Poland ready for nuclear energy, says minister - World Nuclear News

Poland ready for nuclear energy, says minister - World Nuclear News: In order to meet increasing energy demand while meeting climate targets, coal-dependent Poland needs to introduce new sources of energy. This, says the country's energy minister, Kryzstof Tchórzewski, opens the opportunity to introduce emissions-free nuclear energy.

Business articles

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/248421?ctp=BizDev&src=Syndication&msc=GoogleNewsstand

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/248305?ctp=BizDev&src=Syndication&msc=GoogleNewsstand

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/248500?ctp=BizDev&src=Syndication&msc=GoogleNewsstand

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/248421?ctp=BizDev&src=Syndication&msc=GoogleNewsstand

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/248450?ctp=BizDev&src=Syndication&msc=GoogleNewsstand

Land and water law review

file:///C:/Users/Lock/Downloads/SSRN-id959029.pdf

Lock,
Please read, give me your opinion.
Land above or land submerged...I need to speak to land as a totality.
Equal standing for every state when admitted, no matter the finer definition.
Does the equal footing doctrine imply/guarantee/define...equality for all states and does it require the federal relinquishment of lands held in trust?
....then the argument goes to enabling acts....
Each state had one of those too....
But states east of Colorado got their lands returned to them, enabling act aside.
The western states did not, and they argue the enabling act says we volunteered to relinquish our rightful claim.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=959029

Interesting when the Bureau of Reclamation, BLM Statutes are reviewed for limits on powers. Could be under the Department of the Interior [statutes].

See Hage V US for RICO statute being used on USFS and BLM agents that conspired to "TAKE" Hage's land and water rights. $ 14 plus million judgement agains the government granted and upheld under appeal where Judge Jones of Nevada Federal Appeals court referred the BLM and USFS agents over to the Nevada US Attorney for RICO prosecution.

 Reply by doctorhugo on September 1, 2012 at 11:20am

If they said as you say they did and with great EMPHASIS too...

Oh, no Sir they said what they meant and meant what they said . . the Central Federal Government was to be weak and dependent on the States

...how would this "weak"  "Central Federal Government" police and enforce our borders or provide for our common defense on a national scale, not to mention any other menial responsibilities???

The "PREMISE" you accuse me of promoting is what is "FALSE".

I advocate for an "original intent" dedication to constitutional interpretation and have stated such MOST redundantly. Nothing more. What you imagine beyond that are just that...your imaginings Mangus.

• Message

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on September 1, 2012 at 11:21am

Delete

Doc,

Read the Article I Section 8 enumerated powers 

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Notice the punctuation there are no periods that would separate these powers from the other 16 To:  LIMITED ENUMERATED POWERS.

Again you are wrong on the opinion and wrong on the facts - explain with you INTERPRETATIVE SKILLS why the FF &R put this protection in the 5th amendment . . 

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Is that not a limit on taxes or TAKING? The only reason would be to protect property [money, land, businesses, wealth]. see John Locke and the Natural law where the desire to protect property was borrowed.

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on September 1, 2012 at 11:26am

Delete

Atlas,

your so called COMMON FOLKS is insulting the citizens - the same very citizens pushed the Federal Government to make laws that are the issue today. All wanted Protections from all evil and to have a nanny State paying for the mistakes of the individual. 

Common folks of today are starting to come out from the coma of take care of me and moving towards leave me the hell alone. 

Good luck - LMASO

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on September 1, 2012 at 11:34am

Delete

Doc.

your tax issue strawman has been put down many times and I did it again here - you fail to read the Document with out the bias of JUDICIAL REVIEW PROGRESSIVE LIVING CONSTITUTION BELIEF. 

You have been shown with quotes and language but you keep playing the Alinsky game of ignore the question and restate your desired result without PROOFS. You have zero language from the actual CONSTITUTION to support you view in fact I challange you to even find some language from a FF or R that would even lend a scintilla of authority to your way of approving a DEMOCRACY AND KILLING THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS.

The reason you do not is because you can not . . Game on . . 

Permalink Reply by Atlas on September 1, 2012 at 11:41am

In regard to A1, S8;

The opening "clause", or parapgraph and the final paragraph bracket what the Congress can tax or legislate.

Each of those enable action on the items contained in the box. Nothing more or less. Those items are open to interpretation with an eye on the intent of the whole gig to start with.

IMO those authorities are pretty straightforward (unless a parser or slice/dice operation is performed on them to advance an agenda).

The exception and most ambiguous is the "commerce" clause, the scope of whch is always been debated from the beginning.

To Yangus ridiculous remark above: You have bamboozled and confused yourself friend - I was talking about Executive branch and you are going all "spagetti" on us - LMAO - You cant stay on a topic to save your life. You are all over the place man.

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on September 1, 2012 at 1:00pm

Delete

Doc,

here is the first of how many do you require to become a failed premise spreading false logic. 

