The Hill : The Obama jobs bill is not going to pass right away. If Republicans do nothing, Obama wins. If they do something, Obama wins. And if they do a little, Obama gets to keep the debate alive, putting miles on Air Force One and devoting his fall and winter to painting Republicans as beholden to special interests over jobs

.

Why Team Obama Is Smiling Again : Obama’s Jobs plan is the best 2012 reelection stimulus - Nothing is more political than being president of the United States of America.

Obama’s aides believe that ultimately, Boehner will defend his Speakership and his majority to the hilt, even if that means going against whomever emerges from the Republican presidential race and handing Obama a victory.

The Hill
Obama’s 2012 reelection stimulus
By Sam Youngman
September 14, 2011

Obama’s 2012 reelection stimulus

Some excerpts :

Monday in the Rose Garden, Obama was flanked by first responders, teachers and construction workers. He blasted the politics of Washington and again urged Congress to pass his jobs bill right away.

The appearance provided great optics. What kind of heartless monster would vote to protect corporate jet owners over teachers?

..............

What the president’s aides want — and what they need — is for independents and Democrats to view Obama as their fighter. And after a summer of polls painting Obama as a weak leader, the president is desperate to be viewed as the one politician in Washington fighting for the middle class.

What’s more, Obama appears ready to fight. For real this time.

............

So while it’s not exactly the inspiring politics of hope, it’s pretty good politics all the same. And it’s the first reason Democrats have had in a long time to believe their man can prevail next November.

This is the campaign.

For the rest of 2011, at least, Obama and his team will speak of little else. This is the debate they want to have, and they are betting the president’s job on their belief they can win this debate.

Ultimately, more jobs would be a bonus.

.........

Public Policy Polling ( Pollsters ) say that Mitt Romney is more electable in a General Election than Rick Perry, both Republicans lose with Obama today ( according to last Polls ) - Gamblers and Bettors confirm these numbers and impressions

.
If Republican want a candidate who can beat Obama, then Romney's their guy at this point. See figures and data from Public Policy Polling ( PPP ) and from bets at INTRADE.COM



From betting House INTRADE.COM :


Rick Perry will be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2012 :


Bet $34.6 to win $100



Mitt Romney to be Republican Presidential Nominee in 2012 :


Bet $40.0 to win $100



Barack Obama to be re-elected President in 2012 :


Bet $49.9 to win $100



Marco Rubio to be Republican VP nominee in 2012 :


Bet $36.9 to win $100




*******************



Public Policy Polling ( PPP )
Social Security hurting Perry ?
September 13, 2011


Social Security hurting Perry ?


Some excerpts :

In fact it appears that Perry's rhetoric on Social Security could already be causing him problems. When PPP did a national poll three weeks ago Barack Obama led Perry by only 6 points at 49-43. Now that gap has widened to 11 points at 52-41. The main movement has come with Democratic voters. On the previous poll Obama had only a 68 point lead with the party base at 81-13 but now it's 80 points at 89-9. We know there are a lot of Democratic voters disenchanted with Obama right now but if the GOP puts forward someone like Perry who's willing to go after one of the Holy Grails of the party's orthodoxy like Social Security it might scare those voters back into the fold.

In addition to his horse race numbers taking a wrong turn Perry's favorability numbers are worse than they were 3 weeks ago as well. Only 30% of voters have a positive opinion of him to 50% with a negative one. That's down from an already not so stellar 33/47 spread. Republicans certainly like him but with independents (23/51) and Democrats (9/74) favor is virtually nonexistent.

Mitt Romney continues to look like the considerably more electable GOP contender. He trails Obama by only 4 points at 49-45. You can see the difference between Romney and Perry's general election viability at this point particularly with independents. While Perry's favorability with them is just 23/51 as mentioned above, Romney's is 44/39. And where Perry trails Obama by 10 points with them, Romney actually holds a 2 point advantage. Romney also consolidates the GOP vote better than Perry (87% as opposed to 82%) and wins over slightly more Democrats (11% to Perry's 9%).

.......

The Economist : The West’s economies have embarked on wrong contractionary policies -The main culprit of the Joblessness is a collective, premature shift to fiscal austerity by Western governments. Obama’s jobs agenda should be big enough to counter the fiscal tightening.

