Most Commented
-
34 comments
-
21 comments
-
17 comments
-
10 comments
-
10 comments
MinnPost is a nonprofit, nonpartisan enterprise whose mission is to provide high-quality journalism for news-intense people who care about Minnesota.
Donations and pledges totaling $25,000 or more have been made by each of the families and foundations listed. For a list of all donors by category, see our most recent Year End Report.
the base dominates the caucuses and primaries.
So even in an off year they often nominate someone more extreme than even the core of their electorate. That's what's leading the GOP over the cliff.
And since all of the people who show up at the caucuses agree that their positions are the best and can't possibly lose, they attribute their loss to a conspiracy.
Happens again and again; typically (although not exclusively) to Republicans.
Don't know where you are (does outstate mean Minnetonka?); I'm in Mankato, a traditionally conservative congressional district.
If we're pissed off at anything, it's dysfunctional legislators who would rather politic on social issues than address the real economic problems that we have.
can't make a law (as opposed to a regulation), only interpret it.
And it can't make a regulation that conflicts with a law.
So the ball is in Congress' court.
The problem is that 'exclusively' is TOO strong -- it means 100%; a standard that no real world organization could meet.
If Congress amended that law to read 'greater than 50%' it would be more specific and thus easier for the IRS to enforce.
As you point out, the problem would remain that some groups...
Scott would have gained his freedom much earlier, since Great Britain abolished slavery in all its territories in 1833.
And if his owners had moved to England, he would have been instantly freed, since slavery was abolished in England and Scotland in 1772.
with Great Britain.
The British courts found that there was no basis in English or Scottish law for slavery, and therefore that no person could own another. This was supported by the British public.
American courts in the Dred Scott case, on the other hand, did find that one person could be the property of another. The (white) American public at the time did, by and large, support this judgement, though certainly not unanimously.
And of course there's a lot of economic...
"ARTICLE I
Section 1. Legislative powers; in whom vested
.......................
3. Representatives [and direct taxes] {Altered by 16th Amendment} shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, [which shall be determined by adding the whole number of **free persons**, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of **all other persons...
and freeing slaves are two different things.
which trivialized civil rights by holding that corporations were persons with constitutional rights.
who were not the Brooklyn Dodgers infield,
are well in the competition for worst presidents.
Cleopatra, the Queen of Denial.