We wiped out a quarter million people off of the earth to save some unknown number (presumably many more) of BOTH SIDES.

With how much destruction the Japanese would accept without surrendering, the remaining fight would have been very, very bloody. When you consider that after Hiroshima, the Japanese responded with "Is that all you've got?" they weren't going to give in without being decimated beyond all comprehension.

Two points:

1) Are there no conservatives in our intelligence community? Why does every leak help the Democratic party. Under Bush, the leaks were intended to undercut his policies; under Obama, leaks are intended to burnish his credentials. Maybe conservatives in our intelligence community just don't leak because they have ethics. Feels good to think that.

2) The ONLY reason we have gone with the drone option under Obama is the worst thing he could ever imagine is to capture a terrorist alive. What would he do with him? He has no policy and hasn't thought about it. All he knows is that whatever Bush did was incorrect.

Remember this about what Bush did: 

• Torture never works
• Waterboarding worked
• ergo...Waterboarding cannot be torture

That a whole bunch of people could watch that and determine that they could never vote for Romney bothers me to no end. We need the Santorum hold-outs to watch that repeatedly. I haven't seen a better argument FOR electing Romney in a long time.

Thanks Obama/Biden Truth Team.

Sullivan simply wants you to follow what he thinks Jesus would want you to follow. He thinks Jesus would be a fan of Gay Marriage, so any group that isn't a fan, should be ignored by all of us. That is it. Sullivan is a one-trick pony and has been for a long time.

Duane,

My understanding was that LIV was stuck down because the end result was a law that hadn't been passed by the Congress. If that assessment is wrong and it was due to an appropriation as you indicate in the last post, could you point me to an analysis that explains that - or explain it for me. I am not being snarky, I honestly don't know what you mean by that and would like to understand it better.

My point is that the constitutional definition of a law is that it is passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. When you strike any small part of it, the result is something that doesn't meet that definition any longer. That is my understanding as to why LIV was deemed unconstitutional. If, and only if, that was the reasoning, I fully understand it and can agree with it, but it throws the severing of a law by the Supreme Court into question in my mind.

Actually, the problem posed by this post is precisely whether it is or should be ok to strike a single component of a law but let the rest stand. The Supreme Court itself brought this question to light when they striked down the President's Line Item Veto. That was killed because it results in a law that does not qualify under the constitutional definition (passed by Congress and signed by the President). When the SC strikes only part of a law, they did the exact same thing (create a law that does not meet their own constitutional definition)

Terry, I like your forecast better. :-)

Combine that with a Romney victory and Ryan may actually see a budget of his signed into law - even more amazing, the Senate may actually submit one. WOW!

So you are saying it goes back a few years ;-)

Ok, I don't see how the Supreme's logic in calling the line item veto unconstitutional holds water in light of severability.

Essentially, a law is only a law if passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President, unless the Supreme Court says different. That doesn't work. Clearly with the concept of judicial review, the Court needs the authority to strike a law, but to strike just a small portion of a law is too similar to the unconstitutional line item veto power. The result is the same, the only difference is who did it.

James, the Supreme Court has declared that the President cannot strike that component from the bill using a line item veto because it is unconstitutional. The only way to say that the Justices can do something that has the same result as the President doing it (making a law that has not been passed or signed) is to say that everything the Supreme Court does is constitutional simply because they did it. That is like arguing against evolution by claiming God put the dinosaur fossils in the ground. Since God can do anything, all argument is over.

How is "suspended animation" different then from killing it? If Congress doesn't act it is dead and how is that Congressional action different in a suspension vs a strike-down of the whole thing.

Mr Yoo,

That was my question - thank you for the reply here directly on Ricochet. And Aaron, thank you for the reply on my earlier post that you link to here.  I now better understand the situation if a severability clause is included and agree that is constitutional. Essentially, both houses of Congress and the President are passing the legislation as is AND passing it if a part is stricken as unconstitutional.

My main point isn't that the court can't be expected to mind-read Congress, but that they shouldn't be allowed to. The end result is something that does not fit the definition of a law under the Constitution.

Subsequently, where does this power come from? Historically, when was it first invoked and was it challenged then?

Great reply Aaron. Personally, I don't even like the concept when it is included in the bill. Most basically, what the law becomes after the severing does not meet the constitutional definition of a law (passed by both Houses and signed by the President.

So, with a law that has no routine severability language, like Obamacare, that doesn't really fit. And why wouldn't the Line-Item Veto be constitutional on the "massive multipart laws"?

Apparently the Supreme Court could decide to strike only the mandate (leaving insurance companies to go bankrupt); strike the mandate, guaranteed issue, and community rating (leaving the exchanges and extraneous bits); strike those things plus the exchanges and the related items (leaving the extraneous bits); or keep the whole thing. They could decide any of those ways because each of those options is consitutional. Why?

What gives them the power to twist a law into something that no other branch of government approved of?

My only problem with the Velveeta/Ro-tel combo is my ultra-liberal brother-in-law who always has to tell me (like it is new and interesting news) that Bill Clinton loves this dip. After the third time, you would think he would remember that he had already told me about it. Seriously, I shudder every time I think of what to prepare for parties when he will be there and I have chosen to skip the Queso just to avoid getting to discuss President Clinton's favorite things. Too many cigar images flash in my head at that topic.

What I didn't like was her encouragement that SC voters support Newt so that the primary could continue longer. How 'bout letting SC voters vote for the candidate they choose. Don't encourage people to "send a message" or cause something else to happen with their vote. Vote for the person you want to see as the Republican presidential nominee. That is it. She made it very clear that she didn't support Newt, only that she wanted the process to continue longer. That's fine, but it is a bit selfish to encourage people to waste their vote so that you can get your desired outcome.