.
The Economist
Unemployment in the West
The quest for jobs
It is not impossible for politicians to reduce the West’s frighteningly high unemployment levels
September 10, 2011
from the print edition


Unemployment in the West - The quest for jobs


Some excerpts :

Go for growth

The immediate priority should be supporting demand—or at least not doing harm to it. The left is right on one thing: the main cause of the current high joblessness is the severity of the last recession and the weakness of the subsequent recovery. Yet the West’s economies have embarked on contractionary policies. In some cases the fault lies with monetary policy: the European Central Bank should reverse its recent rate rises. But the main culprit is a collective, premature shift to fiscal austerity by governments.

As this newspaper has repeatedly argued, politicians need to strike a bargain with the bond markets: combine policies that cushion growth now with measures that will bring deficits under control in the medium term. Raise the retirement age, for instance, and that leaves more room to stimulate growth in the short term. A minimal test of Mr Obama’s jobs agenda will be whether it is big enough to counter the fiscal tightening, equivalent to 2% of GDP, that is slated for next year.

Where should the short-term money go? Some forms of stimulus are better than others at supporting employment. Germany’s subsidies for shortened working hours helped dissuade firms from firing workers; Mr Obama’s subsidies for green technology fattened the bottom line of a few chosen firms but did very little to spur jobs. Governments should prioritise policies that do. Some infrastructure spending, such as building roads and repairing schools, falls into that category. So do tax incentives that cut the cost of hiring, particularly for extra new workers—which is why it makes sense for America to extend, and even expand, its payroll-tax cut. And so, in America’s case, does federal aid to the states, since the main way states cut their budgets is by firing workers.

Easing the road ahead

So there are ways in which government money can help. But it is also plain that the jobs mess is not just about demand: it cannot be solved with more stimulus alone. There is plenty of evidence—from declining employment rates for less-skilled men to rising disability rolls—to suggest that Western economies had a brewing jobs problem long before the financial crisis hit. The combination of new technology and globalisation has reduced the demand for the less skilled, and many workers, particularly men, have failed to respond to these deep changes in the labour market. The shift in demand for skills has a long way to go, as our special report on the future of work explains. It suggests an important part of any jobs agenda must involve changes in education, more training to equip people in the rich world for tomorrow’s jobs and getting government off entrepreneurs’ backs.

....

Salve Imperator Caesar Obama, Afghanicus Maximus, Iraqicus Maximus, Libycus Maximus, Tea Particus Maximus, Felicior Augusto, melior Traiano ("be luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan").... Obama is an "Aurelianus" type of Emperor

.

Emperor Aurelian "Restorer of the World" like Obama :

Better than comparing Obama to Felix, the Cat are the comparisons, similarities, similitudes and resemblances to one of the Greatest Warriors and Reformers in Roman History : Emperor Aurelian ( Aurelianus ).

Aurelian was a Great Warrior and Conqueror with the sword, Obama conquers with Eloquence and Oratory, and with his Great Intelligence ! ...

Aurelian ( Aurelianus ) was Emperor from 270 to 275, he earned the title "Restorer of the World", his title was Imperator Caesar Lucius Domitius Aurelianus Augustus, Germanicus Maximus, Gothicus Maximus, Parthicus Maximus, Restitutor Orientis, Restitutor Orbis.

You see Aurelian defeated the Germans, the Goths, and the Parths, who are also the Afghans. He restored the Orient and the World to its normal masters the Romans. He also conquered the rebellious Gallic Empire ( France ) and Palmyre Empire ( Arabia ).

Aurelian lived in very troubled times and spent all his time defeating many tribes of northern barbarians and other nasty guys. But he is not so famous as Julius Caesar, Augustus and he ranks below Nero and Caligula in fame and popularity in our days.

It seems that debauchery takes you to a higher rank than being honest, a good reformer of corrupt customs and being a Great Warrior and Conqueror.

