text:
Jack Balkin:
jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman
bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres
ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider
corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak
mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin
joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber
mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin
sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz
jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler
jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman
akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman
msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson
slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban
david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca
gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone
mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain
lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail
mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale
pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily
npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen
michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein
dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes
rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen
dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus
raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph
alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel
siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super
david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha
btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe
nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet
mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler
winkler at ucla.edu
Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases
The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC
The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic)
Recent Posts
Why exactly is the Senate permitted to expel a felon?
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Why exactly is the Senate permitted to expel a felon?
Sandy Levinson
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid is apparently confident that Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) is not long for the Senate: On CNN today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid . . . declared that Mr. Stevens will not, will not be in the Senate, come the next session. Asked about Senator Daniel Inouye's declaration that Mr. Stevens of course could return, Mr. Reid said: All the Republicans — John Ensign, head of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, Republican Leader McConnell and a long list of people — said that he's going to be kicked out of the Senate. Of course he is. He is not going to survive.
On CNN today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid . . . declared that Mr. Stevens will not, will not be in the Senate, come the next session. Asked about Senator Daniel Inouye's declaration that Mr. Stevens of course could return, Mr. Reid said:
All the Republicans — John Ensign, head of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, Republican Leader McConnell and a long list of people — said that he's going to be kicked out of the Senate. Of course he is. He is not going to survive.
Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution states that each house can expel a member with a 2/3 vote. My reading of that clause is that the expulsion portion is independent from the "rules" and "punish" sections. Do you read it differently? And regardless, couldn't they punish and then remove any member? The Constitution doesn't say they have to have a reason to expel them - they just have to have a 2/3 vote. Isn't this what was decided in Powell v. McCormack?
Are you saying that Thornton renders Congress's exclusion of the Southern Representatives during Reconstruction unconstitutional?
If one believes that the Senate does indeed have plenary power, then, I presume, it would be perfectly legitimate, as a constitutional matter, to refuse to a newly-elected senator on racial or religious grounds, which, I presume, just can't be right, even if no court would intervene (and are we really confident that courts would choose to impotent in the case of such an outrage?).
I think an even better counterexample would be an expulsion for partisan reasons - a Republican majority expels a Democrat so the state's Republican governor can temporarily appoint a Republican in time to vote on a key vote. That's plainly an abuse of the Senate's Article 1, Section 5 powers.
I agree with Jason that under Powell v. McCormack, the Senate's powers to expel are much broader than its constitutionally limited powers to exclude. (Powell explicitly declines to address the potential unconstitutionality of a decision to expel the congressman.)
There is an argument that Stevens should not be expelled because his constituents knew of his conduct when they re-elected him. See Josh Chafetz, Democracy's Privileged Few, at 211. But Chafetz argues that the option of expulsion in such cases should be available where "a Member acts antithetically to national popular sovereignty" even if "in the interests of his constituents."
I'm with Jason, it does say,
"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."
Seems crystal clear. This isn't the first time I've had cause to wonder this: When was the last time you actually sat down an read the Constitution?
All the previous posters are correct. This is not a question of whether Stevens is qualified to sit in the Senate. He is, and the Senate will have to seat him in January.
The question is whether the Senate will expel him. The Senate certainly has the power to do so, although as Daniel notes there is an argument that a Senator should not be expelled for conduct known to his constituents at the time of election.
In any event, Stevens shouldn't be expelled just for being a "convicted felon" (at least in theory). He should be expelled, if at all, for the underlying conduct that made him a convicted felon.
I have blogged about this at some length at www.pointoforder.com.
(Powell explicitly declines to address the potential unconstitutionality of a decision to expel the congressman.)
Simply and only because they didn't have to come to that question.
Isn't there room for argument on what "expel" means as far as authority of congress applies? I agree, Stevens was elected as is, and satisfies the requirements. Who is congress to say Alaska may not choose its own senator, or that Alaska's senator is somehow subject to the approval of congress. In other instances where congress has lawful input, it is stated. It is not stated here. That omission seems potentially significant.
I voted for the other guy.
I think an even better counterexample would be an expulsion for partisan reasons - a Republican majority expels a Democrat so the state's Republican governor can temporarily appoint a Republican in time to vote on a key vote.
Tray, it takes 2/3, so I can't imagine what "key vote" could be at issue, unless perhaps a key vote on a constitutional amendment (3/4 vote req'd) -- which seems a bit farfetched.
Yeah, that's a good point Anderson. And now that I read Powell v. McCormack, it seems quite clear that the Court thought expulsion in cases of bad behavior was quite permissible, while Congress could only exclude members who didn't meet qualifications.
I do stand corrected that the relevant clause is the "expulsion" clause. But I still don't know exactly why that gives carte blanche to Congress. Presumably the offending member of Congress has to be guilty of "disorderly behavior." It's not clear to me that violating a federal law, particularly if its malum prohibitum and not malum in se, constitutes such behavior (as distinguished, for example, from a member of the House caning a senator).
It's interesting, incidentally, that the given House of Congress must actually vote to expel; presumably, this means that they can't pass a "rule" stating that the seat is automatically vacant if onen is convicted of a federal crime. So the House or the Senate must exercise independent judgment, and on what, exactly, is the judgment based. As to Jason's initial comment, incidentally, I don't think that it is reasonable to read the Constitution as licensing any governmental action, by any governmental official, in the absence of a legitimate reason. The only possible exception is presidential pardoning.
As to gerard's question, I view the exclusion of the Southern representatives as an important continuation of the War and assuring that the North would actually be able to prevail. Bruce Ackerman is canonical on this point.
Is not the issue whether a Member is liable to be expelled for "conduct unbecoming a member of the House" - a Senator is addressed as "honourable" and as a "gentleman", neither of which appellations are consistent with a conviction for felony?
However, is there not something of a rush to judgment because as I understand the time for appealing the conviction is not yet expired?
On the assuption that the Senate is master of its procedure in such a matter, would not the more appropriate measure be to suspend the Senator from the service of the Senate pending conclusion of any appeal and only move to definitive expulsion once the conviction is final?
In most parliamentary procedures, the process of suspension from service means the person may not enter on the floor or sit on any committee.
If the appellate process is very lengthy, the Senator may consider it in the interests of his constituents to resign anyway.
The disciplinary clause gives each House a very broad discretion with regard to what offenses warrant punishment, or so it has consistently been construed by both Houses (with occasional support from the judiciary and commentators). I don't think anyone would seriously dispute that the offense of making false statements on financial disclosure forms (which is what Stevens was convicted of) is "disorderly behavior" for which he could be punished. Even if Stevens is only guilty of taking gifts that he knew or should have known violated the Senate gift rules, the Senate would clearly have the authority to punish him.
