th Amendment, the process for amending the document, and most relevant to this topic, the Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the "basket clause". Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18:

IE, whatever it takes to run the country and enact the peoples will, they can do. Case closed.
And there was a case, and it wasn't recent. McCulloch v Maryland, in 1819, a time when many of the Founders were themselves still alive, if not for much longer. And in that case the Courts established quite clearly that:

as indeed it must. Explicit powers are no good if they cannot be implemented due to the technicality that the prerequisites were not also explicitly stated. Again: the Founders were not stupid, but to take the opposite interpretation, an interpretation you seem to believe, is to imply that the Founders were in fact stupid.

i suspect a fair bit is related to the color temp setting of their monitors as well.

i noticed that.
plus, half or more of the account settings seem to be missing.

Is this the "beta" I've been hearing about?
Not a fan, I must say.

I wanted to update my signature today, and under this new layout I can't seem to find it at all.

So.....pointing out that NN is the status quo...and that the GOP tried to co-opt the term...is now flamebait?
Stupid mods.

Because slant determines the veracity of facts....

Look, it's a very simple concept.
A said X.
X is easily verifiable.
X is determined to be false.
When B (liberal) or C (conservative) reports it is irrelevant.
X doesn't become more true or more false based on who reports it.

Also note that the ACLU in fact DOES and HAS stood up for the 2nd Amendment, which is also alluded to in their position paper.

So while they believe it to be a group or societal right rather than an individual one, they also oppose efforts to create gun owners registry. And they have worked with the NRA to prevent such a registry from being created. And they've fought cases where police have used the presence of a gun to wrongly establish probable cause in violation of the 4th Amendment.

So there. You're slightly less stupid now.

(example case: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04...)

No, actually I'm well aware of the 2nd Amendment, its court history, and the ACLUs stance, unlike you. Note that it took until 2008 for the SCOTUS to rule as it did, and that decision was contrary to existing precedent, and required the most ideological conservative court since the Hughes Court that battled FDR every step of the way through the New Deal.

The ACLUs position is here: https://www.aclu.org/racial-ju...

It states:

Note that it doesnt say "there is no right to bear arms", nor does it say "we opposed the 2nd amendment". Ergo, the ACLU doesn't oppose the 2nd Amendment. They just disagree with your chosen interpretation of it, which is not the same thing.

Which is what I said the first time.

So the ignorant one is you, and apparently you are incapable of logic as well.
And you also apparently dont know what flamebait is, as I must assume you are the cowardly mod (or even a sock pupper for ganjadude) who decided logic and reasoning were "flamebait" because you didnt like them.

(also i find it amusing that you assume I even agree them, rather than am simply pointing out and correcting your ignorance of the topic and your faulty logic)

it only doesn't make sense because you don't know the first thing about labor history in this country, and that is evident from every word you've ever posted on this topic.

you don't know the first thing about unions beyond the BS you've been spoonfed and taught to regurgitate.
but hey, at least youre consistent.

actually no that doesn't automatically follow. but thanks for playing.