Skip to Content

Eric Black

Minneapolis, MN
Commenter for
5 years 24 weeks

Recent Comments

Posted on 12/04/12 at 02:45 am in response to No amendment allowed: A constitutional problem we’re stuck with

I very much enjoyed the discussion above, but I do want to nod some agreement to Peder Defor, who does the mostly liberal crowd in these parts a great service by offering always-reasonable, always-civil conservative perspectives. Peder doesn’t advocate for the kind of conservatism that would recreate the Articles of Confederation, and I feel a little abashed at having suggested more than once that righties secretly desire a return to a national government that had neither taxing power nor...

Posted on 11/08/12 at 03:25 pm in response to Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Vin Weber assess the vote

Just wanted to reply to Paul Udstrand above (and thanks, Paul, for all the good comments of the past). Kelliher Anderson didn't say the things you inferred about the Repubs overmuch reliance on spending cuts. Those were my words, paraphrasing her, and I didn't tape the event. But as I heard it, her whole point in that remark was to push back against the idea that DFLers will reflexively raise taxes and show no restraint on running up the state budget. Rather, she said, they stood and stand...

Posted on 05/16/12 at 10:12 am in response to Guessing where Kurt Bills stands on the issues

but the kind of budget the Senate can pass with less than 60 votes has no effect. It's explained here -- although your eyes may glaze a bit. Anyway, I stand by my point. Candidates should talk about how they can contribute to actual lawmaking and buedgetmaking in today's deadlocked climate.

Posted on 05/16/12 at 12:22 pm in response to Guessing where Kurt Bills stands on the issues

who knows more about politics and Senate procedures than I do. I already supplied a link to the Economist (here it is again)  explaining why a Senate budget resolution passed with fewer than 60 votes has no effect. The piece starts from the very Wash Post piece Mr. Droogsma cited.

It would be fine with me, in fact it would be good, if the Senate (by which we mean the Senate Dems) would adopt...

Posted on 05/16/12 at 12:56 pm in response to Guessing where Kurt Bills stands on the issues

who knows more about politics and Senate procedures than I do. I already supplied a link to the Economist (here it is again)  explaining why a Senate budget resolution passed with fewer than 60 votes has no effect. The piece starts from the very Wash Post piece Mr. Droogsma cited.

It would be fine with me, in fact it would be good, if the Senate (by which we mean the Senate Dems) would adopt...

Posted on 05/13/12 at 08:16 pm in response to Scott Walker told a big donor that his strategy on unions would be to 'divide and conquer'

I just wanted to reply to Peder and maybe some others who wondered about my interpretation of Walker's incoherent comments and whether it applies to private sector unions. He was responding to a private sector employer who asked if the state could become a right to work state. Right to work law apply to private sector unions. He volunteered that the strategy was divide and conquer. I acknowledge that he wasn't clear what he meant, but private sctor unions are certainly part of the...

Posted on 09/26/11 at 02:54 pm in response to A question for constitutional conservatives

Hi Tom,
We are nearly in agreement, but you misunderstood the implication of my snide question. I agree with you that as long as the federal government is doling out aid, it's reasonable for every state to take their share, even if the governor, for example, may disagree with the program or believe that it exceeds constitutional authority.
And I agree with you that a let's say Bachmann- or Perry-style constitutional conservative -- who argues that Congress is limited to a very...

Posted on 09/26/11 at 03:48 pm in response to A question for constitutional conservatives

But Paul, here's the rub (in my humble view).
If admonitions as general as those imply any powers that any future Congress might think will make the union a little more perfect, or promote something as wide open and subject to interpretation as the general welfare, then there are virtually no limits on what powers the federal government can assume.
Maybe that's right, although there's a lot from the drafting and ratifying history to suggest that the framers and ratifiers had in...

Posted on 09/26/11 at 05:13 pm in response to A question for constitutional conservatives

Dennis, you have the true tentherist/constitutional conservative position on the question, except for the idea that the Constitution authorizes some kind of weird trade between the feds and the states to make up for the fact that the national guard is sometimes nationalized. The Pres. does have explicit authority to nationalize the state militias, although I don't know where -- under a strict constructionist reading -- he would get authority to trade disaster relief to the states for Guard's...

Posted on 08/30/11 at 11:06 pm in response to Bachmann and Perry have a lot of constitutional explaining to do

Thanks for a great thread.
To Bruce Pomerantz' question in #24, I think I can help.
Art. 1, Sec. 10 of the U.S. Constitution lists several powers that are expressly prohibited to the states. For example, states can't print their own currency and can't make separate treaties with foreign nations.
The reference in the 10th Amendment to powers prohibited by it to the states ("it" meaning the Constitution itself) refers to those powers and clarifies that those powers are not...