The real question has to do with the appropriate punishment. Here there are two problems. First, the Senate has only expelled 15 Senators in its history, all of whom were guilty of treason (supporting the Confederacy) or, in one case, something very close thereto. Senate precedent does not support the notion that Stevens's offenses warrant expulsion.
Second, even if expulsion would otherwise be warranted, the fact that Alaska voters elected Stevens with knowledge of his misconduct strongly argues against expulsion. It could even be argued that this operates as an absolute bar to expulsion, although, IMHO, this goes too far (for reasons spelled out in Josh Chafetz's book).
Mourad- the Senate does not have the power to suspend a Senator, as this would deprive his state of equal representation in the Senate, which is a very big no-no under our Constitution.
MLS - I can understand that it is wrong to deprive a state of its representation - arguably more importantly it deprives the electors of representation.
However, it seems to me that where the facts relied upon for improper conduct are the same as those relied upon for a criminal conviction, there is merit in waiting for a conviction to be come final so as to create an estoppel.
Otherwise, would there not be a danger of injustice in proceeding to expel at once based merely on the fact of the conviction without re-examination of the facts?
"I do stand corrected that the relevant clause is the "expulsion" clause. But I still don't know exactly why that gives carte blanche to Congress."
Because it states the power to expel without any qualifiers. Therefore it doesn't HAVE any qualifiers. This is not rocket science. It's basic reading skills.
It could be argued that expelling a Senator for conduct the voters were aware of is tacky, maybe unprecedented, but it's not "unconstitutional". That last would require that the constitution say something against it.
Can we have an end to this whole "Extract higher principles from the Constitution, generalize them, and then use them to contradict what the Constitution actually says gambit?
At any rate, I don't expect him to be expelled. It's not in the interest of the Democratic party to expel a Republican who will be replaced with a Republican, or to remove from the Senate a glaring example of Republican corruption. AND, way too many Senators are aware that the only thing that separates them from Stevens is the ignorance of law enforcement.
If Brett is suggesting that Stevens is the tip of the iceberg in the Senate (or the entire Congress), more the political reason for the Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, to want to excise him. A Senator coming to the defense of Stevens on purely legal principles can quickly be subjected to challenges of his/her own integrity - and reelection. Let the legal processes run their course. Besides, aren't there higher priorities to be addressed? And perhaps Stevens' attorneys may work something out.
Mourad- the results of Stevens's criminal trial, whether or not appeals have been exhausted, are not binding on the Senate. Any Senate action against Stevens would not be predicated on the fact that he has been convicted, but will be based (at least in theory) on the Senate's independent assessment of his conduct.
Assuming the Senate follows regular order, the first step will be for the Senate Ethics Committee to review the matter, conduct an inquiry and make a recommendation to the full Senate. While the committee may rely heavily on the trial transcripts for evidence, it must give Stevens an opportunity to present other evidence and argument in his own defense. Thus, Stevens could present evidence that the court excluded, or new evidence, or evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, etc.
mls --
Why is Mourad wrong? Doesn't the criminal conviction have a res judicata effect as to Stevens having committed the acts comprising the crimes of which he was convicted? This seems to be the approach taken in the federal judge impeachment cases. This also disposes of Sandy's complaint that Stevens would be excluded/expelled for his conviction, as I think you said, it would be for the acts underlying the conviction.
As I understand it the nearest parallel is the case of Harrison Williams. The Committee on Ethics recommended that Williams be expelled because of his "ethically repugnant" conduct in the Abscam scandal, for which he was convicted of conspiracy, bribery, and conflict of interest. Prior to a Senate vote on his expulsion, Williams resigned on March 11, 1982.
So fair dealing suggests there has to be at least an enquiry and report by an appropriate committee of the Senate. I would assume that while the Senate is master of its procedures, ordinary principles of due process would require that the procedure be quasi-judicial.
By why should the conviction (once final) not estop the Senator from contesting the facts - although not stopping the Senator from arguing in mitigation.
But until the conviction has become final, it would seem unfair to rush to judgment on that basis.
Conversely, even if the Senator were acquitted, that would seem to be no bar to the Senate conducting its own enquiry and considering whether censure or expulsion were proper.
As I understand it, in the impeachment case of Judge Claiborne, the House managers proposed that the Senate grant preclusive effect to the prior conviction, but the Senate declined to do so. A number of Senators, including Hatch and Specter, expressed the view that the Senate had a constitutional obligation to make an independent determination of the facts, and not merely rely on the jury's verdict.
With regard to ethics proceedings, in the Harrison Williams case, the Senate committee's report indicated that it had made independent findings on the evidence presented, rather than just relying on the verdict.
The assumption of congressional experts like Rob Walker, the former staff director of the Senate Ethics Committee, is that the Senate will approach the Stevens case in the same way, and will come to an independent judgment about the facts.
So Mourad's suggestion that the Senate wait until conviction is final and then apply res judicata principles to the conviction is not necessarily "wrong" or unreasonable; it is just not how the Senate has approached these matters in the past, and not how it is likely to do so in the future. Moreover, there would be serious separation of powers objections to any proposal that the Senate give automatic deference to the findings of another branch of government in connection with a determination that is the Senate's sole responsibility under the Constitution.
It seems to me that there is a distinction between bribery, which by definition is the selling of one's vote for gain (and thus could easily be brought within the ambit of "disorderly behavior" relative to the performance of one's legislative duties, and the kind of corruption that Stevens engaged in.
I also respectfully suggest that Brett's view is unsustainable unless one truly believes that Congress has the "sovereign power" to expel any and every senator against whom 67 votes can be procured, without even bothering to offer a reason beyond the boilerplate assertion of "disorderly conduct." This is not what we mean by "lawful" or, indeed, a "Republican Form of Government."
I'm just curious if Brett reads the First Amendment to prevent any and all limitations on freedom of speech or the press or the free exercise clause to require the toleration of (voluntary) human sacrifice.
I think concerns that an unfettered power to expel might be abused have to confront the following two facts: (1) neither the judiciary nor any other body outside Congress has attempted to place restraints on the expulsion power at any time in the last 220 years; and (2) the Senate has inarguably never abused its expulsion power during that time.
So the idea that we must impose some outside restraints on the process lest the Senate start expelling members willy-nilly is rather belied by history. The Founders were not simply being hopelessly naive when they assumed a modicum of good faith would be exercised in this regard.
the time for appealing the conviction is not yet expired?