Roman Emperor Aurelian ( Aurelianus ) in Wikipedia

Some excerpts :

Reunification of the empire

The Roman Empire by 271 A.D before the reconquest of the Palmyrene Empire and the Gallic Empire by Aurelian

The first actions of the new emperor were aimed at strengthening his own position in his territories. Late in 270, Aurelian campaigned in northern Italia against the Vandals, Juthungi, and Sarmatians, expelling them from Roman territory. To celebrate these victories, Aurelian was granted the title of Germanicus Maximus.[19] The authority of the emperor was challenged by several usurpers — Septimius, Urbanus, Domitianus, and the rebellion of Felicissimus — who tried to exploit the sense of insecurity of the empire and the overwhelming influence of the armies in Roman politics. Aurelian, being an experienced commander, was aware of the importance of the army, and his propaganda, known through his coinage, shows he wanted the support of the legions.[17]

Defeat of the Alamanni

The burden of the northern barbarians was not yet over, however. In 271, the Alamanni moved towards Italia, entering the Po plain and sacking the villages; they passed the Po River, occupied Placentia and moved towards Fano. Aurelian, who was in Pannonia to control Vandals' withdrawal, quickly entered Italia, but his army was defeated in an ambush near Placentia (January 271). When the news of the defeat arrived in Rome, it caused great fear for the arrival of the barbarians. But Aurelian attacked the Alamanni camping near the Metaurus River, defeating them in the Battle of Fano, and forcing them to re-cross the Po river; Aurelian finally routed them at Pavia. For this, he received the title Germanicus Maximus. However, the menace of the German people remained high as perceived by the Romans, so Aurelian resolved to build the walls that became known as the Aurelian Walls around Rome.

The emperor led his legions to the Balkans, where he defeated and routed the Goths beyond the Danube, killing the Gothic leader Cannabaudes, and assuming the title of Gothicus Maximus. However, he decided to abandon the province of Dacia, on the exposed north bank of the Danube, as too difficult and expensive to defend. He reorganised a new province of Dacia south of the Danube, inside the former Moesia, called Dacia Aureliana, with Serdica as the capital.

Conquest of the Palmyrene Empire

In 272, Aurelian turned his attention to the lost eastern provinces of the empire, the so-called "Palmyrene Empire" ruled by Queen Zenobia from the city of Palmyra.[22] Zenobia had carved out her own empire, encompassing Syria, Palestine, Egypt and large parts of Asia Minor. The Egyptian queen cut off Rome's shipments of grain, and in a matter of weeks, the Romans started running low on bread. In the beginning, Aurelian had been recognized as emperor, while Vaballathus, the son of Zenobia, hold the title of rex and imperator ("king" and "supreme military commander"), but Aurelian decided to invade the eastern provinces as soon as he felt his army to be strong enough.

Asia Minor was recovered easily; every city but Byzantium and Tyana surrendered to him with little resistance. The fall of Tyana lent itself to a legend: Aurelian to that point had destroyed every city that resisted him, but he spared Tyana after having a vision of the great 1st-century philosopher Apollonius of Tyana, whom he respected greatly, in a dream.

Apollonius implored him, stating, "Aurelian, if you desire to rule, abstain from the blood of the innocent! Aurelian, if you will conquer, be merciful!" Whatever the reason, Aurelian spared Tyana. It paid off; many more cities submitted to him upon seeing that the emperor would not exact revenge upon them. Within six months, his armies stood at the gates of Palmyra, which surrendered when Zenobia tried to flee to the Sassanid Empire. The "Palmyrene Empire" was no more.

Eventually Zenobia and her son were captured and made to walk on the streets of Rome in his triumph. With the grain stores once again shipped to Rome, Aurelian's soldiers handed out free bread to the citizens of the city, and the emperor was hailed a hero by his subjects. After a brief clash with the Persians and another in Egypt against usurper Firmus, Aurelian was obliged to return to Palmyra in 273 when that city rebelled once more. This time, Aurelian allowed his soldiers to sack the city, and Palmyra never recovered. More honors came his way; he was now known as Parthicus Maximus and Restitutor Orientis ("Restorer of the East").[17]

The rich province Egypt was also recovered by Aurelian. The Brucheion (Royal Quarter) in Alexandria was burned to the ground. This section of the city once contained the Library of Alexandria, although it is not known if the Library still existed in Aurelian's time. (It had already been damaged by fire during the visit of Julius Caesar to Alexandria.)

Conquest of the Gallic Empire

In 274, the victorious emperor turned his attention to the west, and the "Gallic Empire" which had already been reduced in size by Claudius II. Aurelian won this campaign largely through diplomacy; the "Gallic Emperor" Tetricus was willing to abandon his throne and allow Gaul and Britain to return to the empire, but could not openly submit to Aurelian. Instead, the two seem to have conspired so that when the armies met at Châlons-en-Champagne that autumn, Tetricus simply deserted to the Roman camp and Aurelian easily defeated the Gallic army facing him. Tetricus was rewarded for his part in the conspiracy with a high-ranking position in Italy itself.

