Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Nelson Rockefeller was to the left of Hillary. So was Richard Nixon.
Maybe in your fantasy world.
She is, in fact, from the right wing of the party and could have been an establishment Republican a generation ago.
The first part of that sentence is true and tells you how far left the Democratic Party has moved. The second part is nonsense. A generation ago, Hillary was on the left fringe of the Democratic Party. She has not moved right, the Party has moved left.
What you mean is he should have imperialistically intervened in a grassroots campaign to overthrow a dictator and helped that dictator suppress the wants and needs of the people.
So, it was OK for him to imperialistically intervene to bomb that dictator's security forces in order to allow a group inimical to U.S. interests to overthrow said dictator and suppress the wants and needs of the people. If we had stayed out of Libya, Gaddafi would still be in power there and ISIS would likely have never acquired the weapons it needed to rise to power.
While it is true that if Saddam Hussein was still in power in Iraq ISIS would not have arisen, it is also true that Obama would probably have done the same thing to Saddam which he did to Gaddafi, Mubarak, and attempted to do to Assad. That is, he would have attempted to overthrow Saddam and replace him with instability.
His failure to create instability in Egypt is a reflection of the desires of the Egyptian people rather than any indication of positive action by the Obama Administration. BTW, I am not arguing that the Obama Administration INTENDED to destabilize the Middle East, just that their policies directly resulted in that happening. I do not know what the Obama Administration intended, but I cannot imagine what they would have done differently if they intended to disable the Middle East.
I will agree that Obama is doing the same thing to the Middle East that he did to the U.S. economy. And, if what Obama is doing is fixing these things I'll take broken.
That, at least is how I understand the legal theory. I do not think the Framers of the Constitution would agree. I am certain they would not approve of Congress delegating so much of their authority.
It would be impractical for Congress to operate at the level of detail overseen by the various commissions and authorities.
Which indicates that it was the intention of those who wrote the Constitution that the Federal government not attempt to do so. If you read the various writings of those people you will discover that they thought the federal government should not get into such detail. If anything required close detail, those who wrote the Constitution thought that the laws regulating it should be written by those close to that actual detail.
Having said that, the question that remains is whether Congress can delegate their lawmaking authority to some government bureaucracy.
More importantly, has Congress delegated their authority over this specific issue to the FCC? Of course, as has been demonstrated on the issue of illegal immigration (and several other issues as well), we no longer have a government of laws. The law is now whatever the President (and, in more and more cases, the bureaucrats who theoretically answer to him) says it is. Which means that it can change from day to day and person to person.