That's relevant for whether he goes to prison.
It's not the standard for whether he gets to stay in the Senate.
Two very different decisions.
Stevens's right to avoid going to prison until he has exhausted his appeals is not at issue here.
Stevens's right not to be expelled by the Senate until this or that, does not exist. The Senate may expel.
I agree with mls: the issue is conduct. The criminal conviction is merely a handy way to weigh conduct. The Senate is entitled to wait until conviction, or not.
"I also respectfully suggest that Brett's view is unsustainable unless one truly believes that Congress has the "sovereign power" to expel any and every senator against whom 67 votes can be procured, without even bothering to offer a reason beyond the boilerplate assertion of "disorderly conduct.""
Of course not; Article one doesn't call for even so much as a "boilerplate assertion of disorderly conduct"; If they had 67 votes, they could expel a Senator for having a bad hair day. I would certainly like to think that they wouldn't, but there's no constitutional issue at stake.
What is this, clauses which damned well DO have qualifiers, such as the commerce clause, get them interpreted away, and clauses which lack qualifiers get them interpreted in? Why can't we just go with the Constitution that actually got ratified? I've got a pocket edition of it right here.
"I'm just curious if Brett reads the First Amendment to prevent any and all limitations on freedom of speech or the press or the free exercise clause to require the toleration of (voluntary) human sacrifice."
I'm just curious if Brett reads the First Amendment to prevent any and all limitations on freedom of speech
In this he'd be shared by Hugo Black... whether that's good or bad company is another question.
I just can't wait to see Palin in the Senate. Should be endlessly entertaining.
Saturday Night Live wasn't enough for you, eh?
Agreed, we've had other senators as much eedjits and azos as her, but ... when we know in advance?!?!?
Well gee, the Senate has generally had a pretty sincere atmosphere of collegiality, and Stevens is expelled it will only be because some of his fellow Republicans want him expelled.
What I'm wondering is how his obstinacy might play out when he's sentenced.
Do my fellow discussants believe there'd be the slightest chance that the GOP would vote to expel Stevens if they didn't believe it likely that the Republicans would retain the seat?
In any event, shouldn't Reid let the GOP take the lead in throwing Stevens over the cliff?
The full text of the second clause of Article I, Section 5:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
So Brett thinks the three clauses within this sentence are independent, Sandy thinks they're dependent. Can anybody muster up a convincing argument for why we should read it one way or the other (apart from personal preference)? A quick review of the remaining clauses within Article I suggests that this is the only one that includes a list that may be read dependently or independently.
Per Justice Story:
"But the power to make rules would be nugatory, unless it was coupled with a power to punish for disorderly behaviour, or disobedience to those rules. And as a member might be so lost to all sense of dignity and duty, as to disgrace the house by the grossness of his conduct, or interrupt its deliberations by perpetual violence or clamour, the power to expel for very aggravated misconduct was also indispensable, not as a common, but as an ultimate redress for the grievance. But such a power, so summary, and at the same time so subversive of the rights of the people, it was foreseen, might be exerted for mere purposes of faction or party, to remove a patriot, or to aid a corrupt measure; and it has therefore been wisely guarded by the restriction, that there shall be a concurrence of two thirds of the members, to justify an expulsion."
Hmmm... well if the clauses are dependent then "punish" and "expel" seem redundant.
As for the other question, I'd say and elected official who is convicted of a crime that touches his official duties should be barred from holding office, period.
Ahhhh, a near-contemporaneous understanding of the meaning of the expulsion clause. I don't know if you've seen this, but it has a fair number of such commentaries, including Story's. Thanks for the insight!
One last comment. This 1798 report from the Committee of Privileges has a long discussion about "disorderly" behavior being a pre-requisite for expulsion. It also includes a discussion of the fact that the second clause of Article I, Section 5 differentiates between punishment and expulsion because the former requires only a bare majority, while the latter requires a 2/3 vote.
"Saturday Night Live wasn't enough for you, eh?"
It's not that I like the woman, but I didn't think the Fey stuff was funny at all. Palin's actual appearance, even less. But seeing her in the Senate and in the primaries would be fascinating. It may be a cliche at this point, but politics in the MSNBC era is just another reality show. One wants the most interesting characters on the island.
To add to Sandy's point, neither could Stevens be impeached per the early Blount precedent that says legislators are not "officers" of the United States within the meaning of the Impeachment Clauses.
Tuan Samahon
It seems to me that Article 1 Section 3, read straightforwardly, is a list of three spearate things that each House of Congress may do. Each item on the list has its own verb, and each item is separated by a comma. Thus, the Senate "may" (1) "determine the rules of its proceedings", (2) "punish its Members for disorderly Behavior", and (3) "expel a member" (with a 2/3 vote). Relying on syntax alone, the prepositional phrase "for disorderly Behavior" clearly modifies only the middle item on the list. To try to make it modify "expel a member" is to do violence to the syntax. If the author of that sentence meant for there to be two allowed consequences for "disorderly behavior" -- "punish[ment]" or exp[ulsion]" -- it would have been easy to write the sentence that way. But the author created a list of three powers, the last two of which have their own modifiying phrases. If the author meant that each House of Congress may either punish or expel a member for disorderly behavior, then he picked the least effective way to try to express that thought. I have better regard for the English skills of the framers than to think that they were so imprecise. On the subject of a serial comma signaling that each element in a series stands independent, see United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, 489 U.S. 235 (1989).
I have better regard for the English skills of the framers than to think that they were so imprecise.
Some of the framers are involved in the discussions to which Everett linked above. It is clear that even by 1798, the actual meaning of the clause was not fixed. Some people seemed to believe that it only applied to offenses that occured within the walls of the House and while the House was in session. Some believed that the ability to expel was contingent upon violation of a House rule. Others believed that the ability to expel was independent of disorderly behavior.
Simply put, the notion that each sentence in the Constitution has a single ironclad and timeproof meaning is ridiculous, even if we assume that meaning can be inferred posthumously through said framers' statements or the punctuation therein.
My experience in these matters surely falls far short of others posting here. But I have to ask, what does expulsion from the Senate have to do with the will of the constituents? Sandy Levinson appears to be correct (at first blush) that the Senate should not be able to add to the qualification rules--that goes directly to being able to represent a state. But surely the Senate gets to decide which conduct with respect to the Senate qualifies for expulsion. In a sense, I would compare the expulsion proceedings to impeachment for members of the Executive or the Judiciary.
