Recent posts

#1

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by garbon - Today at 01:14:21 PM

Looks like Labour are worried about Khan in a way that goes beyond just expectations management.

Obviously voting system moved to FPTP this year. But the bigger concern seems to be that it looks like turnout is lower in Labour areas - add that to defections to the Greens (both probably because of Gaza) and it could be enough for Khan to lose.

Although I think Stephen Bush is probably right on his hunch of 38-35, Khan winning.

I'd add that this is the second election where Khan has fallen short of expectations. The only election he really trounced was his first - and I suspect part of this is because he is a pretty underwhelming mayor. Not helped by a Tory government that wants to make life difficult for him, but still. I feel like going for a third term was probably not a great idea and Labour would be better served by letting someone else have a crack in 2028.

Edit: Also looks like ULEZ has come up in motivating voters to turnout in Tory areas.

I made sure my husband got to the polls but yeah, after this definitely time for Sadiq to move on.

#2

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Sheilbh - Today at 12:59:07 PM

Looks like Labour are worried about Khan in a way that goes beyond just expectations management.

Obviously voting system moved to FPTP this year. But the bigger concern seems to be that it looks like turnout is lower in Labour areas - add that to defections to the Greens (both probably because of Gaza) and it could be enough for Khan to lose.

Although I think Stephen Bush is probably right on his hunch of 38-35, Khan winning.

I'd add that this is the second election where Khan has fallen short of expectations. The only election he really trounced was his first - and I suspect part of this is because he is a pretty underwhelming mayor. Not helped by a Tory government that wants to make life difficult for him, but still. I feel like going for a third term was probably not a great idea and Labour would be better served by letting someone else have a crack in 2028.

Edit: Also looks like ULEZ has come up in motivating voters to turnout in Tory areas.

#3

Off the Record / Re: 2024 US Presidential Elect...

Last post by grumbler - Today at 12:46:07 PM

Depends, really.

 

#4

Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023

Last post by The Minsky Moment - Today at 12:45:22 PM

Under the Canadian Constitution immigration is expressly reserved for the federal government (well "Naturalization and Aliens"), but even more generally any power not expressly enumerated to the provinces will go to the Feds.  That's how the Feds have jurisdiction over such topics that were not even conceived of in 1867 like aeronautics or radio waves.

Is there a similar "reserve clause" in the US Constitution?

There is a reserve clause but it goes the opposite way!  The 10th amendment provides: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As you indicate above, Chinese exclusion was passed about a century after the Constitution (and is hardly a shining moment for the American historical scrapbook).  The Supreme Court did cop out along the lines that Otto indicated, grasping at the straw of "inherent sovereign power" - a supposed authority that crops up from time to time whenever the executive does something blatantly unconstitutional but the Court finds it politically inconvenient to call them on it. The notion of inherent sovereign power is fundamentally at odds with the US constitutional design and both the text and purpose of the 10th Amendment; among other dubious features, the doctrine bases federal authority on international practice of other sovereigns, whether free or not (in the 18th century - mostly not).

The power could be based on the Commerce Clause as interpreted from 1941 to around the mid 90s, but historically was not for the obvious reasons, and probably couldn't now after the ACA case.

#5

Off the Record / Re: [Canada] Canadian Politics...

Last post by Barrister - Today at 12:27:56 PM

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nijjar-killing-arrests-made-1.7192807

Apparently arrests made in the killing of "prominent Sikh separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar".

This was the killing intelligence linked to the Indian government.

This could get "interesting"...

#6

Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023

Last post by Tamas - Today at 12:19:50 PM

Being anti-Islamic is not white supremacist,

Sure, but the GOP is.

#7

Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023

Last post by HVC - Today at 12:15:47 PM

And now Tamas understands my position--the West needs to actively resist its Islamization. No Western country should be letting even a single Muslim move in, Muslim non-citizens need to be harried and deported as much as legally possible.

I may understand your position but you sure as hell don't understand your own. Unleashing a randomised demented wrecking ball on your own country as well as its international relations cannot possibly be an improvement for "your position". You are either trolling or have been itching for the slightest of excuses to go back to the GOPs warm white supremacist embrace.

I'm waiting for the Damascene conversion to Islam.

#8

Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023

Last post by Barrister - Today at 12:13:56 PM

To be clear--nothing in our constitution prohibits Congress or the President from excluding persons from the privilege of immigrating here.

That is not so.  Immigration is not a privilege under the Constitution. The Constitution established the limited set of powers that the federal government may exercise. Control on immigration is not one of those enumerated powers.  That is especially so because if one uses the Court's current history-based framework, it is pretty obvious that restricting entry is not a power the founding generation thought the federal government had.  The only effort to invoke something like such a power in the first 100 years - the Alien Friends Act - was never enforced, expired shortly after enactment, and was widely believed to be an unconstitutional usurpation.

Wrong.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/chinese-exclusion-act

There is no doubt that any sovereign state controls immigration, it never needed to be written into the constitution explicitly.

The Chinese exclusion Act was passed about 100 years after the Constitution so it kind of goes to Joan's point.

#9

Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023

Last post by Barrister - Today at 12:12:57 PM

To be clear--nothing in our constitution prohibits Congress or the President from excluding persons from the privilege of immigrating here.

That is not so.  Immigration is not a privilege under the Constitution. The Constitution established the limited set of powers that the federal government may exercise. Control on immigration is not one of those enumerated powers.  That is especially so because if one uses the Court's current history-based framework, it is pretty obvious that restricting entry is not a power the founding generation thought the federal government had.  The only effort to invoke something like such a power in the first 100 years - the Alien Friends Act - was never enforced, expired shortly after enactment, and was widely believed to be an unconstitutional usurpation.

So this is an aside, but...

Under the Canadian Constitution immigration is expressly reserved for the federal government (well "Naturalization and Aliens"), but even more generally any power not expressly enumerated to the provinces will go to the Feds.  That's how the Feds have jurisdiction over such topics that were not even conceived of in 1867 like aeronautics or radio waves.

Is there a similar "reserve clause" in the US Constitution?


(As a further aside though, between health care and education being reserved for the provinces, and provinces being granted jurisdiction over "property and civil rights" which has been judicially foiund to be quite broad, the Provinces generally have more power despite the reserve clause)

#10

Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023

Last post by OttoVonBismarck - Today at 12:07:37 PM

To be clear--nothing in our constitution prohibits Congress or the President from excluding persons from the privilege of immigrating here.

That is not so.  Immigration is not a privilege under the Constitution. The Constitution established the limited set of powers that the federal government may exercise. Control on immigration is not one of those enumerated powers.  That is especially so because if one uses the Court's current history-based framework, it is pretty obvious that restricting entry is not a power the founding generation thought the federal government had.  The only effort to invoke something like such a power in the first 100 years - the Alien Friends Act - was never enforced, expired shortly after enactment, and was widely believed to be an unconstitutional usurpation.

Wrong.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/chinese-exclusion-act

There is no doubt that any sovereign state controls immigration, it never needed to be written into the constitution explicitly.