Daily Topics - Tuesday August 16th, 2011

The Big Picture "On Air" Questions or Comments for Thom?

Hour One: Latest on the war on democracy...WI Democrats face recall - John Nichols, The Nation Magazine

Hour Two: Why do conservatives think "shared sacrifice" is socialism? Peter Ferrara, The Heartland Institute

Hour Three: Mitt Romney says "corporations are people"...are they? Bradley Smith, Center for Competitive Politics


mathboy's picture
mathboy 9 years 1 day ago

All right, Thom, you brought up Federalist #78. Here's a long quote that goes against your argument on Marbury v. Madison (bold emphases mine):

"The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

"Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because [they are] contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged [by opponents of ratifying the Constitution] that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, [that is] contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, [that is] contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, [then] it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where [i.e. "because"] it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

Maxrot's picture
Maxrot 9 years 1 day ago

Good lord, Peter Ferrara is losing his temper quicker and quicker on this show. Over a yes or no question at that. You have to wonder how much he understands he's spinning BS when he refuses to answer a yes or no question and then blow's his top when called out on it. I don't think he believes a word he's saying, why else would he get so defensive and angry when he could just simply reply "Yes" or "No"?

If Thom keeps having Mr. Ferrara on, he may end up having a heart attack or stroke on the air, obviously his blood pressure is spiking quicker and quicker when he's talking to Thom.

By the way did anyone understand what he was trying to say as a substitute answer to Thom's question... I didn't.


RFerly's picture
RFerly 9 years 1 day ago

I have to force myself to remember that Thom has people like Peter Ferrara on the show to demonstrate how to interact with them. Mr. Ferrara continually makes claims that are preposterous, then blows his stack when Thom doesn't simply concede. Last week it was a claim that Keynesian stimulus has never worked to address economic downturns, and only cutting taxes has. He has it, of course, exactly backwards, but thinks screaming will convince you to accept his rediculous claims.

This week it was taxes on capital, where he makes another laughable claim that capital is overtaxed because it's subject to tax, he claims, 4 times. This is a favorite theme of right-wingers. Of course, all income of all kinds is taxed multiple times: State and Federal income taxes, payroll tax, property tax, sales tax, excise tax, gas tax, to name several, but not all. Most capital subject to estate taxes have never been taxed, but that's too much detail for Ferrara. He refused to answer the question, instead falling back to the idea that capital and rich-peoples' passive income just shouldn't be taxed because it's bad for the economy! Only wage income of the unwashed middle and lower classes should be taxed, because the wages in passive income of rich people is different, special, better. And that's his argument today, reduced to its essence. It's absurd, but he's so blinded that he can't see logic or fact, or even answer a question.

Ferrara can't win on facts, so he blows his stack.

If Biden Wins, Get Ready for Trump to Punish America

Thom plus logo What could happen to America if Trump were to further, severely crash the U.S. economy the day after Joe Biden is announced as the winner of the 2020 presidential race?

As Trump tweeted on June 15, 2019, "if anyone but me takes over... there will be a Market Crash the likes of which has not been seen before!"
From Screwed:
"If we are going to live in a Democracy, we need to have a healthy middle class. Thom Hartmann shows us how the ‘cons’ have wronged this country, and tells us what needs to be done to reclaim what it is to be American."
Eric Utne, Founder, Utne magazine
From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"Beneath the success and rise of American enterprise is an untold history that is antithetical to every value Americans hold dear. This is a seminal work, a godsend really, a clear message to every citizen about the need to reform our country, laws, and companies."
Paul Hawken, coauthor of Natural Capitalism and author of The Ecology of Commerce
From Screwed:
"Hartmann speaks with the straight talking clarity and brilliance of a modern day Tom Paine as he exposes the intentional and systematic destruction of America’s middle class by an alliance of political con artists and outlines a program to restore it. This is Hartmann at his best. Essential reading for those interested in restoring the institution that made America the envy of the world."
David C. Korten, author of The Great Turning and When Corporations Rule the World