But this leads me to another question. Reid specifically said that Stevens would be expelled prior to the next session. And DeMint and Ensign both said that they want to deal with the issue in the lame-duck session. This is where the question of electoral will may come in--if a Senator is expelled in one session of Congress, then reelected, does the expulsion extend to the next session? More importantly, if the expulsion is a punishment for behavior associated with a particular time period that precedes the election cycle for the next session, can the Senator be expelled for the same behavior without any evidence that any of it occurred in the period intervening between the original findings and the elections?
If Brett is correct, this is hardly an impediment. The Senate may decide once to expel a Senator of bad behavior (whatever that might mean). If they are the ultimate judges of Senatorial behavior, they can do it again, taking into account the totality of such behavior and not individual instances. In that case, what's bad for the Senate once, is bad forever, so no further expulsion would be necessary. In this reading, expulsion would be, in essence, a declaration of persona non grata.
The opposite reading would be to declare that expulsion is for specific, not general behavior and, therefore, if a Senator is reelected by the constituents after having been expelled, his rights would have to be restored. But even with this reading, conducting the proceedings in the lame-duck section may get around that technicality.
I also want to point out that there has been an incorrect interpretation of the Republicans' intent as to expulsion of Stevens in the lame-duck session. DeMint and Ensign have declared that they want Stevens expelled from the caucus, not from the Senate. As far as I can tell, Democrats are the only ones effectively talking about removing Stevens from the Senate.
Finally, I should point out that the latest tabulation that finally includes a large number of uncounted ballots from the Democrats-friendly precincts has put Begich over the top. The remaining uncounted ballots should also favor Begich, so, pending a recount, Begich will replace Stevens in the next session. Unfortunately, this development would render all the previous musings here moot.
Still, Republicans may want to make a symbolic gesture and expel Stevens from the caucus in the lame-duck session. This would accomplish several goals: 1) showcase the GOP as the party of lawfulness (other facts notwithstanding); 2) avoid constitutional issues discussed here; 3) tell Stevens that his career really is over; 4) spare Stevens the possibility of losing his pension.
since it now appears that.. after finding and counting some 90,000 outstanding ballots in alaska.. stevens will fail in his bid for re-election.. the whole matter appears to soon be rendered moot ..
The opposite reading would be to declare that expulsion is for specific, not general behavior and, therefore, if a Senator is reelected by the constituents after having been expelled, his rights would have to be restored.
IIRC, the Supreme Court held in the Adam Clayton Powell case that an intervening election restored the Member.
Although this discussion is -- at least according to the current vote count in Alaska -- somewhat academic, I do want to respond to PMS Chicago's post above (and, hey, this is an academic blog, after all).
Quoth PMS: [T]he notion that each sentence in the Constitution has a single ironclad and timeproof meaning is ridiculous, even if we assume that meaning can be inferred posthumously through said framers' statements or the punctuation therein.
I fully agree that, to try to determine "a single ironclad and timeproof meaning" from any given provision of the Constitution is largely a fool's errand -- although some provisions are, I would hazard, a bit less, um, open textured than others (e.g., apart from allowing for the vagaries of births during leap years, I don't think that even Stanley Fish could find loads of plausible ambiguity in the age qualification for the presidency, for example).
But I'm certainly not arguing for some kind of ironclad and timeproff meaning. Far from it. I'm simply asking that the interpretive exercise be undertaken with some regard for, yes, the words and punctuation. Those aren't small things. They are the way that we endeavor to transmit meaning. However fraught the enterprise of interpretation is, I ask only that due regard be given to the language used and the shared conventions about how certain groupings of words and punctuation marks are understood.
I have no quarrel with the proposition, for instance, that some standard should be read into the expulsion clause -- otherwise, it is simply a supermajoritarian Lord-of-the-Flies provision. But I have no respect for an argument that the "disorderly Behavior" modifier actually modifies soemthing it doesn't modify, according to basic syntax conventions that we rather have to adhere to to make sure that things that we write are effective means of communication.
With all respect, I think Prof. Levinson reached out for a kooky textual interpretation of the expulsion provision because he originally backed the wrong horse -- by believing that the "qualifications" clause was the relevant clause. That, I suspect, triggered an understandably human -- albeit analytically unsustainable -- effor to read the expulsion clause as being bounded by the "disorderly Behavior" proviso (whatever the hell that might mean).
I think that the standard-less expulsion-by-supermajority clause is pretty stupid as written. Elections should not be undone through a mechanism like unto the TV show Survivor. And consequently, some kind of standard should, I think, be read into that provision. And if you want to use "disorderly Behavior" as the standard, go for it (although I think that's a pretty stupid standard, which seems to be more concerned with decorum inthe chamber than it it is with lying on your disclosure forms). But that is a normative argument calling for an interpretation that hews to a normative principle -- one that, to be sure can be defended by implications drawn fromthe docuemnt as a whole and particular passages as well (e.g., concerns about due process, the basic system by which Senators are selected, at least after they became elected officials and not state-house appointees). I think that's a respectable argument, but it's not an argument about the English actually used in the provision. And dressing it up as an argument emanating from teh syntax of the sentence is a disservice to the argument and to those who are expected to take it seriously.
Ginger Man- to be honest, I have always assumed (without thinking much about it) that the phrasing of the expulsion clause is simply a mistake, of the kind that one might expect occasionally in a document written by committee. On reflection, however, this may be an unwarranted assumption. It seems to me that there are three possible reasons why the framers might have intentionally crafted the clause in this way: (1) they intended that expulsion be available for any reason or any conduct whatsoever; (2) they intended that expulsion be available for only some types of disorderly behavior, but could not agree on a specific standard to identify that conduct; or (3) they intended that expulsion be available only for certain conduct, which might or might not qualify as disorderly behavior, but could not agree on a specific standard to identify that conduct.
I think we agree that option (1) seems unlikely, and is certainly inconsistent with how the clause has been interpreted and applied throughout our history. Moreover, given the broad meaning that has been given to the term "disorderly behavior" by both the House and Senate, there may be no practical difference between (2) and (3). It is hard to think of conduct that could be reasonably thought to justify expulsion that would not also fall within the disciplinary power for "disorderly behavior."
Mourad can correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm too lazy to look it up right this minute), but I'm pretty sure the expulsion standard was the same as then existed for the House of Commons. The Founders had mental images of government which stemmed from British practice even when they didn't use express words to that effect.
Mark- the framers were certainly familiar with expulsions from the House of Commons, but I don't think they were entirely positive about that experience. In particular, there was a great deal of concern about the Wilkes case, where a MP was expelled several times against the clear wishes of his constituents who kept re-electing him. Fear of that kind of abuse is why there is a supermajority requirement for expulsion.
Josh Chafetz's book has an excellent discussion of these issues.
