If a business ran and generated profits suitable to its owners, who are you to say that it is too inefficient to operate? This isn't "protectionism," it's an attempt to lower the barriers to entry to the marketplace. You think those barriers are caused by a concentration of wealth, while you ignore the barriers put in place via government regulation.
Well if your buddy borrowed the money from the bank, then EITHER
[*]He borrowed it on his personal credit - in which case it is NOT BUSINESS LENDING
[*]He has been in business longer than 3 years - in which case it is NOT BUSINESS CREATION lending
[*]OR he lied on the applications.
Or, he went to a lender who was familiar with his OTHER business, and borrowed the money to create the new business.
.
Nope. Saverin borrowed from his parents who were wealthy and had "jumped ahead of the immigration line" from Brazil by buying their way into the USA so that their son would not be a kidnapping target in Brazil.
He did so by maxing out the credit cards his parents had given him "for expenses" at Harvard.
And that amount was a shoestring -- and after about a year, Zuckerberg/Parker attracted VC, and diluted Saverin's shares of the stock.
And that's why your claim is a circular one. You define the meanings of the terms used within the Constitution in logically inconsistent ways.
No, I do not.
You use "implied" meanings when convenient, yet when necessary you insist on singular meanings that eschew implication, you change grammar rules in ways no truly professional editor would (inclusive sub-clauses are not limiting clauses in any of the 4 languages I speak and read),
Degs -- for humanity's sake by a copy of the "Elements of Style" by Strunk and White, and learn to read and write clear English before you drag in any other languages. Other than that, give an example where I've used an "implied" meaning. I intentionally avoid such meanings in the Constitution unless the words are intentionally vague standards ("cruel" and "unusual" spring to mind), or unless there's no contemporary commentary to illuminate them.
you insert hierarchical ordering where there is none, you insist on "original" meanings when convenient yet include modern meanings when convenient.
There's no hierarchy in the Constitution? Kindly offer documentation. And I never insist on a modern meaning -- except for the obvious factual insistence that the Constitution was written in Modern English. It carries essentially no hold-over content from Middle or Old English, and shows the clear influence of the 700 years of Norman French that created Modern English from the amalgam of Middle English (where we get most of the "tion" words in our language, just for example).
So that's why this is a circular arguement. You essentially define the "allotted powers" as those powers YOU ALLOT in YOUR APPROVAL - not the ones that actually ARE alloted.
No -- the allotted powers given to Congress are in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, in clear Modern English. Additional powers have been added (apparently non-hierarchically) via the amendment process, which is the sole legitimate source for additional federal power.
That just there is a hagiographic description. Because nowhere in the Federal Government's authority within the Constitution is there any authorization to use machine guns against families peacably assembled to petition their government - and yet the Feds did exactly that.
You're saying that the government didn't hue to its best ideals? Big surprise. I'm not certain what you're using for an example here, but all you're saying is that the federal exceeded its authority in that instance, and I agree. No one said the era was perfect, and I certainly have not done (to do so would be truly hagiographic). What I said, and what you have not refuted, is that the government did not acquire permanent authorities that exceeded its constitutional limits during that era, as it has done on a regular basis since the 1930s.
Nowhere in the Federal Government's authority is there the power to deny personhood rights to THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION -and yet that is exactly what took place.
Show me a quote from a legal authority from the period, from the Gilded Age, that indicated that to be the case -- that a woman or a black man was not a person. Just one quote -- I offer the entirety of the record of the United States, public, private, legal and civil, as a source for that quote by someone in authority. (No, the "Billy the Kid had killed 21 men by age 21, not counting Indians and Mexicans" is not a viable example).
No trap that is not a "good test" because you can use that "reasoning" to expansively wield the very authority your favourite Constitutional Ratifier warned against - that of military power (which BTW is something you do in an increadibly lax and unconstrained manner). What matters is whether or not you can construct a CONSISTENT AND INTEGRATED line of reasoning that stands the test of ALL of the sections of The Constitution in their structural balance.
It it consistent to say that business that does not cross a state line in any way is "interstate?" Obviously not, but that's the law. It doesn't even pass your own test, much less mine.
Sorry trap. The lack of a BA/BS reduced the rate at which you were promoted, reduced your starting salary, reduced your opportunity to compete for better paying jobs, reduced your opportunity to expand your professional opportunities with graduate level education.
I can categorically state that essentially none of this statement is true. From the time I dropped out of college in 1984, to 1989, I actually made more than the typical entry level reporter (who made less than an Army Pfc.). When I dropped out of college in 1990, I did a couple of low end jobs, but from the time I entered journalism in 1992 to the time I voluntarily left the field in 2001, I made the same industry scale as the people who worked alongside me, and was promoted faster than most of them in part because I was mobile and would go anywhere to get the next job. Throughout that period I turned down two jobs, one of them my shot at "the big time" with Gannett (because it was only a $3 per hour raise), and one a lateral move within the paper I where I was employed. As I never attempted to pursue a graduate level education (it was never one of my life's goals to have a string of letters after my name), my goals were not much impeded by my lack of a college degree.
You're "$1 million" figure is nonsense because I worked in the same industry, in the same jobs, without a college degree that I would have worked in if I'd had the degree. I worked alongside people who had college degrees, and didn't do any better than me in the industry or in the rest of their lives.
You know FISA court judges? I confess that I do not. I know several prosecutors, a couple of superior court judges, and one former prosecutor who is a sitting U.S. senator. And I know scads of practicing attorneys.
I know atty's that go and practice before them. I know the policy aides of folks like the REPUBLICAN State AG Rob McKenna. yeah that's the mentality of these judges. It is precisely why HRC recently made the comment about Africa needing "strong institutions, not strong men". The INSTITUTION of the US Judiciary has a long tradition of independence. And it wants to maintain that and maintain its crediblity.
Whatever the judge's "mentalities," they've approved every single administration request for a warrant in the past year. That's some check on the presidential authority.
It's also immaterial. You keep saying Obama has "reduced" presidential authority. The fact that he's not using that authority doesn't mean it's not there any more than the fact that he's not enforcing the law turns all the illegal's he's not deporting into legal residents.
[*]Obama has REDUCED use of PATRIOT ACT powers
No -- he merely hasn't used them. That's a different thing from reducing them.
Obama's core constituency OPPOSES the PATRIOT ACT
What core constituency? Obama's core constituency opposes a lot of things that Obama has done -- are they going to vote for Romney because of this? I'd think not.
You're over emphasizing what I said -- I said I don't think either president is going to change the Patriot Act. In reality, the provisions of the act are outside their control, as any change must originate in Congress. But if you're going to see any change in that law at all, you have four years of Obama's actions to review and he has not pushed for such a change at the Congressional level.
Romney, for all your circumlocutions, is an unknown factor. He nearly didn't get the nomination because he has a long track record of being a RINO, and there's no evidence at all that he wouldn't continue the same trend as president. He is, currently, doing what most Republicans do to get elected. He's running to the right so as to solidify the base. He would no more govern to the right than it was "governing to the right" when GWB rammed through Medicare Part B.