Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Zanza]

Tories apparently warning that May has the zeal of a convert and will do things 'no true Brexiteer' would do.

Normandy, you have been warned...

We can always reintroduce the continental system.

[Valmy]

The states don't exist to do the Federal governments bidding, so no.  But again, enlighten me on the states withholding funds.

I don't see anything in the Constitution that says the Feds do not have discretion on how they spend federal funds nor do I see anything in the Constitution requiring the States to accept federal funds. What Constitution are you reading?

Anyway Texas leaves lots of federal money on the table because our government is run by people who want to appear to be insane paranoid nutcases, or who are insane paranoid nutcases, to appease the paranoid nutcases who vote in this state.

[Tamas]

[Valmy]

It was my fault. I accidentally threw the damn American Constitution grenade in discussing something completely unrelated.

[Sheilbh]

At least you didn't mention the Civil War that shall not be named

[CountDeMoney]

The states don't exist to do the Federal governments bidding, so no.  But again, enlighten me on the states withholding funds.

Over 20 states have refused to expand Medicaid, withholding Federal funds from their own citizens.

[Valmy]

At least you didn't mention the Civil War that shall not be named

Think how things might have been different if Prince Rupert had come back.

[CountDeMoney]

At least you didn't mention the Civil War that shall not be named

Meh, just variations on a theme. Don't expand Medicaid because there's a negro in the White House, and denying Federally-funded healthcare is the easiest, most expedient way to kill off as many negroes in their states as possible. 

So yeah, part and parcel.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm having a very difficult time imagining Congress having the ability to opt out of Constitutional restrictions on its own powers just because it says so.

You don't have to imagine it, since it's in the constitution for you to read about link.

Congress has the constitutional power to set the limits of Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction - that doesn't necessarily mean it was intended or appropriate as a mechanism for circumventing particular decisions

Once the Court has spoken on a matter, it has spoken.  The other branches can always in theory elect to ignore the Court.  Stripping jurisdiction after the fact doesn't make that more legitimate though

That's certainly an opinion--but the Supreme Court, in the rare cases in which it has addressed jurisdiction stripping, with the exception of Joseph Story's opinion, have conceded congressional latitude in that area is broad, and largely whatever Congress says it is. in Ex parte McCardle they stripped jurisdiction of a case that was already before the Supreme Court, even.

As for stripping after the fact and then passing new legislation materially similar to that already ruled upon, I dunno--legislatures both State and Congressional pass legislation they know openly violates previous supreme court rulings all the time. Several red states in the past few years have passed laws outlawing abortion or restricting it to prior to 20 weeks (going against the framework elaborated on in Casey.) One could argue such legislative acts are illegitimate, but they are certainly possible in our system. Since no one is going to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over abortion cases those laws will all eventually be struck down, but the biggest weakness of the judiciary is it can of course only rule on cases brought before it, and it takes a long time for lawsuits to wend their way through our legal system.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The states don't exist to do the Federal governments bidding, so no.  But again, enlighten me on the states withholding funds.

Over 20 states have refused to expand Medicaid, withholding Federal funds from their own citizens.

The Federal government keeps the money though, the way you guys are saying "withhold" makes it sound like Texas has billions in Federal dollars stashed away in some vault somewhere. If they decline to accept Federal funding for certain programs in a given fiscal year, they just do not get disbursed and remain with the treasury.

[CountDeMoney]

The Federal government keeps the money though, the way you guys are saying "withhold" makes it sound like Texas has billions in Federal dollars stashed away in some vault somewhere. If they decline to accept Federal funding for certain programs in a given fiscal year, they just do not get disbursed and remain with the treasury.

If it's fair to bitch about the Feds withholding funds to force states into compliance as not in the "spirit of the constitution", e.g. highway funds, then it's fair to bitch about states punishing their own citizens by not electing to accept Federal funding simply to make political points. 

[Sheilbh]

The government in waiting:

Jeremy Corbyn aides refuse Tom Watson one-on-one meeting
Labour leader's camp believe deputy would use meeting to try to 'bully' Corbyn into resigning, claim insiders
Daniel Boffey Policy editor
Saturday 2 July 2016 20.29 BST Last modified on Saturday 2 July 2016 22.53 BST


A rally backing Jeremy Corbyn in Leeds on Saturday. Photograph: Harry Whitehead/Rex/Shutterstock


Jeremy Corbyn's aides are refusing to let Labour deputy leader Tom Watson hold a one-to-one meeting with him, claiming that Watson will try to "bully" the leader into resigning.

A senior Labour source, close to the embattled leader, said they had blocked Watson from talking privately to Corbyn because they have a "duty of care. They [Watson's aides] want Watson to be on his own with Corbyn so that he can jab his finger at him," the source said.