Jesse Bright of Indiana was the last senator to be expelled, in 1862. The reasons given were that he acknowledged Jefferson Davis as president of the Confederate States and that he sympathized with the Confederacy.
Now neither of those were even crimes, and he was from a state that remained in the Union, and presumably the people who voted for him were aware of his sympathies.
His property was then confiscated by the government without compensation and used to build a military hospital.
Looks like this question has already been decided.
The people didn't vote for Bright. Senators were chosen by state legislatures back then.
That process may have raised lesser policy concerns about expulsion than election by the people does.
@Brett: Ah, hermeneutics raises its (ugly?) head: "Can we have an end to this whole 'Extract higher principles from the Constitution, generalize them, and then use them to contradict what the Constitution actually says gambit?'"
Well, no, we can't have an end to it. Constitutional interpretation is not an exercise in grammar and logic, it is an exercise akin to theology, in which "Thou shalt not kill" is quickly explained to mean "Kill only when your church says it is a good thing."
As someone immediately reminded you, the phrase "Congress shall pass no law..." in the first amendment, as every Constitutional lawyer knows, actually means "Congress shall pass all sorts of laws as long as the courts agree they are acceptable."
I think that Jason that under Powell v. McCormack, the Senate's powers to expel are much broader than its constitutionally limited powers to exclude but some other factors are also involved in it, i have visited a website of law Rechtsberatung
Anwalt fuer Arbeitsrecht
that provide services in these areas of law.
HD kaliteli porno izle ve boşal.
Bayan porno izleme sitesi.
Bedava ve ücretsiz porno izle size gelsin.
Liseli kızların ve Türbanlı ateşli hatunların sikiş filmlerini izle.
Siyah karanlık odada porno yapan evli çift.
harika Duvar Kağıtları bunlar
tamamen ithal duvar kağıdı olanlar var
Obat Kencing Nanah
Obat Sipilis
Obat Herbal Kutil Kelamin
Obat Kencing Nanah
Obat Kencing Nanah Ampuh
Obat Kelamin Keluar Nanah
Obat Sipilis Pada Pria
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Wanita
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Wanita
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Wanita
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Wanita
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Ibu Hamil
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Ibu Hamil
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Ibu Hamil
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Ibu Hamil
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria
I think if I've learned anything about friendship, it's to hang in, stay connected, fight for them, and let them fight for you. Don't walk away, don't be distracted, don't be too busy or tired, don't take them for granted. Friends are part of the glue that holds life and faith together. Powerful stuff.Post a Comment
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya
Books by Balkinization Bloggers
Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023)
Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin's Press, 2022)
Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022)
Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022)
Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021).
Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021).
Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020)
Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020)
Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020)
Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020).
Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020)
Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020)
Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020)
Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019)
Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018)
Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018)
Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018)
Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017)
Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016)
Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015)
Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015)
Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015)
Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014)
Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution
Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014)
Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013)
John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013)
Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013)
Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013)
Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013)
James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013)
Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues
Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012)
Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012)
Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012)
Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012)
Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011)
Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011)
Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011)
Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011)
Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011)
Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010)
Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010)
Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic
Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010)
Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010)
Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010)
Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009)
Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009)
Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009)
Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009)
Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008)
David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007)
Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007)
Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007)
Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006)
Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006)
Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006)
Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006)
Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006)
Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005)
Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004)
Balkin.com homepage
Cultural Software
The Information Society Project
Useful Links
Syllabi and Exams


text:
$19 SVC - Emergency Locksmith Services at Brentwood Circle Los Angeles CA
- Emergency Lockout Assistance 24/7 in Los Angeles CA
- 24 Hours - Call any time to get service near Los Angeles CA !
- Quick Service - For Any Kind Of Lockouts You Need!
- Great Prices - Affordable, Too!
- Licensed, Bonded And Insured Home Locksmiths!
Emergency Locksmith we serv:
Garage Door Repair Watauga, TX
Locksmith in Rocklin
Locksmith Culver City, CA
Garage Door Repair Carney, MD

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Paranoia with a side of wasabi cashews
Chronic City: A Novel. By Jonathan Lethem. Doubleday, 467 pp., $27.95.
By Janice Harayda
Do MacArthur Fellowships have a counterpart to the "curse of the Nobel" said to keep writers from doing their best work after they become laureates? You might think so after reading the latest novel by the "genius grant" winner Jonathan Lethem.
Chronic City draws on an idea that science-fiction writers have used for decades: simulated-worlds theory, which says that computers will someday become powerful enough to create a facsimile of the universe, full of people who really believe they're alive – they don't know they're fakes. Lethem brings the idea to literary fiction in a surrealistic fable about Manhattan during the economic meltdown: You're never certain whether his characters are real or created by forces beyond their ken. This premise might seem ideally pitched to novel born of a financial crisis that has caused many people to think: This is can't be real. But the idea holds a trap: If you invent characters soulless enough to have been created by computer, how do you keep them human enough to support a novel?
Lethem doesn't avoid that danger in this tale of two friends whose lives intersect with those of a billionaire mayor and others who can still afford cocktails with wasabi cashews and "a nice black-market unpasteurized fromage." Chase Insteadman is a semi-retired actor, a man whose work involves selling illusions, whose fiancée is an astronaut trapped with Russians at a space station threatened by Chinese mines. Perkus Tooth is a paranoid stoner and former culture critic who believes New York has become unreal, a simulation of itself. Yes, those twee names are typical of this novel in which words seem to run away with Lethem.
The plot turns partly on Perkus's efforts to ease his anxieties by enlisting Chase and others in his quest to obtain rare ceramics called chaldrons that may have magical powers. A subplot weaves in phantasmagorical elements such as a giant escaped tiger that is ravaging the Upper East Side, that bastion of old money and property. Many undergraduate theses will be written about all symbols-within-symbols in this novel. (Sample title: "Different Stripes: The Meaning of the Question 'Who Made This Tiger?' in William Blake's Poem 'The Tiger' and Jonathan Lethem's Chronic City.) And worthy questions underlie its cat's-cradle of pop-cultural references, including: Who owns New York? Those references support a theme that Chase's fiancée suggests in one of her letters home from outer space: "we've defaulted to an illusion of substance." She's talking about the deteriorating condition of the trapped astronauts, but her words describe New York as a whole: In the novel the city has only "an illusion of substance." The condition is chronic.
Yet Chronic City reads more like a simulation of a novel than the real thing. It has a turgid pace almost no conflict, suspense, or heart. Most characters appear soulless. And the writing is repetitive to the point of bloat and, at times, graceless. Critics have compared Lethem's early novels to the works of contemporary titans, but Chronic City has more in common with Herman Melville's numbing final novel, The Confidence-Man. Even a mayoral aide's sexual encounter – described as "wildly odd and erotic" – fails to supply the missing spark. Lethem writes: "Remembering it, Richard's crotch throbbed, grew hotter, the itching more intense." A bit, perhaps, like the itching you may feel to put aside this book after many pages of sentences like that one.