Aurelian returned to Rome and won his last honorific from the Senate – Restitutor Orbis ("Restorer of the World"). In four years, he had secured the frontiers of the empire and reunified it, effectively giving the empire a new lease on life that lasted 200 years.

Reformations

Aurelian was a reformer, and settled many important functions of the imperial apparatus, including the economy and the religion. He also restored many public buildings, re-organized the management of the food reserves, set fixed prices for the most important goods, and prosecuted misconduct by the public officers.

Religious reform

Aurelian strengthened the position of the Sun god, Sol (Invictus) or Oriens, as the main divinity of the Roman pantheon. His intention was to give to all the peoples of the Empire, civilian or soldiers, easterners or westerners, a single god they could believe in without betraying their own gods. The center of the cult was a new temple, built in 271 in Campus Agrippae in Rome, with great decorations financed by the spoils of the Palmyrene Empire.

Aurelian did not persecute other religions. However, during his short rule, he seemed to follow the principle of "one god, one empire", that was later adopted to a full extent by Constantine. On some coins, he appears with the title deus et dominus natus ("God and born ruler"), also later adopted by Diocletian. Lactantius argued that Aurelian would have outlawed all the other gods if he had had enough time.

.......

President Obama may be shy or timid, a "compromiser in chief", but Obama has a superb Intelligence and great Intellect. That type of guy becomes stronger with time, and he finds unexpected ways to do great things and to pursue a vision, in this case a vision of economic recovery

.

We should expect a lot from Obama's Resilience and Inner Hidden Strength. Don't forget that he is a Law Professor and outstanding scholar in Constitutional Matters. He can even do things with the super conservative U. S. Supreme Court that practices Conservative Judicial Activism and Legislates from the Bench.

....

There are more people drunk with Religion and Fanaticism than Osama Bin Laden and the beturbaned agents of Satan. Just look at the Tea Party. As someone observed Abraham Lincoln didn't have a Congress of Recalcitrant Confederates in Washington obstructing all his ideas, projects and actions. But Obama has a bunch of stubborn bigots in Congress.

These Tea Party fanatics spend more time in Hysteric Religion Rites and Cults than studying Economy, understanding Keynes and what is necessary in the middle of a Recession or Depression when everybody and his aunt is afraid of investing to produce new jobs.

They are parrots repeating what a stupid pastor or articulate crazy politician like Michele Bachmann brainwashes in their poor empty heads. They are so stupid that they have to be constantly listening to demagogues like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, so that they are confirmed in their prejudices, ignorance and resentment against life, because they carry a big load of frustration and failure.

A super energized Barack Obama giving Hell to Republicans in 2010 and the first 8 months of 2011 could have rocked the boat and could have caused bigger troubles for the nation. But I don't discard that the aggressive Obama in the 14 months before the November 2012 election may be useful, so that people understand the gravity of the Jobs Paralysis, and lack of Economic Dynamism to generate jobs. That Harry Truman is given as an example to follow makes a lot of sense to me.

I don't believe that the electorate is a mathematical "Black Box" that only answers to a number : the unemployment rate, or the the percentage of underemployed people. Voters are not a machine but have intelligence and many interests, aspirations, ideals, hopes, beliefs and also negative things as fear, hate, religious fanaticism, etc....

The position of negative critic is extremely easy : That Obama is a Sissy before the Republican Bullies. - That Obama is a weakling before Osama Bin Laden and the Terrorists of Al-Qaeda or the beturbaned agents of Satan.

For people reared as simpletons in Jingoism and False Patriotism, it is very easy to believe that Foreign Policy is being the Super Cowboy and the Macho Macho and give orders to everybody at the International Level. In practice things are not so easy, and for example Pakistanis just tolerate the Americans in order to avoid more conflicts and the breaking of peace with Foreign Armies inside their territory. The Pakistanis are masters of restraint and being quiet and I admire them for that.

People are extremely naive and believe in polls made in Battlegrounds where everybody answers with fear or with false expectations, and where you are betting your head with every decision. And the sample is always super biased in favor of the Pollsters or the nation that these Pollsters represent or that pays for the Poll.

Before Tim Pawlenty was eliminated from the Republican Primaries he gave a super stupid speech saying that his Foreign Policy was going to be threats for everybody, and that Obama was a wimp, that is a feeble ineffective person that feared the enemies of America. It was manifest that Tim Pawlenty was a total ignorant and fool, not only of Foreign Policy and its intricacies, but also of Human Nature.

