Go back and read it again, this time for comprehension. I'll even boldface the important part:

* Making unconstitutional recess appointments by declaring congress in recess when it was not
Article I, Section 4 says "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." and "Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days...." Please explain to the class how those clauses give the President the power to determine whether the Senate is in recess.

* violating First Amendment protections by forcing all insurers to provide birth control
Please explain to the class how selling insurance constitutes "participating in government programs."

You're right, it isn't. Certain kinds of contracts are required to be in writing; they're defined under what's commonly known as the Statute of Frauds. Though there is no such single statute for the entire country (it varies by jurisdiction), the traditional categories are:

• Contracts in consideration of marriage. This provision covers prenuptial agreements.
• Contracts that cannot be performed within one year. However, contracts of indefinite duration do not fall under the statute of frauds regardless of how long the performance actually takes.
• Contracts for the transfer of an interest in land. This applies not only to a contract to sell land but also to any other contract in which land or an interest in it is disposed, such as the grant of a mortgage or an easement.
• Contracts by the executor of a will to pay a debt of the estate with his own money.
• Contracts for the sale of goods involving a purchase price of $500 ($50 in Alberta, Canada) or more (proposed Amended UCC 2-201(1) requires a writing for contracts for the sale of goods of a price of $5000 or more).
• Contracts in which one party becomes a surety (acts as guarantor) for another party's debt or other obligation.

In contracts covered by the Statute, it must be a written contract; an audiotape won't cut it (some courts are allowing electronic methods to count as "signed writings" in recognition of the progress of technology).

Outside of the Statute of Frauds, contracts need not be written to be enforceable (and yes, an oral or handshake deal is a contract). However, there's a caveat: while the contract exists and is binding, it may be difficult to prove without a writing (this is where your audiotape comes in). This is an evidentiary problem, though, not a contract problem; if you can provide evidence (audiotapes, witnesses, actions in performance, etc.) to convince the court of the existence of the contract, it is quite valid. Actually, you'd be surprised at just how much business is handled on a handshake (particularly in farming).

Well, sure it is; the real question is, what's wrong with that?

The very first definition for "exploit" as a verb is "to utilize, especially for profit; turn to practical account." The word has acquired a secondary, derogatory, understanding, but at it's core, it just means to put something to use.

Consider a programmer working as a solo contractor. He has knowledge--programming--that his client needs. Is the client exploiting him? Absolutely: his skill is a resource laying fallow when he's not working, and when the client employs him, it's put to constructive use. Here's the rub--he's exploiting the client, too: the client has money (or accounts receivable, or what-have-you), and the contractor values that money more than he values the time he could spend not working. Who is exploiting whom? The client, profiting from the use of the contractor's skill, or the contractor, withholding that skill from all except those who pay his ransom? The answer is that both are exploiting the resources of the other, in the first definition, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The exchange of resources (and labor is just as much a resource as capital or physical resources) is the basis of all commerce, and fundamentally, the basis of all human advancement.

Furthermore, yes, I expect to make a profit on my exchanges. That doesn't necessarily mean a straight dollar profit. I work for, say, $60,000 per year. I generate much more than that for my employer. However, I also get other things from my employer, starting with not having to establish my own client base, to engage in day-to-day management, and a whole host of other things. My skill may generate $150,000 worth of income to my employer, but there's no way I could realize that working on my own--the other functions of the company enhance my own value to the point that the sum is considerably greater than the whole of its parts. Is the company exploiting my talent? Sure (again, see the first definition). Is the company somehow being underhanded? Not at all--I know the deal, I'm free to walk away from it at any time, and I've decided that it's more profitable to stay here. I've been an employer, too, and you can bet that I didn't pay everything I made to the employees. If I don't get to keep a dollar, why should I even bother doing the work it takes to employ him? If I can walk away with $0 in my pocket by not employing him, or $0 in my pocket by employing him--and doing all of the work associated with that--why in the world would I bother? If I can contribute extra effort and make nothing, or sit on the beach and make nothing...what kind of stupid question is that?

So--I acknowledge that yes, it's exploitation. Show me where 1) that's a bad thing, and 2) preventing employers from taking profit wouldn't result in massive unemployment as employers get out of the business of hiring.

Actually, the free market could provide the solution here: if the contract were worded to require contractors to provide security staffing "with an error rate not exceeding x%," and penalty clauses for breach (up to and including termination of the contract), contractors would have an incentive to get it right, which would include listening to legitimate concerns about vulnerabilities.

In a government bureaucracy, however, anything that embarrasses one's superiors (from a direct boss all the way up to the institution itself) tends to be smacked down because there is no institutional penalty for failure, only personal penalties; as a result, individuals act ruthlessly to protect themselves, at the expense of the organization.

People will (almost) always act in their own best interest as they perceive it; the trick is to align their interest with the organization's.

1/3 the solution. Bombers are the third leg of the nuclear triad.

Education is paid for by the residents of the state, typically by income or property taxes. Defense is paid for by Federal taxes. Roads are funded at least in part by fuel taxes, which would apply to the delivery trucks carrying the stuff you purchase from Amazon.

Any more ill-considered arguments?

Keep this in mind, too:

http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/12/bummer/singlepage

And this:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-20120216

And this:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/10/06/feds-order-california-pot-dispensaries-to-shut-down/

And this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/16/us-marijuana-raids-washington-idUSTRE7AF0BN20111116

[boldface emphasis mine]

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

And I can refuse to buy, because it's a free market.

But you don't know that he's unarmed. You might know that he's not legally armed, but that tells you exactly nothing about whether or not he is in actual possession of a weapon.

Why wouldn't they? They cover Virginia.

Actually, we have three computer labs in two buildings just for my law school; I don't know what the rest of the campus has. They're consistently in pretty heavy use.

Read it again. This time for comprehension.

Actually, the cash back comes from the interest payments of other cardholders, especially the ones who use cards irresponsibly and live on credit (and thus rack up huge interest bills). The processing fees go to the networks (VISA, Mastercard, etc.), not the issuing bank.

Yes. They invested more time, effort, and money, so they deserve at least the opportunity to have a better return on that investment.

Or, put another way, this is perhaps the only government pension that actually has funds to cover its future expenses. Kind of nice to know, given that most pension funds are grossly underfunded.