Best line: "His mind's landscape was epic, dotted with towering figures like Easter Island heads."
Worst line: No. 1 (quoted above): "Remembering it, Richard's crotch throbbed, grew hotter, the itching more intense." No. 2: "It was my first green chaldron. (Like sexual positions or travel to distant locales, I'd been semiconsciously cataloguing seminal moments, breakthroughs.)" No. 3: "I wanted Oona in the morning. I could still conjure her slippery smoothness in my arms (and divergent cuppable breasts in my palms, where they left ghost trails of a peach's weight), but Oona kept dunning lights and pulling curtains, and dressing and undressing stealthily, while I was at the sink or refrigerator, or asleep." No. 4: "My shame took its place in a vast backdrop of shames – oxygen-starved astronauts, war-exiled orphans, dwindling and displaced species – against which I puttered through daily life, attending parties and combating hangovers, recording voice-overs and granting interviews to obscure fan sites, drinking coffee and smoking joints with Perkus, and making contact with real feeling unpredictably and at random, at funeral receptions, under rain-sheeted doorways." No. 5: "Richard's unrestrained sarcastic inflection of this last word served not only to reinforce what a poor selection he thought I'd made in Strabo Blandiana but to assuage Perkins that the two of them still spoke above my head, and so his promise of future listening was sincere." [Note: As opposed to a promise of past listening?]
Published: October 2009
Furthermore: A good analysis of the pop-cultural references in Chronic City and of some of Lethem's influences appeared in a review in Bookforum. Novelist Mark Lindquist says he loves the novel but warns in a Seattle Times review, "You can find more plot in a Jethro Tull album."
About the author: Lethem has written seven novels, including The Fortress of Solitude, and Motherless Brooklyn, which won a National Book Critics Circle Award. He received a MacArthur Fellowship, sometimes called a "genius grant, in 2005.
You can follow Jan Harayda on Twitter at www.twitter.com/janiceharayda, where she has posted more of her thoughts on Chronic City.
© 2009 Janice Harayda. All rights reserved.


text:
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Datsun Is a V-Dog!
But as of about a month ago, Datsun is now a mostly-vegan* dog thanks to V-Dog Crunchy Nuggets:
Datsun loves his crunchy nuggets! I even tasted one out of curiousity (hey, they're vegan right?). Not bad for dog food. But I think I'll stick with my people food, thank you very much.
Why did I put my pup on a vegan diet after all these years? I'd actually been wanting to make the switch for Datsun for some time, but I incorrectly assumed that I wouldn't be able to afford V-Dog. It has to be mail-ordered, and I imagined shipping costs would be through the roof for a bag large enough to fee my 90-pound mutt. But turns out V-Dog actually offers free shipping! And the product costs less than what I was paying for Newman's Own at Whole Foods.
I did go through a phase where I'd decided to cook vegan meals for Datsun everyday, using the recipes from the Simple Little Vegan Dog Book. But Datsun was picky and only liked some homemade dishes. I'd make a big batch of something, only to have him turn his nose up.
I finally decided to give V-Dog a try when Datsun developed colitis a few months ago. That's an inflammation or irritation of the large intestine, and it caused Datsun to have bloody poo. Ew! The vet ruled out a parasite (the number one cause of colitis) and suggested that his problem may be diet-related. He prescribed some pills and told me to check back if the problem persisted.
Datsun took his pills and the icky poo seemed to clear up, but as soon as the pills were gone, the problem was back. I knew if I told the vet, he'd prescribe some vet-recommended food like Science Diet, which is filled with horrible ingredients and by-products (likely leftovers from the slaughterhouse floor). No thanks.
I read that V-Dog could help with digestion, and that it contained flax seed (for omega 3's) and taurine and L-Carnitene, two amino acids essential for several large breed dogs to prevent the possibility of cardiomyopathy. So I purchased two 20-pound bags.
One month later, Datsun's poop issues seem to have cleared up, and he loves the dog food so much more than the Newman's Own stuff, which would often sit untouched in his bowl for hours. He always gobbles the V-Dog right up.
Of course, the colitis remedy might also have something to do with Datsun's other new favorite food — pumpkin!
Ozzy the cat really wants in on Datsun's precious pumpkin puree, but Datsun's not having that. Look at him snarling his nose at Ozzy!
A co-worker suggested feeding my dog a little pumpkin puree everyday since the fiber helps aid digestion. I looked it up and found lots of information on pumpkin and helping pets have normal bowel movements. So he's been eating one half-cup serving everyday. He thinks it's a treat!
Anyway, I'm hoping that Datsun continues his good health on the V-Dog. Not only do I feel like my dog is healthier on a vegan diet, but I also feel better about contributing less to animal suffering by buying a cruelty-free kibble.
As for my six cats, well, they'll remain carnivores. Unlike dogs and people, cats are natural meat-eaters so I'll continue to purchase meaty cat food for them. Although it can be done, I'm not cool with switching cats over to a vegan diet.
* Earlier I said Datsun was "mostly vegan" because his grandparents (my parents) still like to slip him non-vegan contraband foods when I'm not around.
Question: Do you have a dog? Is he or she vegan?
30 comments:
Can cats eat pureed pumpkin too? I have omnivorous cats and they'll occasionally pick at raw baby spinach leaves or nibble on watermelon cubes, but I've never tried pumpkin...
- October 28, 2010 at 12:00 AM
- grrr said...
I'm passionately vegan myself, but I applaud your decision to keep your cats as carnivores. They *need* meat, unlike us humans. But I'm glad to hear how well Datsun is doing on vegan kibble!
- October 28, 2010 at 12:07 AM
- Lowen said...
I have a 13 yr old pug named Otis and he's vegan. I buy Natural Balance brand, vegetarian formula, which I have been told is actually vegan. He enjoys this dog food, more so than others he's had in the past that contain meat and egg products. I do slip him the occasional piece of Field Roast Italian too, so he still thinks he eats meat. ;)
- October 28, 2010 at 12:47 AM
- Keri - I Eat Trees said...