Prestigious Think Tanks should be ashamed of inviting and paying such fools and cretins to formulate American Foreign Policy.

Please do an homologous mathematical transportation or a geometric homology between Foreign Policy and Domestic Policy and see that things are not so easy for President Obama and that he does not have a magic wand to impose the necessary taxes for the Super Rich and Wealthy and that he can not dictate the necessary spending to create jobs by fiat, by ukase like a Russian Tsar, by Imperial Decree like Julius Caesar or Emperor Augustus.

Vicente Duque

........

The New Yorker : Give ’em Hell, Barry? : by Hendrik Hertzberg - Abraham Lincoln is the admired model of Obama, but he did not have a Congress of Recalcitrant Confederate Cretins in Washington !

.
The New Yorker
Give ’em Hell, Barry?
by Hendrik Hertzberg
September 8, 2011


Give ’em Hell, Barry?


Some excerpts :

The President spoke in strong, simple words, free of jargon—from the name of the bill (the American Jobs Act) to the blunt calls for action (“You should pass this jobs plan right away,” repeated many times in one form or another). It was, I thought, a startlingly skillful political and rhetorical exercise, delivered with stern energy. Obama’s penchant for “bipartisanship” had a different tone and feel this time. It was a challenge and a demand, not a plea. He looked like and sounded like—maybe even is in the process of once again becoming—a formidable leader. If he keeps this up, a lot of the discouragement and depression that currently afflicts almost every Democrat I know will surely lift.

The plan itself is modest compared to the need, but it’s big enough and well enough targeted that its enactment would make a real difference in relieving some of the suffering of mass unemployment. It would help the country, but at the price of brightening the President’s prospects for reëlection as well. It’s not hard to guess where most Republican politicians will come down in that particular cost-benefit analysis. Helping the country is unlikely to be enough of an incentive for Republicans to pass a bill, any bill, that Obama supports, even a bill, like this one, that is assembled mostly from refurbished spare parts collected from their own ideological warehouse. No doubt many of them sincerely believe that the end (upping the chances of defeating Obama and his nefarious agenda of turning America into a socialist hellhole like Western Europe) justifies the means (deepening the extent of mass unemployment, human suffering, and ancillary damage to the economy and to society).

Obama made a forthright argument that primitive individualism has to be paired with what he called “another thread running throughout our history—a belief that we are all connected and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation.”

.........

The New Republic : Every action of the administration from here into 2012 needs to reinforce the point that we have it in our means to rescue the economy and to restore the promise of a middle-class country

.

Obama may be finding a way out of the Economic quagmire and nightmare, in great part created by his Republican Enemies. The last Republicans are not fit for Governance, only for Obstruction.

The New Republic -
The Fighting Bipartisan: Has Obama Found a Solution for Republican Obstructionism? -
September 9, 2011

By Mark Schmitt
Mark Schmitt is a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and former editor of The American Prospect.


The Fighting Bipartisan: Has Obama Found a Solution for Republican Obstructionism?


Some excerpts :

Last night Obama found a way out, sort of. It’s not a fiery partisan confrontation; it’s a kind of fighting bipartisanship. He’s now putting forth a substantive agenda that is very likely to boost the economy, create jobs, and improve the basic fairness of the tax system in order to spread the benefits of economic growth more broadly. But he aggressively linked almost all of those things to ideas that Republicans had already supported, or that wealthy people such as Warren Buffet had embraced. He took ownership of some ideas that had traditionally been conservative, and embraced ideas that had had some Republican support.

None of that means that the American Jobs Bill that he insisted Congress pass will pass. Of course it won’t. And maybe it’s all too late; maybe at this point, only results matter. I noticed an odd idiosyncrasy today in the July Pew poll on Obama: Despite his 44% approval rating, his rating on the question, “Cares about people like me,” which many politicos consider the only question that really matters, is at 60%, higher than George W. Bush at his best. But the combination of the two suggests that people no longer care that he cares. They’re fed up with gestures, empathy, or good ideas that get blocked in the political process—all they want is results.