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction. – Letter to Edmund Pendleton (1792-01-21) James Madison 

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on September 1, 2012 at 10:42am

Delete

Did not say anything about using Executive ORDERS . . and I would agree the EO are not but should require Legislative approval in a period of time say one year? That being said they have been with us since Washington.

The current Congress and Executive is a BAD WAY TO GOVERN IMO.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on September 1, 2012 at 12:03pm

Delete

Atlas,

oh you did not mention EOs read your posts before you make attacks that are outside the original posts . . Here is just one but it shows your error . . 

Reply by Atlas 15 hours ago

Executive is to implement the directions of Congress. Some latitude is allowed for "management".

Issuing EO's that usurp the legislation's intent (law) that was passed by Congress is not included in 'management discretion'.

Here is a post by a man named John from another thread . . 

We can speak indefinitely on the libraries of incidents causing the Framers to spin in their graves.  The only certainty is everything is constitutional until the Court of Final Jurisdiction has had it's say,  or new legislation is passed.  Until then,  everything this President has done by executive fiat and his proxy power delegated to the czars,  is constitutional.   The great news for us is it is constitutional on the federal level.  The Supremecy Clause and Commerce Clause will be challenged many times in the near future.  Pray Justice Roberts gets his meds on time !  The states have just begun to step up to the plate and use their rights as they were intended.

I am done with this dance unless either of you want to present some language that can be verified. . .

Permalink Reply by Atlas on September 1, 2012 at 12:06pm

You are the only one dancing Mangus.

Go back to your original post about all the wonderful things Romney can do if elected without Congress.

I said that was a lousy way to govern and it is. YOU, per usual, are the person who overcomplicated, sliced & diced, parsed, tangoed and made a mess out of a simple statement.

Pity that you have become impossible to converse with.

Adios pard.

• Message

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on September 1, 2012 at 12:17pm

Delete

BS,

You took the original post out of context and  I even agreed that using EO is a bad way to govern . my point was to stop the bleeding quickly and let the nation go after fixing the economy creating JOBS - but Noooo you had to go back into the weeds and argue over EOs the powers of the Executive . . clearly confused over what and where you took the argument . .

The weeds is where you always go and then claim the simple answer is to leave the weeds . . self fulfilling prophecy. What a hoot  . . .

Permalink Reply by doctorhugo on September 1, 2012 at 1:42pm

Your first madiuson quote above echoes me, NOT YOU. It uses the term "limited', which I have acknowledged and which you in your myopic zeal have changed to the "smallest weakest possible".

I predicted this incessant quoting of irrelevant founder dicta to try to prop yourself up and demean my position. Your second letter excerpt does NOTHING to contradict my beliefs. It's nothing more than Madisons' casual and informal observation to a colleague upon what happens when Congress exceeds it's authority. SO WHAT! I directed your attention to just that in my advocating for a fidelity to an "original intent' interpretation.

I'm out of here (on this off-topic discussion) now Mangus. You've not won and ONCE AGAIN have failed to summon up enough courage to respond directly to my simple challenge of a question as everyone reading can see. What do you fear from answering a simple question?
I'm truly sorry you reside in that walled in city of your limited perspective.

• Message

Permalink Reply by doctorhugo on September 1, 2012 at 5:59am

Ah...here we go again Mangoid Man as we hop back on that carousel of INTERPRETATION.

If we follow your consistently stated logic as per your constitutional cut and paste and YOUR INTEPRETATION, (which I remind you, YOU disallow as even being necessary and justified) then there is NO LIMIT on the President's power as per YOUR INTERPRETATION, of this first sentence of Art. II, Sec 1.> "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Why do I say that? Because the power of the executive is stated in B-R-O-A-D terms and R-E-Q-U-I_R-E-S INTERPRETATION.

So you see we keep coming back to this totally walled-in,  illogical position you've painted yourself into. It is that anything remotely akin to applying interpretation is a usurpation, because you believe our Constitution was written in plain and simple terms for the commom man to understand and REQUIRES NO INTERPRETATION.

My position is EVERYTHING REQUIRES INTERPRETATION! And you'll confirm the accuracy of that statement with your response. So..., YES...it is true that the Judiciary Branch is charged with the responsibility of accurately interpreting the constitutionality of law. To do that, one thing is essential. They MUST apply INTERPRETATION to our Constitution.

NOW..., if you are true to your past, you'll  cut and paste for me a bunch of founder/constitutional excerpts of random opinion/comment taken out-of-original-context that you THINK makes your case, BUT which are irrelevant to sustaining your position that INTERPRETATION =USURPATION.. I'll have to ignore them, because they simply represent you running atound in that walled-in intellectual space in eternal circles of the denial of ESSENTIAL reality.

• ▶ Reply
• Message

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on September 1, 2012 at 8:33am

Delete

Then it is QUITE SIMPLE - Doc, in your world the PROGRESSIVES ARE CORRECT . . - there is NO CONSTITUTION it is meaningless and is only an outline for us to follow doing what we please. We can alter the meaning by INTERPRETATION when ever we like and how ever we like. 