It's funny, we were just discussing this last night. We exclusively buy our dog vegan food (Natural Balance, I believe is the brand, but I'm going to look into VDog right after this comment), but I was saying, I don't think Dixie is vegan because if we were walking down the street and someone dropped a hamburger in front of her, she's definitely still going to go for it. We concluded "we're vegan and we purchase dog food accordingly, but she's a dog." Haha
- October 28, 2010 at 6:44 AM
My husband and I have two labs, and fed them V-dog for a year. They were both a healthy weight before switching their food, and over the year of being on V-dog lost quite a bit of weight. (and we were feeding them a ton of it!) Our vet suggested we get them back on a meat based diet asap... We were so disappointed. I'd be curious to know if anyone else has had this problem.
- October 28, 2010 at 7:21 AM
- The Health Sensei said...
awesome post, sending to my parents to help them believe that yes, their pit bull would be a much healthier dog if he ate vegan instead of McDonald's (DAMMIT!)
- October 28, 2010 at 7:39 AM
- Eve said...
My Schnoodle pup, Joni, will be four on Halloween...she's most definitely not vegan. I'd be interested to see if she likes V-dog because she only eats her kibble as a last resort when she knows we are done giving out treats and table scraps for the day. It's a bad habit, but impossible to resist this face!
- October 28, 2010 at 9:28 AM
- The Kuntrageous Vegan said...
Girl; I'm with you. I can't tell you how many times I've argued about how my cats can't be vegan. One of my kitties, admittedly, will eat anything (seriously; he steals raw kale off my plate if he can get away with it) i would feel like an animal abuser if i tried to make an obligatory carnivore a vegan.
- October 28, 2010 at 9:38 AM
- Chrissy said...
My dogs are not vegan. They eat Purina One Lamb and Rice, which occasionally makes me feel guilty. However, I know I don't have the time to make them food myself and I live in a very small, East Texas town, where the variety of dog foods is limited, to put it nicely. I don't know if I trust myself to order food online and keep it in constant supply (and with two big dogs, we got through a lot of dog food) and I wouldn't want to have to switch back to meat-based food if/when I ran out. Until I have a local source of vegan dog food, my dogs will continue to eat regular food. They're both really healthy and don't appear to have any moral objections, so I think it's okay. ;)
Also - they love rawhide bones. Totally not vegan.
- October 28, 2010 at 9:42 AM
- Olivia said...
I have twelve vegans living on my property: two humans, one Shar-Pei/Golden Retriever mix, four pigs, and yes: five cats. The dog will turn up her nose at non-vegan dog food (when she's at my parents' house), and prefers broccoli to biscuits.
I know switching the cats is a personal decision for everyone. I switched mine a year and half ago--I make them kibble at home using Vegecat supplement, which has all the nutrients they would get from meat, but in synthetic form. They are all a healthy weight, beautiful coats, and happy. But that's just my personal experience.
- October 28, 2010 at 10:53 AM
I love this post! Yay, Datsun! I don't have a dog, but I think having a vegan one would be very cool. My kitty is also carnivorous and I regret that, but I accept it and move on. We do what we can, right?!
- October 28, 2010 at 11:01 AM
- Leslie Richman said...
I would love to get my pets on vegan food!
- October 28, 2010 at 11:47 AM
- MeloMeals said...
Jorda is not vegan...I share custody of her with my X and he is hard to deal with about stuff like that. I'm going to look into that food.. J has allergy issues, and right now is doing well on her food.. but I know it's not the best and that I'm supporting cruelty.
- October 28, 2010 at 12:50 PM
- Jess - The Domestic Vegan said...
I love this post!! Super interesting & informative. And Datsun is SUCH a cutie. I'm so glad you've got his digestive issues sorted out & cleared up!
My dog (Mabel) is super picky, has a majorly sensitive stomach (she throws up most canned foods), and is toothless... So she gets homemade, soft, non-vegan food. While I don't like supporting the meat industry, when I adopted Mabel I was committing to take the best care of her that I can, and the girl certainly needs to eat! She eats lots of brown rice & veggies, but also meat. In a perfect world, she would be vegan, too, but what can ya do? When we add another dog to our family, I'll definitely try V-Dog (assuming that dog has teeth)! Haha. ;-)
Mabel LOVES pumpkin, too! Like I said, she's super picky, so I was totally shocked when she actually ate it when I tried to feed it to her. She just gobbles it up, and it definitely helps keep her regular!
- October 28, 2010 at 1:17 PM
- Just Us said...
It's funny that you blogged about this. I've been searching out recipes for my pug today, so I can start making her own vegan dog food. :o)
- October 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM
Thanks for this post! I have 2 dogs, a jack russel and a cairn terrier. The both eat Newmans Own good! I have been thinking about switching them to vegan food but thought it would be wayyyyyy too expensive. I will have to check out that food you got for your dog and see how that woould work for me.
- October 28, 2010 at 3:33 PM
We got V-dog for Rupert once, and I also tried a piece of the kibble! How funny. And a friend who's a vet just told me to try giving Rup pumpkin puree. Sounds like a good call!
- October 28, 2010 at 4:39 PM
- Katie said...
I have a vegan mini dachshund who has been on the V-dog diet for just over a year now. And she is a ball of freakin' energy. She does have issues with alkaline urine and we are monitoring the presence of bladder crystals through regular urinalysis. I have started supplementing her meals with Cranimals, a cranberry extract supplement which helps with bladder health as well as a long list of other benefits. She LOVES that stuff, it's like my relationship with ketchup - put it on everything!
It's astounding the resistance and hostility us vegan-pet owners can face at times... I've been called a "fucking moron" directly or indirectly more times than I can count. But we'll just see whose pet lives longer/healthier.
- October 28, 2010 at 5:02 PM
- Steph - VegFortWorth said...
Glad your dog is doing well on his new diet! I have two cats and they're both carnivores.
- October 28, 2010 at 6:16 PM
I had my dogs on Nature's Recipe, the Vegetarian variety for a while but they didn't like it. They're currently on Blue Buffalo brand which I read is highly rated and doesn't have all the awful byproducts in it. I would LOVE to get them on vegan food so I may try this V-dog.
My cat, is decidely not vegan. He would fight my face if I even tried.
- October 28, 2010 at 9:57 PM
So why do you even have cats then? You're still following the Western belief that you're cats lives are more important than the lives of whatever animals they're eating. Sorry but it's just my opinion that you should at least start them on vegan cat food and see how they react. Technically humans aren't naturally vegan either (meat played a huge role in our evolution and we have to take a supplement for B-12) but we can still be healthy as long as we're getting all the right nutrients we need. Sorry but I don't support this decision.
- October 29, 2010 at 8:25 AM
- Sarah said...