Obama’s new approach, though, sets up, in theory, a different hypothetical win-win than the one we’ve been operating under for almost three years. One possibility is that Republicans have some qualms about a wholly obstructionist agenda, Congress passes some or most of the American Jobs Act, the economy improves (likely with some help from the Federal Reserve, international circumstances, and good fortune), and actual conditions get Obama out of the box he’s in. Failing that, if the White House and Democrats can keep their focus on the American Jobs Act (and if the left can avoid getting distracted by Obama’s wise concessions to reality, such as long-term reductions in Medicare spending), then Republican obstruction takes a new form. It’s not just blocking Obama, or his agenda—it’s blocking economic recovery, systematically, including ideas that Republicans have embraced in the past and will embrace again.

Pulling that off, however, requires a discipline that goes beyond one speech. It means that every action of the administration from here into 2012 needs to reinforce the point that we have it in our means to rescue the economy and to restore the promise of a middle-class country. This speech alone won’t do the work. But if it’s a roadmap to the next period of the Obama presidency, it might represent a dramatic change, not just in the president’s electoral prospects, but in the range of policy solutions that are available now and in the future.

...........

I see the Law and Constitutional Interpretation as something that constantly evolves. - Constitutional "Originalists" say that the Constitution is what the Founding Fathers understood and intended. What is lawful "standing" in USA and elsewhere ??

.

The most dangerous originalist is U. S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas ( born 1948 ) this is President's Obama greatest headache in the Supreme Court, a super conservative similar to Rick Perry with his hate for Social Security and all advancements of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.

It is very ironic that the Greatest Obstacle for President Obama in the Supreme Court is another "Black" guy. Although Obama is considered a "Black Guy" only because of human foolishness, intolerance, prejudice, bigotry and racism.

This post is valid for all nations and constitutions, and for unwritten constitutions like in England, where there is only a vague "Carta Magna"...

For example different courts of appeals have different interpretations of the Constitution and the Law. And they contradict each other. The U. S. Supreme Court has contradicted itself hundreds of times with the passage of centuries.

An example :


A Federal Court : the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond Virginia dismissed two lawsuits Thursday that had challenged the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul


So Obama Health Care Law was upheld, this Federal Court Dismissed the Challenge To Affordable Care Act.


The three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in both lawsuits – one filed by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, the other by Liberty University – that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue. The court did not delve into the constitutional issues.


Another appeals court in Atlanta struck down the insurance mandate. And a federal appeals court in Cincinnati also upheld the law like the court in Virginia.

But what is "standing" ??

With help from Wikipedia :

Standing ( Law ) in Wikipedia




Some excerpts :

In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law.

International Courts

The Council of Europe created the first international court before which individuals have automatic locus standi.

United States

In United States law, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated, "In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues".

There are a number of requirements that a plaintiff must establish to have standing before a federal court. Some are based on the case or controversy requirement of the judicial power of Article Three of the United States Constitution, § 2, cl.1. As stated there, "The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . .[and] to Controversies . . ." The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on the role of the judiciary and the law of Article III standing is built on the idea of separation of powers.[12] Federal courts may exercise power only "in the last resort, and as a necessity".

The American doctrine of standing is assumed as having begun with the case of Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923). But, legal standing truly rests its first prudential origins in Fairchild v. Hughes, (1922) which was authored by Justice Brandeis. In Fairchild, a citizen sued the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to challenge the procedures by which the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified. Prior to it the doctrine was that all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right.[14] Since then the doctrine has been embedded in judicial rules and some statutes.

The doctrine on standing has recently been modified by the unanimous opinion in Bond v. United States in which it was held an individual has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute under the Tenth Amendment.

There are three standing requirements:

Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.

Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.[16]

Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.

..........

2012 will hinge on jobs-focused swing voters who are in no mood to revisit the still-popular New Deal-era program during a time of economic uncertainty. Many thinking Republicans and Conservatives believe that Social Security and Medicare reform should be handled with great care

.

Rick Perry may be suicide for the Republican Party, Mitt Romney may have better possibilities to attract the center and independents ( but only in case that the Economy is in poor shape and that unemployment is not diminshed in 2012 ).

Those prudent conservatives and republicans will vote for Mitt Romney, the extremists and crazies will vote for Rick Perry in the Primaries. And prudent and cautious Analysts and Strategists of both parties may acknowledge that competing against Barack Obama with Extremism and Emotion is a suicide for the Republican Party.