"We are not letting that happen. He's a 70-year-old [sic] man. We have a duty of care ... This is not a one-off. There is a culture of bullying. Maybe it's a Blairite/Brownite thing."

Another Labour source said later: "Jeremy is completely determined. He sees this as a matter of principle, and a defence of the democratic process. He's up for the fight and he certainly won't let anyone try and bully him out."

A spokesman for Watson – who has been seeking to reach a negotiated settlement with Corbyn over the latter's future – said: "Tom has always had a very good working and personal relationship with Jeremy."

A delegation of shadow cabinet ministers, led by shadow home secretary Andy Burnham, also failed to secure a meeting with Corbyn last Thursday to try to negotiate a resolution.

The extraordinary developments come as the Labour leader's spokesman denied claims made to this newspaper that an emotional Corbyn, 67, had a "Wednesday wobble" over his position after prime minister's questions last week, and that a senior aide had drawn up a five-point extraction plan for the beleaguered leader.

On Saturday the Labour leader was held back by aides after appearing to lose his temper at a "Say No to Hate Crime" rally on Highbury Fields in north London, after a reporter asked if he was running away from questions about his leadership.

Under the supposed extraction deal – allegedly sketched out last Wednesday by Corbyn's director of policy, Andrew Fisher – Corbyn would have stood down as leader in return for staying in the shadow cabinet, senior Labour sources claimed.

His close ally, John McDonnell, would have remained as shadow chancellor and both men's staff would have been retained. A place in a future leadership election would have been secured for a candidate on the left, such as the shadow defence secretary, Clive Lewis.

There would also have been a commitment to Labour retaining an anti-austerity policy platform.

Sources said that the plan was swiftly dropped by Corbyn on Wednesday evening, with one claiming that McDonnell was "keeping Corbyn hostage".

On Saturday night the leader's spokesman said the claims were "100% untrue" and that Corbyn was resolved to stay in position.

Meanwhile, a leaked internal analysis of Labour's performance in May's local elections, obtained by the Observer, offers a grim forecast of the party's future under Corbyn.

The analysis concludes that they have piled up votes in parts of the country where it would make little difference in a general election, while losing support in key marginal seats.

"Outside the areas with new ward boundaries, we made 91 losses and 68 gains compared to when these seats were last contested in 2012," officials write.

"We can look into the specific areas changing hands to better understand how and if the structure of Labour support is changing. In England, in those areas that would be considered key seats for a future general election, we made nine gains and 44 losses.

"The strategic problem is that only 14% of our gains were in areas we need in order to win general elections – while just under 50% of our losses were in those areas."

There have been more than 60 frontbench resignations, and an overwhelming vote of no confidence in Corbyn, since this newspaper's revelation that Hilary Benn was orchestrating a plot to remove the leader. The shadow foreign secretary was sacked in the early hours of last Sunday.

Corbyn has publicly shown little indication that he is ready to stand aside, while McDonnell has urged those plotting against the leader to spark a formal leadership contest.

It is understood that the former shadow work and pensions secretary, Owen Smith, is now in poll position to be the "unity candidate" to challenge Corbyn, should he not stand down.

However, one of the shadow cabinet ministers who resigned last week said the rebels were willing to play a "long game". "Every day that this goes on, the worse it is for him," she said. "Members are realising that this is an untenable position."

On Saturday night, Corbyn allies accused the parliamentary party of sabotaging Labour's ability to hold the government to account.

One Labour source said those at the top of the party were livid when it emerged that files on a shared Labour party hard drive relating to the finance bill going through parliament had been deleted as the shadow finance secretary Rob Marris resigned.

An internal email seen by this newspaper said: "Unfortunately, it looks like someone from Rob Marris's office has deleted the vast majority of the finance bill records and notes on each clause from the shared drive."

A Labour source raised the spectre of deselection, adding that it fitted in with a campaign of sabotage. He said: "The finance bill is a hugely important bit of legislation. Under normal times the party's severest punishment to my knowledge for such transgression could go as high as deselection.

"This is because such a bill normally includes important measures involving things like tax avoidance and pensioners and working families.

"For example, in this case his actions could have led to undermining things such as our opposition to the tampon tax, which – if he had his way – would have prevented us from ending it sooner."

A shadow Treasury spokesperson said: "We don't comment on internal matters. It has been a busy week but Rebecca Long-Bailey has stepped forward and done a magnificent job. The shadow Treasury team will continue holding the Tories to account at this crucial time."

[garbon]

Duty of care? Like he needs carers in a nursing home?

[Admiral Yi]

Duty of care? Like he needs carers in a nursing home?

If you had experienced some of that Blairite finger jabbing first hand you might not be so flippant.  It's not just run of the mill finger jabbing.

[CountDeMoney]

What a bunch of pussies. Maggie Thatcher would've garrotted somebody with her scarf by now.