When we adopted our pooch we started her out on Nature's Recipe Vegetarian but she had some digestion issues with it. We switched to Natural Balance and she loves it and all problems resolved themselves. I personally feel that Natural Balance is a higher quality product. For those who can't afford vegan dog food: First cancel your cable subscription, data plan on your cell, stop drinking alchohol, stop going to the movies - with the money you've just saved, purchase vegan dog food. You can still have a really awesome and fun life on a budget, AND help animals. I promise.
- October 29, 2010 at 10:01 AM
I'm transitioning my chinese crested over to a vegan diet. Right now she eats regular kibble (Royal Canin) mixed with Nature's Recipe canned Vegetarian food. I'll have to give V-Dog a try with her. I wonder if I can find any sample size packages to see how she likes it.
I sometimes add leftover veggies to her food as well. She loves green peas, strawberries and cantalope. She must have a sweet tooth!
- October 29, 2010 at 11:53 AM
- Jessica said...
Oh, I'd seen you mention your pup but I had no idea you had cats, either. I love the photo of them together.
I hope the improved diet helps Datsun!
- October 29, 2010 at 1:51 PM
- Rikki Cupcake said...
our little ellie loves her v-dog and we also give her pumpkin when we see her scoot her butt on the rug. it helps, it is like magic!!
- October 29, 2010 at 3:48 PM
- bitt said...
My dogs are vegan too. Well, aside from the occasional treat they get from someone at the park or whatever. Freegans I guess. They love pumpkin and so does my cat. The vet prescribed it for his bowels.
- October 29, 2010 at 7:05 PM
- River said...
Aww, Datsun is such a handsome doggie! I'm glad he's doing better with the new diet. Yep, kittehs need their meaty goods! :)
- October 31, 2010 at 6:41 PM
- flamencokitty said...
Glad to hear Datsun's doing well on a vegan diet. I'm also glad you don't impose human diet and morals on your cats. I'm also vegan, but I feed my two cats raw meat, and they always get a clean bill of health from the vet. I try to bypass the major corporations by buying local meat when I can. The fangs and claws make sense when you watch cats eat meat. They really are just cute little killers deep down inside!
- November 2, 2010 at 12:03 AM
- FoodandLoathing said...
I read this NY Times op-ed on this subject and it reminded me of your post. You may have to register with the NY Times to read it (for free) but I really can not recommend it more highly.
- November 3, 2010 at 8:39 AM
Maybe this is worth sharing that i found in this few posts below.[url=http://www.carcoverspal.com]Car Cover[/url]
- December 16, 2010 at 2:05 AM


text:
Crosswords and Word Activities
Showing 1–3 of 3 results.
Chapter F: Church Father Unscramble
Unscramble the names of the Church Fathers below. Then, under each unscrambled name, write one important contribution that the Church Father made to the Church.
Revelation, Sacred Scripture, and Tradition
Using the information in chapter 1 of The Catholic Connections Handbook, find the word or words described in the clues below. Fill in the blank spaces below each clue. Then, use the letters from the numbered spaces to fill in …
Worksheet About Paul
On this worksheet from the Student Activities Workbook for Breakthrough!: An Introduction to People of Faith, you will find a crossword puzzle as well as facts and reflections questions on Paul's life and his conversion.


text:
The Rush County Community Foundation is a tax-exempt public charity that allows people to establish permanent endowment funds within the scope of one large foundation.
There are a total of 200 funds at the Rush County Community Foundation. You can help impact the community today by donating to one of our many funds or by creating your own fund.
As a public charity, we are able to achieve our mission by investing donated funds and distributing earnings annually to award grants to Rush County organizations, people and projects.
Our Frequently Used forms are now available in a fillable PDF format!


text:
As a water damage restoration clean up professional for over 22 years, getting use to how a claim is made by a homeowner when they have water damage is easy. But most homeowners have no idea how or who to call when they have a water damage or flood damage issue.
When a call comes in for a water damage or flood damage most homeowners will ask the obvious question "how much do you charge for your services"
Any contractor that gives any answer is fooling the customer do to the fact that every water damage or flood situation is different.
The first question that will usually come out of the mouths of experienced and qualified water damage restoration companies (notice I didn't say carpet cleaners who also do water damage clean up) do you have insurance. Most homeowners will say yes, but I am not sure if the company will cover the damage.
Here are some steps and tips on how to proceed in finding out first if the insurance company will pay for your damage.
Look for your insurance papers (documents) that you received from your insurance agent and look for the phone number that contacts the claims office of your insurance company. Sometimes even the agents themselves have trouble digging through the paper work to find the claims phone number. The best suggestion is to look on the internet for your insurance companies claim number. It's usually easy to find on the first page of the site.
Before calling understand the insurance language. The insurance company person on the phone that you will discuss your possible water damage claim is called an adjuster. Your damage is referred to as a claim,peril or a loss. I know loss sounds strange but that's the language that is used. There maybe someone who will come to your house from the insurance company and that person is also called an adjuster. The documents or paper work that was given to you originally by your agent is called a policy. The policy is your contract and in most cases clearly spells out what is covered and what is not. That leads us to the word covered that I just mentioned. The word covered is used when the insurance company accepts responsibility to pay the costs of the damage of the items that were damages by the water damage and the clean up costs and repair costs of home items like drywall, carpet.
When talking to the adjuster on the phone don't talk to much. Just keep it simple with just the facts. As honest as you are, insurance company adjusters are not out to deny every claim as everyone thinks. There are state and federal laws that the insurance companies must follow, so the insurance companies work on proof.To keep it easy get proof of why the water damage happened like a bill or written statement from a plumber or the city or county of why something happened. Pictures are great and your dishwasher or washer machine appliance repairman will be your best friend to prove to the insurance company your damage is a "covered loss."
These days insurance companies will suggest a water damage restoration company to come out and mitigate the damage. Mitigate is the term that is used to clean up and stop further damage from happening. Most insureds (that's you the homeowner) believe that the water damage clean up work will be guaranteed because the company mentioned their name. Actually the company only suggests and will not back up any companies work. Remember that you the homeowner has the legal right to use anyone you want to.
Contacting the insurance company to make a claim can be nerve racking to some homeowners. Just remember to be calm and relay the facts.


text:
psychologists in bettendorf, iowa
Sorry, but we currently have no businesses in the Psychologists section of our directory who call Bettendorf their home. If your business falls under the category of Psychologists and are in Bettendorf, Iowa (IA), you can Join the Directory for free today!
Finding a Iowa Psychologist has never been easier. Just peruse the directory below to find a Psychologist in Bettendorf, Iowa (IA). Are you a Psychologist? Join our directory of Psychologists in Bettendorf today and get connected with cancer patients, survivors and supporters who might need your assistance.