Thursday Open Thread

hey, open thread. (for now)
Was C.C and Company the predecessor to C C Music Factory?

I open with "While California's economic value burns to worthless ash, last night Kingdom Hollywood throws a lavish party charging $30,000 per person to help keep their Nanny-Statist-in-Chief in the position of stealing everything from Liberty-Loving Americans across the land"

If California wants a bailout from its' self-inflected economic death spiral then California should get the money from Kingdom Hollywood.

I am sick and tired of paying for Malibu-mansions and Liberal limousines who subject me to their miserable tyranny.

I love Mars Attacks. When Natalie Portman was just cute, not annoying. "I'm calling YOOOOOUUUUUU!!" (That movie also ruined me for Rose Marie, the origin for that song. The only Eddy/MacDonald film I can't sit through.)

C.C. and Company, as stated by Dan Ackroyd, “truly bad cinema,” Ann Margaret is always nice on the screen. Sanford always funny.

Fantastic question. I look forward to one of our legal eagles to state their opinion.
I would think that under the terms of amending a state constitution that the judiciary of that state would be required to uphold the will of the people. On the other hand, the ability to amend a state constitution based on a 50%+1 vote seems a bit too easy and leaves open the posibility of several new amendments in any given year.

Nancy hasn't been this angry since a house dropped on her sister.

I didn't realize I was setting up a punchline, very well played sir!

I can live with the first two.
Bimmer sounds like a muppet to me.

Dance like a Cadillac sting like a Beamer.

Ha. I love that movie.

I saw someone on facebook said their "bimmer" got egged last night. I had to read the comments beneath it to realize they meant a car. I've always seen it Beemer, since Beamer looks like something to do with lasers. But not "bimmer."

That Paul James guy has got to be the most annoying person on TV…besides the whole Kardashian Klan, of course.

Let's hope the "House" will fall on her…

I loved "Mars Attacks" especially when out of nowhere you have Tom Jones: Action Hero.

A fortnight passes and Saddam flies to the United States for talks. As the two men sit down, Hussein notices three buttons on Bush's chair and prepares himself for the Yank's revenge.

They begin talking and George presses the first button. Saddam ducks, but nothing happens. Bush snickers. A few seconds later he presses the second button. Saddam jumps up, but again nothing happens. Bush roars with laughter. When the third button is pressed, Saddam jumps up again, and again nothing happens. Bush falls on the floor in a fit of hysterics.

"Forget this," says Saddam. "I'm going back to Baghdad!"

Bush says through tears of laughter, "What Baghdad?"

Freddie Prinze, Jr. on 24 next year?! That's the last straw. I can't think of a single reason why I should watch this show any more. I am done.

yeesh. Loved the 'Mars Attacks' bubble gum cards as a wee tot… was incredibly disappointed in the film- and Hollywood hasn't given Tim Burton a big budget without adult supervision since. Still, it did have so many utterly ridiculous moments (Slim Whitman??) that as straight parody it will have a place.

We highly recommend going online and viewing the entire card set from the early 60's…

Hey, don't pick on Freddie, he is cute, and a conservative!

I'm picking on him because he is painfully untalented.

I'm a Harley rider myself. I need to rent this one someday.

Remeber what Glenda the GOOD witch told Dorothy about bad witches …

Only BAD witches are UGLY my dear.

EEEEE HEEEE HEEEE HEEEE

winx

I thought the Green Peloski face of jealousy was fairly apt about now — after all, she is the Queen Wicked Witch of OBAMA-OZLAND

Well, the T-shirts BWM sells have it as "bimmer." But, having had far more mechanical fun than any human should with my old 535i, I think dcase wins it with Bring My Wallet.

Gentlemen, you are asking for an essay here — this is a complex question with a lot of facets. But, generally speaking, here's the deal. . .

First, let's distinguish between "laws" and amendments to constitutions. They are two different things. Laws must conform to the requirements of the constitution, whereas amendments can change the constitution itself.

As dcase suggests, you next need to distinguish between state constitutions and The Constitution. When dealing with an amendment to a state constitution, you first look at the amendment to determined if its proponents followed all of the right procedures required by state law — correct number of signatures, voting certifications, etc. If not, it’s struck down on procedural grounds.

(cont)

In this instance, the CA Supreme Court could find that the new amendment is invalid because it conflicts with a superior constitutional right. But I have never seen such a ruling on a constitutional level (again, laws are a different issue). Instead, the court will try to get rid of the conflict by "harmonizing" the two, i.e. trying to find an interpretation of the new amendment that does not conflict with the existing constitutional provision. This makes for strange decisions. For example, they might conclude that the voters "did not mean to include Sundays when they used the word ‘weekend’."

The real constitutional test comes up when the courts look at the amendment in light of the federal Constitution. Both state courts and federal courts can undertake this kind of analysis. What happens here is that the court will look at the new law (as interpreted) and ask whether that new law would violate the federal Constitution.

(cont)

Obama doesn't believe there is anyone wiser than himself.

well done. Carefully reasoned and elucidated. Sorry we couldn't give more than four thumbs up…