No limits to this SUPER all POWERFUL CENTRAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. As Robert did in the ACA and as previous courts did in the M & M cases - NOT TO WORRY - IF IT IS NOT THERE JUST USE BROADER INTERPRETATIONS. Invent a taxing authority for a non Article I Section power.

No, I find not one iota of the F - F & Rs works that would support such a preposterous idea - If the case could be as you say then all of those great thinkers of the time knew they were wasting their time and creating a DEMOCRACY - No, Sir they did not for they created a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC with LIMITED powers and left all other Powers to the many States. 

Oh, no Sir they said what they meant and meant what they said . . the Central Federal Government was to be weak and dependent on the States. No they would never allow a new type of Kingdom to be built on the foundation of a limited government CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC - it is a pure fallacy and a strawman argument that you present = The PREMISE IS THUS FALSE and the conclusion presented is no proof at all.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atlas on September 1, 2012 at 9:58am

So anyway, after all that slicing and dicing, the Executive is to implement legislation by congress, within the spirit, intent and letter of the legislation, as Congress is the representation of the People.

When an executives goes beyond those bounds for his own purposes, it is a usurptation of the Congress authority.

Because no legislation could possibly micro-manage every aspect of an intent, some management judgement must be allowed for by the Executive. All executive branch agencies are subject to the ruling authority; Congress, originator of the legislation.

Full circle - LOL

• Message

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on September 1, 2012 at 10:54am

Delete

Atlas,

no circle except in your world . . the Executive is limited but has very broad management powers - the Congress does not instruct how the law is to be applied and structured that is the function of the Executive pure an simple. 

Where do the words [the Executive is to implement legislation by congress, within the spirit, intent and letter of the legislation, as Congress is the representation of the People.] appear in the Constitution? I do not recall seeing those but I might have missed them.

Like spending money for non Article I section 8 limits . . I find no language that permits Congress or the Executive to spend on any item they choose.

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – Annals of Congress (1794-01-10) Jame Madison

Permalink Reply by Atlas on September 1, 2012 at 10:59am

Chase your own tail mangus.

Common folks will agree with the simply put pov I presented. I know that for a fact, because in the flesh and blood world, there is an affirmative response to it.

Have a nice day.

• Message

Permalink Reply by doctorhugo on September 1, 2012 at 11:04am

MANGUS. May I repeat my continuing challenge to you, that for some reason you are afraid to accept.

I've asked you in the past...

How do you limit the power to tax, when in Art. I, Sec. 8. it is written as "Power to lay and collect Taxes..."?

When read in the simpleminded style you say our Constitution was written in...there is NO LIMIT upon taxation authority. PERIOD. Ah ha! but there is a tool in this section in the final paragraph. It's known as the Necessary and Proper Clause (N&PC) and gives a 'flexibility of interpretation' AUTHORITY to limit enumerated rights by saying they should be "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers," . Herein lies that bugaboo that irks you. It doesn't say it's a "limiting' power, it could be a "broadly" applicable power. Realizing that you and, I guess, your Goldwater Institute devotees you bear an allegiance to, simply deny it's existence. You have consistently denied that clause and meaning which is obvious and needs no interpretation. I KNOW WHY YOU DO. Maybe, because if you admit it then it opens the door to a possible unlimited interpretation of meaning and you fear that as I note here with redundnce to pound that point home to you. I do not. I trust to the "original intent" influences of the founder ratifiers that acknowledged states rights and did NOT support an all-powerful and controlling federal government. I've even quoted you excerpts from Washington's Letter of Transmittal where he indicated that all parties made some compromise and not all got their ideal. They were writing a guide for a government to establish a national sovereign presence for the states as a Union and to deal with only the most basic of common concerns of the states.

Reality angers you as it odes me, but I haven't reacted as you have. The strident leftards have loaded the court, especially and aggressively since the Warren court and built a government way beyond anything the founders would have approved of in scope and authority. TOUGH! It's our responsibility to fight and get control and roll that sh*t back. It's not our responsibility to make of our Constitution something it is not. A rigid document of direction with no latitude for any interpretation. A totally unworkable instrument unable to cope with ANY CHANGE at all and by its own rigid meaning, conveyed by a narrowminded interpretation, irrational.

It's why I decribe myself as an "original intent" conservative Republican.

What you do is use the left's lack of respect for "original intent" to fuel your very limited view, but like I keep saying your view cannot stand up to a fair challenge.

You are hard put to ever admit being wrong my friend, so I sadly do not anticipate you'll take this in the spirit given and change.

Do feel free, once again, to respond to this factually...

How do you limit the power to tax, when in Art. I, Sec. 8. it is written as "Power to lay and collect Taxes..."?

(especially when you deny any interpretation and also the N&PC.)

It's but one of many such examples of questions that your view has no answer for. Without ackowledging INTERPRETATION you have NOTHING, so you get out your broad brush and paint everything a a usurpation.If it werent sad it woul be laughable as a position to take.