So according to you, Congress has unlimited power unless the Supreme Court says they don't?

What if Congress votes to repeal Article III and there is no Supreme Court?

Been that way for over a century? What was it before?

> We stopped pretending states were little fiefdoms in the late 1800s.

Oh? The Ninth Amendment and Article V were both repealed? Do you have a date for that?

> triggers the Commerce Clause and in turn gives them the authority needed.

So all they need to do is find some ephemeral justification by invoking the Commerce Clause and every Congress member is fitted for a crown?

Oh I see, so the geniuses who wrote the Constitution crafted Article 8 like this:

1. Congress has unlimited power.

2. Here is a list of Congress' enumerated powers.

Then they ratified the 10th Amendment which says "Congress has no power except what is specifically granted in the Constitution."

Do you find it odd nobody brought up the fact Congress was granted unlimited power in Article I when the Bill of Rights was being deliberated?

Do you find it odd 13 colonies would ratify a document that granted Congress the very same power they had just fought a war to escape?

If Congress has unlimited power, why not just pass a bill under the General Welfare Clause to vacate Marbury vs. Madison and Article II and seize total authority?

I'll be very interested to see reasoned answers to those questions.

So Congress has unlimited power. Correct?

Where does the federal government get the legal authority to award grants for solar power?

Sergeant I hope you like chow mein.

Unlike Farty Don, who merely wants to shoot them.

Every time I go past the In-n-Out Burger and see 40-50 cars lined up to talk into a scratchy intercom and wait half an hour to get food, I think how much more convenient it would be if all of those people could just park their car wherever they wanted (or even not have to get into their car at all), enter their order into an app on their phone, and have their food lowered down to them by a drone.

There'd be no more congestion issues, no need to spend 30 minutes idling in a slowly-advancing car lineup, and no need to repeat your order three times so a teenager can still get it wrong. You might have to deal with gangs of crows trying to intercept your order mid-delivery, though.

Technically speaking the crime of fraud has three elements: (1) A materially false statement; (2) an intent to deceive the recipient; (3) a reliance upon the false statement by the recipient.

So, if you want to lie to people and want to avoid being charged with fraud, it's actually quite simple. You lie by omission. You distract. You prevaricate (dance around the facts). You encourage people to jump on the bandwagon; you lead them to spurious conclusions. It's so easy to lie without making any materially false statements that anyone who does lie that way when people are going to check up on him is a fool.

Not only is this way of lying *legal*, it happens every time a lawyer makes an closing statement to a jury. It's not a problem because there's an opposing counsel who's professionally trained to spot omissions and lapses of logic and to point them out. But if a lawyer introduces a *false statement of fact* to a trial that's a very serious offense, in fact grounds for disbarrment because that can't be fixed by having an alert opponent.

We have similar standards of truthfullness for advertising and politics because in theory there's competition that's supposed to make up for your dishonesty. In practice that doesn't work very well because there is *nobody* involved (like a judge) who cares about people making sound judgments. But still, any brand that relies on materially false statements is a brand you want to avoid because they don't even measure up to the laxest imaginable standards of honesty.

Now investors have lots of money, so they receive a somehat better class of legal protections than consumers or voters do. There are expectations of dilligence and duties to disclose certain things etc. that can get someone selling investments into trouble. But that's still not as bad as committing *fraud*, which is stupid and therefore gets extra severe punishment.

Don't trust a company with "spin" in their name.

America last. Right?

Oh sure, your job is gone, along with your house, marriage, retirement, family and dignity, but it's a global market now.

You're competing with teenage workers hiding behind a manipulated currency who live eight to a room while you have to stack four figures a month for a crackerbox apartment 70 minutes from work and go pedal to the floor seven days a week to keep your credit score above 600.

If you listen real careful-like, you'll hear your neighbors. They're living eight to a room too. They're all paid in cash and the "extended family" is pulling seven grand a week. That's why they have two brand new cars and effortlessly haul 200 pounds of groceries through the door every 72 hours while your "living room" floor is covered in coupons.

It's illegal as hell, but everyone gettin paid except you: cops, landlord, code enforcement, health department, bank.

They've taken your job, your women and your house. Next up is your currency and your vote.

But everything's going to be just fine. Just ask Reddit. They'll be happy to list 100 reasons why you should fuck off.

If I understand your argument properly, you're suggesting that things will be OK with the reefs because "survival of the fittest" will produce a population of corals better adapted to warmer conditions.

Let me first point out is that this isn't really an argument, it's a hypothesis. In fact this is the very question that actual *reef scientists* are raising -- the ability of reefs to survive as an ecosystem under survival pressure. There's no reason to believe reefs will surivive just because fitter organisms will *tend* to reproduce more, populations perish all the time. When it's a keystone species in an ecosystem, that ecosystem collapses. There is no invisible hand here steering things to any preordained conclusion.

So arguing over terminology here is really just an attempt to distract (name calling even more so) from your weak position on whether reefs will survive or not.

However, returning to that irrelevant terminology argument, you are undoubtedly making an evolutionary argument. You may be thinking that natural selection won't produce a new taxonomic *species* for thousands of generations, and you'd be right. However it will produce a new *clade*. When a better-adapted clade emerges due to survival pressures, that is evolution by natural selection. Whether we call that new clade a "species" is purely a human convention adopted and managed to facilitate scientific communication.

You don't have to take my word for any of this. Put it to any working biologist you know.

Sometimes a hypothesis has potentially observable implications, even if a mad scientist can't reproduce everything in their lab.

I think it has been decades since cosmologists believed the universe is expanding at a constant rate.