Sunday Open Thread [4.14.13]

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) reported his campaign fund earned $75,637 from interest and investments during the first quarter of 2013, according to Political Moneyline. That doesn't seem legal to me,…

Saturday Open Thread [4.13.13]

Vice President Joe Biden "faces a situation unique in the annals of modern American politics," the New York Times reports.
"He is the vice president, the highest-ranking member of his party interested in running for president, yet he is not the heir apparent. While every sitting vice president who sought it in the last half-century captured his party's nomination, Mr. Biden would start as the underdog if he ran against Mrs. Clinton, the former secretary of state."
Which is why he won't run if she does. Hillary and Joe are also good friends, which I think makes the decision not to run easier, not harder.

Friday Open Thread [4.12.13]

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds most Americans support "creating a pathway to citizenship for immigrants who are working in this country illegally -- and one with a shorter timeline than that contemplated by Congress."
"Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed said they favor giving citizenship to those who came here illegally and now hold jobs. Support jumped to 76% for a plan that required immigrants to pay fines, back taxes and pass a security check, among other measures, to gain citizenship. Bipartisan legislation now being written in the Senate could open a pathway to citizenship with similar requirements."
In addition, 51% say illegal immigrants with jobs should gain citizenship after five years with an additional 18% backed immediate citizenship. The plan being discussed in Congress has a 10 year time frame.

What Delaware’s Libertarian said

Steve Newton nails it.

The News Journal's editorial page: distorting the facts for political gain

If one's only source of information regarding the disagreement between the Christina School District and the Delaware Department of Education were the News Journal editorial page, one might be excused for drawing the conclusion that Christina school board's vote a rejection of reality
but in fact...
Portraying the CSD School Board as not wanting great teachers, as reneging on prior agreements, as being untrustworthy partners with the State, and as being lone wolf crazies flying in the fact of all Delaware education reform is--to put it bluntly--editorial prostitution that defies the facts of the whole case.

If you could rewrite the 2nd Amendment, how would you do it?

It is as if our Founding Fathers were high when they wrote this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It is as if Yoda was a Founding Father, and if he was that would be awesome, but we are still left with awkward backward sentences. In my mind, when I read the second amendment, it looks and sounds like two sentences got smashed together in a head on collision: "A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State" and "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The two sentences are mutually exclusive. The latter sentence establishes an absolute right to bear arms without any interference from Congress, including, presumably as to what constitutes "Arms," since that term is not defined. So, if you look at only that sentence, as most gun nuts and the NRA does, you believe you have an absolute right to own a nuclear missle launcher, a bazooka, a tank, and 100 AR-15s. Meanwhile, the former sentence says a regulated milita (militia at the time being a group of community citizens with guns) is necessary to the security of the free state. To me, that sentence as two interpretations: 1) the defense of a free state requires a well regulated militia, thus the state is responsible for establishing and regulating a militia, and 2) militias, or community citizens with guns, need to be regulated by the state to ensure the security of a free state, otherwise it is an OK Corral out there and no one is secure or safe. Either interpretation of the former sentence requires state regulation of the right to own guns. Which is wholly incompatable with the latter sentence guaranteeing a uninfringed and absolute right to bear arms. And yet Yoda and the Founding Fathers smashed those two sentences together anyway. I think there is a consensus in this country on guns, however, despite the rhetoric on the fringes where on one side there is an absolute right to bear arms and on the other where all guns should be banned.