POLITICO.COM
At Reagan debate, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry place big bets on GOP direction
By JONATHAN MARTIN & BEN SMITH
September 8, 2011

At Reagan debate, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry place big bets on GOP direction


Some excerpts :

Perry’s bet is on a conservative, confrontational and mad-as-hell Republican Party. Romney’s is that GOP activists want, above all, to win and will come to recognize that nominating the Texas governor would be an act of political suicide.

The divide between the two men reflects an ongoing debate that’s splitting the Republican Party both on the campaign trail and beyond it. Some of its leaders, looking back at the 2010 midterm elections, believe that the party – and the nation – are ready to gorge on red meat as never before. The American people, goes this line of thinking, recognize that entitlements must be addressed and that old-style demagoguery over the issue has become less effective.

Others believe deeply that the laws of political gravity still apply - that Social Security and Medicare reform must be handled with great care, if at all, and that 2012 will hinge on jobs-focused swing voters who are in no mood to revisit the still-popular New Deal-era program during a time of economic uncertainty. The divide is both strategic and ideological, and as Romney and Perry emerge clearly as the party’s two presidential poles on the issue, it will take on an even higher profile than it did during the punishing debate over Paul Ryan’s budget proposal.

.................

What’s crazy, say gleefully incredulous Romney aides, is nominating a GOP candidate who thinks that “by any measure Social Security is a failure.”

“The Republican Party has to defend the position of the nominee,” said top Romney adviser Stuart Stevens. “Every House candidate that runs, every Senate candidate that runs, would have to run on the Perry plan to kill Social Security.”

..........

Romney and some establishment Republicans believe such talk offers the makings of a Goldwater-style landslide loss in a general election and will even stop Perry from capturing the Florida Republican primary.

“Our nominee has to be somebody who isn’t committed to abolishing Social Security,” Romney said in the debate.

Alex Castellanos, who is now unaligned but worked against Perry in 2006, said electability-minded Republicans would come away scared following Wednesday’s performance.

“Rick Perry did not alienate the GOP base of primary voters tonight, but he didn’t show them an electable Republican who can win the middle, independents and soccer moms, and that is essential if a Republican is going to defeat Barack Obama,” said Castellanos. “If he begins to lose steam in head-to-head [polling] matchups with Obama, he becomes Bachmann, just another conservative who can’t beat Obama.”

.

Ed Koch ( New York City ex-mayor ) to the President : "Legislation should be adopted “allowing homeowners to reduce their mortgage debt to no more than the current value of their property" - "That was done in 1986 to help family farmers"

.

Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) : Conyers is the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee in the House and was not long ago its chairman. He asks for this Legislation and Ed Koch supports it.

Real Clear Politics
Mr. President, Please Read This Before Thursday
By Ed Koch
September 7, 2011


Mr. President, Please Read This Before Thursday


Some excerpts :

I propose, as many have, that the bankruptcy laws be amended immediately to empower bankruptcy judges to reduce principal as well as interest. Opponents of this proposal generally respond, “moral hazard,” meaning it would encourage future borrowers to borrow more than they could repay. If “moral hazard” were the standard, why were the banks, which made decisions that were financially devastating to this country, bailed out to the tune of billions of dollars by laws enacted by Congress and signed by you, as well as actions taken by the Federal Reserve? Remember, Mr. President, that banks were given those billions to provide liquidity to businesses, but instead used the taxpayers’ monies to buy U.S. Treasury bonds to enhance their balance sheets with the interest received.

Mr. President, you should propose a quick new foreclosure-bankruptcy proceeding that could restore full title to the homeowners and keep them in possession. Help them with the same alacrity as you did the car manufacturers. Of course, that needs the approval of Congress. You can propose, but Congress must dispose. If they won’t, the country will hold them responsible in the election of 2012.

Jobs, jobs, jobs, is the nation’s cry. I suggest, as I’m sure your advisers have, that you look to what FDR did in the depression of the 1930s. Again, you can propose, but the Congress will dispose. You should propose work programs comparable to the WPA, PWA, CCC and a host of others.

...............

Mr. President, after I wrote this commentary, I read the New York Times on Labor Day and saw the letter of Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) with whom I served when I was in the Congress from 1969 to 1977, before I was elected mayor of New York City. His letter serendipitously deals with the issue of mortgage foreclosures. He believes legislation should be adopted “allowing homeowners to reduce their mortgage debt to no more than the current value of their property.” He points out that that was done in 1986 to help family farmers. Conyers is the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee in the House and was not long ago its chairman, so I defer to him. In any event, please examine his proposal.

...